Quotes of the Day

Times are tough, but imagine how much worse they would be if the United States were dependent on foreign oil or Americans were still using illegal drugs.

Fortunately, our leaders solved those problems long ago, by boldly appointing czars to clean them up. So naturally, now faced with the near death of the U.S. auto industry, the government's impulse was to crown a car czar. (See the 50 worst cars of all time.)

But with time running out, the Obama Administration has decided to take the old-fashioned approach. Instead of creating a post with a big title and vague powers to deal with the problem, the elected President and his ample bureaucracy will decide what's next for the cash-strapped industry. (See pictures of the remains of Detroit.)

When Congress extended emergency loans to General Motors and Chrysler in December, lawmakers required the companies to deliver detailed plans for getting their houses in order. Management, labor and bondholders would all have to give ground — and the car czar was supposed to be the enforcer.

But a czar was never crowned. With those plans due Tuesday — and talks with union leaders and debtors apparently bogged down — President Barack Obama has reportedly decided to send an emissary to knock heads at the bargaining table, while saving the final decisions for himself and his existing economics team.

The key decision: more loans or a government-backed bankruptcy process? Surely a question of such magnitude should end up in the Oval Office — which begs the question of why a czar was contemplated in the first place. There are two reasons, one good and one bad.

Washington czarism reflects the fact that some of our thorniest problems sprawl over turf belonging to more than one agency. Bruce Reed experienced this firsthand as director of domestic policy under President Clinton — the czar czar, if you will. He concluded that whether you say "czar" or "point person," it's important that someone have a mandate that cuts across competing domains. "The Cabinet may carry out policy," Reed says, "but the White House makes policy. Every White House has to find the right balance to make clear who has responsibility for what and how to resolve differences when turfs collide."

That's the idea behind the Administration's climate czar, Carol Browner; its yet-to-be-named health-care czar (formerly Tom Daschle, before he crashed and burned); the contemplated urban-affairs czar; rumored soon-to-be-named drug czar Gil Kerlikowske; and other wonder-working bureaucratic potentates.

But creeping czarism is also a way of exploiting the undemocratic yearning for strongmen, playing on the idea that compromise is fine when the stakes are small, but when the chips are down, only a tyrant will do. Generations of Russian dissidents braved prison, execution and revolution to rid their nation of czars. And the Founding Fathers so feared czarlike power that they fashioned a government intricately checked and balanced. Hard to imagine Madison and Mason agreeing to put the really difficult problems in the hands of unelected superstaffers.

See pictures of Obama behind the scenes on Inauguration Day.

See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.

For years, Presidents have used this image of omnipotence to mask a reality of inaction. The pattern got its start in the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon appointed the nation's first energy czar, a Coloradan named John Love. The arrival of the handsome Westerner was announced with appropriate czarist fanfare, and Love went right to work on a plan to reduce the amount of energy that Americans consumed. But he quickly realized that Nixon didn't really want Americans to consume less energy; he wanted people to think that he cared about the issue, even if he didn't. Love soon quit in frustration.

Love's experience became an enduring model for Washington czars: A large issue grabs the public's attention. The Administration has no solution — no popular one anyway. So the President names a czar. After a day or two of stern talk about crashing through bureaucratic walls and knocking pointy heads together, the czar gradually settles into lonely isolation in the Executive Office building, venturing out to give speeches at interest-group luncheons and perhaps shake hands with the President at a White House Christmas party. (See who's who in Obama's White House.)

Some czars have been famous, like drug czars Bill Bennett and Barry McCaffrey. Others have been obscure, like George W. Bush's "Katrina czar," Donald Powell. Either way, in Washington, the appointment of a czar is often a sign that the government plans to do very little.

Nixon enjoyed the word czar to describe his point people, but over time, Presidents became wary of it. There was no going back, however. Commentators and headline writers loved the term packed so much punch for such a little word.

Czar or no czar, Obama has a genuine crisis boiling up in Detroit. Without major changes in the structure of the industry, the auto business is going to sink under mountainous waves of red ink. GM and Chrysler were in trouble even before the recession tore the bottom out of sales — and Ford's slightly better financial picture has been clouded by nearly $15 billion in losses last year.

Real change won't come easy. Two major players in restructuring the industry — major bondholders and the United Auto Workers (UAW) — have thus far shown little interest in renegotiating their agreements. Union locals in Michigan and New York have rejected proposals for contract concessions, and UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger has sensed the mood of his membership. He's not buying the claim that union costs are sinking the industry. Other labor leaders are watching Obama's reaction to the UAW to see whether the new President will stick up for his union friends. Meanwhile, business continues to tumble. Forecasters predict 2009 sales of 10 million to 11 million units, down by about a third from recent years, when the economy was robust. And until people stop losing their jobs, sales are unlikely to rebound.

A thorny patch of troubles indeed. And one that properly belongs on the President's desk, with help from his duly constituted Cabinet. It's one thing to be a czar in America; it's quite another to be the boss.

See pictures of the recession of 1958.

See pictures of Americans in their homes.

• David Von Drehle
• In opting for an advisory panel to help oversee Detroit's restructuring, the President has recognized that Washington's use of czars usually masks a reality of inaction