As we approach the one-year anniversary of Putin’s disastrous invasion of his neighbor—ready yourself for an onslaught of op-eds marking this occasion—I’m happy to report that I’ve identified a novel line of effort the West might consider taking on in support of our Ukrainian brethren (and sistren?).
No – it’s not the furnishing of some new piece of weaponry for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his courageous army. The Biden Administration, after all, has that covered. And they’ve mastered the formula: Zelensky pleads for weapon system X, we deem weapon system X too escalatory, then, two months later, we change our minds and send the HIMARS, then the Patriot missile defense system, then the M1 Abrams tank, then (stay tuned) the F-16 fighter aircraft.
No, it’s something far more subtle than handing the Ukrainians a hunk of metal that makes BOOM noises. It’s something that places the onus not on our Military-Industrial Complex to carry out, but on our chattering class, which means I’m asking quite a lot. And I know it’s a lot because, I am, in a very small way, now a member of this chattering class, and the idea that I have a role to play in the most consequential geopolitical tussle in a generation (China constitutes the multi-generational struggle; stay tuned) seems preposterous, and it feels, frankly, a little Big Government. But desperate times require desperate measures.
Which is why I’m proposing that newsrooms around the country stop referring to government officials who lead, coordinate, and implement policy on hot-button issues as “Czars.” I know, I know, it’s a tall order. It will require a lot of bravery. But let’s be honest, the media’s use of the term has grown out of control. A quick review of recent headlines ought to be enough to convince you of this:
What kind of chief of staff will Zients be? Look at his stint as Covid czar.
Biden’s Drug Czar Is Leading the Charge for a ‘Harm Reduction’ Approach
Gov. Greg Abbott hires ‘border czar’ to accelerate wall construction
John Kerry flops as roving climate czar in eyes of environmentalists
I think we’d be doing our buddy Zelensky a solid by refraining from likening boring, ill-compensated bureaucrats to the very men Vladimir Putin fetishizes, and indeed, has sought to emulate. Czar Peter the Great. Czar Ivan the Terrible. Czar Alexander III, the man Putin considers the last great ruler of Imperial Russia. These were brutish authoritarian leaders who viewed national borders as mere suggestions, considered “human rights” an abstraction of the weak-minded, and regarded anything resembling democratic governance as an existential threat. But sure, let’s refer to Mitch Landrieu, the man responsible for overseeing implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as America’s mighty “Infrastructure Czar.”
Does Mr. Landrieu own property in the Donbas?
The great irony is that the very media institutions that have been the most outspoken in their support for Ukraine’s righteous opposition to this latest incarnation of Russian imperialism are also the biggest indulgers of this newspeak. I won’t name names – they know who they are. But it would do them well to rectify this inconsistency.
As the West runs around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to identify all the ways in which it can support Ukraine short of deploying boots on the ground to fight the Russians—a move that would indeed bring about WWIII—it seems to me that this is just low hanging fruit. Don’t you think?
Also, let’s face it. “Czar,” when used to reference a milquetoast govie who’s been handpicked by the White House to spearhead an inter-agency effort, just smacks of pretension. It’s self-important language that, when employed in a news article or opinion column, signals to other talking heads that you’re part of the “in-group” – a fellow Washington Insider fluent in elite lexicon.
I’d place “mental gymnastics”—another in-vogue expression whose use in print journalism as a way of saying someone is taking pains to justify something has multiplied by orders of magnitude in recent years—in the same bucket. That’s a whole separate tirade for another time.
But since I can’t seem to help myself, I’ll give you the Cliff Notes version. The phrase is slippery, vague, too open to interpretation. Worse, the proliferation of its use has inspired the creation of prosaic offshoots that are just as yuck. “Mental acrobatics.” “Mental contortions.” What’s next? “Mental ventriloquy?” (Wait -- I should trademark that).
Put some of the modern uses of the term “Czar” under a microscope and you realize they’re equally as ridiculous. These titles just don’t hold up under scrutiny.
Border Czar? Didn’t I just go over this? This is an oxymoron, for a Czar recognizes no borders.
Drug Czar? You mean a Cartel leader? We’re shooting ourselves in the foot with this one. Are we pro or anti Fentanyl?
Disinformation Czar? Now we’re really going full George Orwell 1984 Stalinist-Big Brother. Thank all that is holy that Biden disbanded this position after just 3 weeks.
Now I understand that many of the official titles of these bureaucrats are a mouthful, which complicates journalism’s cardinal mission of publishing stories with pithy headlines and concise prose. “Drug Czar” is a better alternative to “Head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.” That’s alphabet soup if I’ve ever seen it. But in many—if not all—cases you can just substitute “Czar” for “Coordinator” or even “Point Person” and it works just fine. Thus, we can instead refer to Rahul Gupta as the nation’s “Drug Control Coordinator” or Biden’s “Point Person on Drug Control.” I’m sure his loved ones would appreciate the fact that people would no longer conflate him with El Chapo.
My larger gripe with likening U.S. officials to Slavic monarchs of a bygone era is that it plays into suspicions a great many Americans have that there is a cadre of unelected bureaucrats who are running amok behind the scenes making and shaping domestic and foreign policies with little regard for the wishes and preferences of the American people, or those of even the president. Donald Trump and his acolytes have a name for this supposed cabal of entrenched and unaccountable administrators: the “Deep State.”
My own time in government convinced me that this fear is overblown. Hierarchy is rigid and well-defined in government. Everyone has a boss. And that boss, by some degree of separation (be it one person, be it five), is accountable to the American people. The careerist at a government agency whose managed to climb their way up to a position where they have some latitude in developing policy answers to a Senate-confirmed technocrat. The Senate-confirmed technocrat—an undersecretary, for example—answers to the Senate-confirmed head of a Cabinet department. The Cabinet official answers directly to the President. And the President, of course, answers to the American people, lest he or she wants to doom their parties’ continued election prospects.
But I can hardly blame my compatriots for believing a “Deep State” exists. Call a government official a “Czar” enough times and people will think they actually are Czars — political appointees who’ve gone AWOL who’re roaming around Washington D.C. issuing orders by decree.
In fact, upon deeper reflection, their suspicions might not be entirely misplaced.
Because if you call someone a “Czar” enough times, maybe they’ll begin to actually act like a Czar. Maybe they’ll internalize the title. Then find ways to usurp the government’s system of checks and balances. Then begin to carve out a fiefdom. A fiefdom not in the Baltics or the Caucasus, but in America’s network of tax-payer-funded federal buildings. As our main squeeze Orwell warned, “If thought corrupts language, language corrupts thought.”
If there’s anyone on Biden’s roster who’s at risk of drinking the cool aid its gotta be John Kerry, America’s so-called “Climate Czar.” Kerry raised eyebrows just last month during a speech he gave at the World Economic Forum — a supranational symposium for international political and business elites who remain steadfast in their support for uninhibited globalization.
“When you stop to think about it,” he exclaimed, “It’s pretty extraordinary that we, a select group of human beings, because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet. I mean it’s so—almost—extraterrestrial.”
EXTRATERRESTRIAL? Savior complex much, John?
Not a good look, dude! You’re the nation’s climate coordinator, not God’s gift to earth. And you’re a public servant to the American people, not to the CEOs of multinational corporations who’re lobbying hard against the return of protectionism in global trade — a practice that your own boss, President Biden, no less, has embraced as a matter of policy.
“If thought corrupts language, language corrupts thought.”
My friends, language matters. It’s for this reason that we have to ditch the term “Czar.”
Think of the political elites like Kerry who are susceptible to delusions of grandeur even before they get tapped to head these high-profile inter-agency programs. Think of the millions of Americans who’ve lost trust in their government and suspect foul play at every turn. Think of the mainstream media, which is hemorrhaging viewers and readers hand over fist in part because journalists prefer to to impress other journalists with sophisticated idioms than inform regular Americans about the issues of the day. Think of the Ukrainians who are feeling the wrath of a true Czar firsthand.
We got this. All we need to do is open up a thesaurus—and choose another word.