The destruction of language proceeds apace with the planned creation of yet another "czar" in the Obama Administration, this time a "manufacturing czar".
The idea is preposterous. What is meant is that someone will appear on the White House staff roster who effectively has the power to over-ride the mere cabinet secretaries responsible for Commerce and Labor, and maybe Trade, Treasury, Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget. As Oklahoma Senator Tim Coburn, among others, has noted, there is questionable constitutionality in a person who exercises such authority without the consent of the Senate. Why require Cabinet secretaries to be confirmed if mere White House staffers--elevated to Czardom--can control them?
But I suspect that all the many Obama "czars" are just gentrified presidential assistants, people who in practice seldom will over-ride anyone. Calling them a "czar" is just a public relations sop to some constituency and a paper mache crown for the deluded staffer.
Meanwhile, am I alone in not liking the idea of "czars" in America or in thinking it odd that a liberal president would want to boast of such a person? Czars were Russian, not American. They wielded absolute and arbitrary power. They made King George III, again whom we rebelled, look like Dr. Phil conducting a TV town hall. Real czars most often were tyrants and were regarded as such.
They also ruled alone. There was no stable of "czars", a "czar" for this and a "czar" for that. Who is President Obama kidding? And why is the media contributing to this misunderstanding?
The 35 or so Obama "czars" either are glorified presidential assistants (as I suspect) and should be called such, or they are tinpot despots, in which case someone--in the name of the American Founders--should sue!
