September 22, 2009 3:58PM # You Don’t Have to Be a Czar, Baby, to Be in My Show By [Gene Healy](https://www.cato.org/people/gene-healy) --- SHARE Raging against “czars” seems all but obligatory these days for movement conservatives. The proliferation of Obama administration czars means [“a giant expansion of presidential power,”](http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/10/rove-czars/) warns Karl Rove, former domestic policy czar for the Bush administration–which I suppose proves once again that the capacity for embarassment is a career liability in this town. Conservatives *ought* to be concerned about the growth of executive power. But as I argue in my [Washington Examiner column ](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/60040757.html)this week, “czars” are pretty far down any serious list of executive-power concerns: > conservatives’ current bout of czar mania elevates symbolism over substance. All the focus on a scary moniker for certain executive officials misses the real problem: Unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch. Whether those illegitimate powers are exercised by unconfirmed presidential advisers or the president himself is quite beside the point.… > > > Often, czars are mere figureheads, appointed to signal concern over the latest hot-button issue. As one presidential scholar puts it, “when in doubt, create a czar.” > > > True, it’s problematic that some of these appointees aren’t vetted by the Senate, and that presidents claim czars don’t have to answer to Congress — as when the Bush administration asserted in 2002 that executive privilege shielded then-homeland security czar Tom Ridge from testifying on the Hill. > > > But as the Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel [has pointed out](http://washingtonindependent.com/57977/when-is-a-czar-not-a-czar), many of the “czars” who appear on the conservative target list already have to be confirmed by the Senate. Others don’t, but when Obama is hell-bent on taking over the health care sector — one-sixth of the U.S. economy — it’s bizarre to agonize over the allegedly unchecked power exercised by the likes of the AIDS and urban affairs czars. > > > Similarly, while it’s great to see a nutter like Van Jones denied a federal salary, few of those cheering Jones’ defenestration can coherently explain what the green jobs czar actually does, or the threat he was supposed to represent. > > > What, was Jones going to give 9/11 “Truthers” and black nationalists jobs weatherizing homes? Will we stop wasting money on such projects now that he’s gone? More [here](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/60040757.html). ##### Related Tags [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).