Do We Really Need a Car Czar?
I’ve always felt funny about the use “czar” in US politics. The word is rooted in ancient Rome when the emperors took Julius’ name to signify their stature. The name was reused in the form of tsar (czar) in Russia to denote their emperors. So needless to say a name used to signify imperial rule in the US is not something I would find to be fitting. In the past, terms like “drug czar” were less offensive seeing a harsh connotation in the context of drug enforcement seemed to work.
With the prospect of an auto industry bailout, Washington is once again using the term in the form of a “car czar”. While the rhyme is cute, the use of the term is not. Do we really need a “czar” over any kind of industry in a free market? I understand the position is “to force the companies into bankruptcy if they weren’t doing enough to cut labor costs, restructure their debt and downsize to stay afloat”, but isn’t this what a free economy does anyways? It sounds like what we need is a simple loan officer. When the big three default on their loan, we foreclose. How hard is that?
It seems to me this is a move to exert more government control on US industries. As if laws like the CAFE were not enough, we now need a person/administration to oversee the auto industry. What’s next? Healthcare seems next on the horizon. The agriculture industry has had government involvement for a long time. How about a “media czar”? I somehow doubt we will ever see that one.
On the other hand, the use of the term “czar” with it’s ties to Russia is somehow fitting of a position designed to be government control over industry. While the term preceded the communist era, it still has un-American connotations that are well suited to a clearly un-American activity.
Very good point. The use of the term is rather unsettling considering our current economic crisis and proposed bigger government by Obama and the democrats in power in Congress.