|
FWIW, political scientists have been discussing the 'fourth branch' of the federal government (the bureaucracy) for decades. Even those subject to the piercing gaze of congressional committees can wield great power through their use of administrative discretion.
Political opponents of the current president face at least two dilemmas when criticizing his growing reliance on "czars". First, without offering viable alternatives, the criticism will ring partisan to too many ears.
Second, without confronting the fact that Republican presidents have also set up mechanisms to bypass existing departments, critics may find themselves countered by brutal counter arguments from our recent past. Most notably, Vice President Cheney's intervention in the analysis of evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's numerous interventions in the promotions of general officers as well as the planning of COBRA II.
While one could argue that there's a distinction between vice president or a secretary of defense operating within a unique interpretation of his authority and a czar, will a broader audience agree that there's actually a difference?
MOO, to avoid these two pitfalls, I think criticism of the president's reliance on czars should focus on effectiveness and cost. This is to say, the question "Does this work?" will get more political traction than the question "Is this appropriate?"
|