Good question. The old czars were rulers of far-flung empires who, more often than not, were not very effective.

Among modern U.S. presidents, Richard Nixon famously tried to reorganize his entire cabinet into a small set of "super-agencies" headed by czar-like uber-secretaries, Wolf says, “But the reorganization was widely seen as a Nixonian power-grab and was rejected by Congress.”

Czars can have as much power as a president chooses to give them – and you will never find a czar crossing swords publicly with a White House without being very publicly deposed.

An irony exists here: Czars have no command authority. They are basically an Obama public-relations move to create positions of responsibility over seemingly intractable policy problems – and a sense that progress is being made because someone is in charge.

In other words, Obama’s “czaring” of America shows he is serious about appearing to be serious about solving many of our problems.

“Most czars only have the authority to publicize problems and possible solutions and urge administrative agencies to take certain actions,” says Wolf. Yet appointing policy czars also can be a substitute for concrete action, he cautions.

Perhaps if an Obama policy czar actually takes one of the nation’s problems by the horns – as former U.S. surgeon general C. Everett Koop did in the Reagan administration – then some good may come from appointing czars.

Acting as a health-policy czar for Reagan, Dr. Koop focused public attention on such health issues as smoking and AIDS, even though he had little real authority.

“If a czar can do that – identify a few crucial threats within his or her area of responsibility and publicize those relentlessly – then (he) can make a difference,” says Wolf.