The Use of the Word "Czar."

We learned this week that President Bush no longer wants to be President, and instead wants someone to come in and clean up his mess.  

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

No takers, eh?   As others have said, never has there been more proof that the Iraq War is a failed and lost war.  No General will lend his or her name or credibility to it, and one of the reason why that is is because there is no way to win this war.  The Generals know it.  The American People know it.  The World knows it.  Now maybe, with this embarrassing revelation after 5 long years, maybe, President Bush will know it too.

But there is something else I have been wondering about: when did the use of the word 'Czar' become an acceptable job title in our democratic republic?  

What is a Czar, or as it is spelled elsewhere, Tsar?

Tsar ...., occasionally spelled Czar or Tzar and sometimes Csar or Zar in English, is a Slavonic term designating certain monarchs.

Originally, and indeed during most of its history, the title tsar meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, i.e., a ruler who has the same rank as a Roman or Byzantine emperor due to recognition by another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria, the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and by the 19th century it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of king. The modern languages of these countries use it as a general term for a monarch.

"Tsar" was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

• Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185-1422 and in 1908–1946
• Serbia in 1346–1371
• Russia from about 1480 (or 1547) until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia)

In recent history, and by recent I am talking about the last two hundred years, the czars of Russia were bloody autocrats, unhindered by any checks, balances, or accountability.  So, to me, whenever there is a call for a 'czar' to be appointed to handle an issue, it means two things: 1) the President and Congress are too chickenshit or incompetent to deal with the issue themselves, and so they are abdicating their responsibility to someone they can blame later if the 'Czar's' actions prove wrong; and 2) the fundemental nature of our Constitution and the democratic principles on which it stands are disrespected by the very leaders sworn to protect it.

How can you long for a Czar to save you and believe in a democracy at the same time?  

Sure, sure, there are those who will say that a Czar is just a term to describe the position, but then in the next breath, they will describe the position of the Czar as "cutting through the red tape and bureacracy so we can solve this problem."  I agree that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy, but red tape and bureaucracy represent procedures put in place by representatives to ensure check and balances and compliance with the goals of the people.   For example, all the red tape involved in companies bidding on government contracts is necessary to prevent corruption and fraud.

So when you say "cutting through the red tape," you reveal your fundamental disrespect for the democratic principles on which this country was founded.  

Who knows?  Perhaps this is an overreaction to a word used in a bipartisan fashion.  Yes, to be sure, President Clinton also used the term when appointing someone to save his ass.   What do you think?