The title "czar" in American politics has become tired. It's the Russian word for king; the last time we looked, the "czars" in our government are neither Russian nor royalty.

Czars were once good things, when first used to describe the nation's "Drug Czar" under the Reagan administration. Then, the title was quite apt, as the American public demanded a non-bureaucratic, decisive authority to combat the scourge of illegal drugs. We wanted a tyrannical czar, not some egghead political appointee. A czar is what we got.

Now, there are dozens of czars, the proliferation of which has certain senators — including Sen. Susan Collins — concerned. She has co-signed a letter to the president, saying his burgeoning roster of czars could dangerously centralize governing authority beyond Congressional oversight.

These neo-czars, then, have become the exact opposite of what the American public had approved of them to be: egghead political appointees, ensconced in West Wing offices, dictating a broad range of public policies outside the purview of watchdogs.

This isn't to say these so-called czars have no place in government, or as some maintain, are prime evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy. (A historical irony: in Russia, the Socialists toppled the czars. Today, many of those trying to topple czars are reportedly doing so to stop socialism.)

Rather, these positions are evidence the czarist era in America should end, both in function and nomenclature. The authority of a czar is anathema to our form of governance, which prides itself on having extensive checks and balances to avoid even the appearance of consolidated power.

We should also trash the word "czar" for good. Not only is it  inaccurate, it is an anachronism, as relevant to modern American governing as using kaiser, emperor or doge. Call these positions what they actually are — advisers — and forget the antiquated cultural references.

And, perhaps most importantly, "czars" are unproven to provide superior performance. The war on drugs is the best example — the many successes and failures of American drug policy have little, or nothing, to do with how its command was structured.

In fact, that the new White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, wants to cease using the counterproductive "war on drugs" analogy is even more reason to put czars into the wastebasket of history.

Czars are not the problem, currently. It is a lack of transparency in government. Sen. Collins is right with her concerns about the growing ranks of White House staff appointed without the vetting or review of Congress, a critical balance of executive power.

President Barack Obama would be wise to re-think this administrative framework, and replace it with a system more accountable to Congress and the public. The last czar of Russia was in 1918.

The last czars of America should be in 2009.

editorialboard@sunjournal.com