Contact
Subscribe


A Czar On Both Your Houses

Sep 16, 2009
By .
Politics & Current Events

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, whose mom is a lovely woman but who seems a bit out of his depth as most Press Secretaries do, raises a valuable point about Republican hypocrisy, and an even more valuable point about Democratic hypocrisy:

Per the Hill:

Gibbs said GOP “silence was deafening” on the issue of czars during former President George W. Bush's administration.

Republicans didn’t raise the issue, he said, when Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) pushed a Y2K czar or when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) called for a manufacturing czar.

“You've read Sen. Bennett was pushing for a Y2K czar that he didn't think was powerful enough,” Gibbs said. “You've seen Lamar Alexander call for a manufacturing czar."

He also brought up the name of Randall Tobias, a Bush administration deputy secretary of State and “abstinence czar” who resigned after it was discovered his name was on a prostitution-services call list.

“You know, somebody referred to in the Bush administration as the abstinence czar was on the D.C. Madam's list,” Gibbs said. “Now, did that violate the Constitution, or simply offend our sensibilities?”

With respect Mr. Gibbs, the answer to that last question is, "Yes to both."

That the government would appoint a "Czar" to oversee sexual abstinence is a gross and blatant violation of the Constitution, one that was sold as promoting a federal government of limited powers, and it offends my sensibilities.  Not that the Czar hangs out with hookers, but that he exists at all.

The typical justification behind "Czardom" or any other federal jefe, program, or policy that doesn't, to any liberal but honest reading, appear among the powers granted to the federal government by  the Constitution, is that the government has the authority to promote, demote, or regulate this, that, and the other thing based on the "commerce clause," which gives the federal government authority to regulate the sexual intercourse of wheat plants, and the "necessary and proper clause," which allows the government to do anything that could, in some sophist's mind, conceivably advance the government's legitimate aims at controlling the sexual intercourse of wheat plants, or human beings for that matter.  Because human reproduction affects interstate commerce, unless of course one wishes to prohibit the abortion of such reproductions, in which case the right to privacy, a penumbra and emanation of the fourth and fifth and fourteenth amendments, comes into play.

But I don't recall a single damned Democrat complaining that an abstinence Czar was unconstitutional Mr. Gibbs, only that the anointed abstinence Czar was a hypocrite, so on that front your accusations of Republican hypocrisy rebound.  Nor do I recall any Democrat, though the Republicans are lamely doing so when they're not running the show, complaining about an auto manufacturing Czar, an auto labor Czar, a California water supply Czar, a climate Czar, or a domestic violence Czar, all of which we have now.

With the exception of Robert Byrd, I can't remember the last time a prominent Democratic politician made a serious, educated argument that any law or program of any sort was unconstitutional, unless it had something to do with keeping expectant mothers from having their fetuses' brains sucked out by vacuum pump because they were too lazy or ignorant to get an abortion in the second trimester.

But back to Czars, is the water supply in California so low that we need a federal official in charge of it?  Hasn't southern California always been a desert?  Don't we really need a Czar in charge of sending all those smug, glorified ex-Okies back to where they came from?  Or better still, back to Europe?

What Democratic and Republican politicians need is a real Czar.  A Tsar, if you will, one who understands the knout, and how to deal with Pugachev and his like. Rather than a Czar in charge of creating hundreds of thousands of new criminals overnight, perhaps we could have a real Tsar, one who punishes only those guilty of the hubris of believing they're wise enough to control everyone else, while showing mercy and love to the people of Russia.

I know just the Tsar to do it.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

10 Comments
Tags

10 Comments

  1. Old Geezer  •  Sep 16, 2009 @3:33 pm

    I don't think the issue here is Czars or Tsars. (And why does spellcheck like Czars but reject Tsars?) The issue is: Why didn't we hear the strident yelling about Reagon's Czars, or Bush I's Czars or Bush II's Czars? If the yelping was consistent then I could give it more consideration. It is simply a semantic tool in any event. Appoint a guy to focus on a problem and it goes straight to the bottom of the bureaucracy. Make him a Czar and he rises to the top (until the Bolsheviks arrive).

  2. Patrick  •  Sep 16, 2009 @3:51 pm

    Tsar is by far the better pronunciation, though as pronounced by English speakers who don't speak a slavic language, there's a lack of trill to the ultimate R that dissatisfies.

    And I do think the issue is Czars and Tsars, without respect to party. Apart from perhaps Charles (Ezra hates both parties because they're not Left enough), we're not friends of Democrats or Republicans. Clinton had his Czars, as did Carter, as did Johnson, as did Truman.

    We're against all Czars, unless someone really needs the knout, in which case we favor a Tsar. Any of them except for Nicholas II.

  3. Ken  •  Sep 16, 2009 @4:10 pm

    The apologia tends to be that many of these czars are simply advising the President, and talking to people, and don't actually have any powers. This may be true, at least for some of the positions. If the position has no power conferred by law or by administrative fiat, I don't have too much trouble with it — a "czar" is simply an insipid name for "advisor" in such cases.

    Of course, even in those cases, the existence of the czar is problematic under your analysis, Patrick, because it both (1) reflects federal snooping and poking and grandstanding in areas in which the feds have no business, and (2) tends to obscure the nature and extent of actual legal involvement in those fields.

  4. Czar of Muscovy  •  Sep 16, 2009 @4:41 pm

    Я цьсарь! The Czar of Muscovy accepts, but good luck getting this into the little box next to our name: Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй.

    Best regards!

  5. mwright  •  Sep 16, 2009 @5:40 pm

    A Popehat-Gormogon crossover episode!

  6. Czar of Muscovy  •  Sep 16, 2009 @6:49 pm

    Done and done.

  7. Stinking Crock  •  Sep 16, 2009 @8:27 pm

    What would a google search reveal ? Hmmm, that's an interesting timeline…
    http://www.google.com/search?q=czar%20republican%20OR%20democrat%20bush%20OR%20obama%20or%20clinton&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Oz7&sa=G&num=100&output=search&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1

  8. Patrick  •  Sep 17, 2009 @5:34 am

    What a GREAT search string S.C.!

    I admire your skill with search engines.

  9. Abdul  •  Sep 17, 2009 @9:29 am

    I don think Tobias was an abstinence czar. He merely advocated abstinence in his role as Director of Foreign Assistance, linking the provision of aid with the Bush program of "ABC: Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and consistent use of Condoms"

  10. Marie  •  Sep 18, 2009 @10:45 am

    "White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs …. raises …. an even more valuable point about Democratic hypocrisy:"

    "But I don’t recall a single damned Democrat complaining that an abstinence Czar was unconstitutional Mr. Gibbs, only that the anointed abstinence Czar was a hypocrite, so on that front your accusations of Republican hypocrisy rebound. "

    I am confused by these statements, perhaps because I am not familiar with the definition of "hyprocrisy" that Patrick is using. I usually see "hypocrisy" used in the context of indicating that someone's actions are in opposition to their professed position, and vice versa. For example, the Republican's current opposition to Obama's appointment of czars seems to conflict with their previous acceptance of Bush's czars.

    But Patrick's argument seems to be that since the Democrats never complained about the unconstitutionality of Bush's czars, it is hypocritical for them now to accept Obama's czars. I understand that Patrick thinks all czars are unconstitutional, and that he's peeved that the Democrats haven't ever made that claim. But I don't see how being consistent on this topic makes them hypocritical.

    Someone want to help me out?