Chapter 7: The TVA "Idea"

CHAPTER 7 The TVA "Idea## In previous chapters a summary of certain TVA statistical facts and figures has been given. But no advocate of TVA will accept the figures alone. Invariably he will say: "TVA is more than a mathematical operating statement — it is an 'idea/ And this 'idea' must be grasped before you can fully appreciate TVA." That is fair enough. But what is this "idea" and where can it be found? Many persons, when asked that question, recommend Mr. David Lilienthal's book, TVA: Democracy On The March.40 Mr. Lilienthal has been closely associated with TVA since it came into existence. He was chairman of the TVA Board from 1941 to 1947. Probably that explains why so many people praise his book as the most authoritative story ever written about TVA and the "idea." It would be almost impossible to examine this "idea" — the philosophy behind TVA — without quoting the man who has written the leading defense of it. jBut let it be clearly understood that this review is a discussion of ideas, and not of persons.

To begin with, we should note that Mr. Lilienthal claims not to advocate a strong central government which might endanger the people's liberty. Quite the contrary. On page 149 of his book he writes: "The shortcomings of highly centralized administration of national policies are not due simply to the stupidity or wrongheadedness of particular individuals. Naming a scapegoat when44 THE TVA"IDEA" ever a mess is uncovered — a favorite editorial and lay custom — is of little help; it usually misses the mark. We need perspective about such things, lest we foolishly take out our anger and frustration for ineptitudes upon this man and that, this party or that, instead of turning our attention where it usually belongs, viz., upon the limitations and dangers of centralization/' On page 151 he continues: "Centralization is a threat to the human spirit everywhere, and its control is a concern of all men who love freedom."

Mr. Lilienthal also takes a strong stand against "politics/' On page 184, he says: "Once politics enters, the entire edifice of an enterprise built upon expert skills becomes unsafe." On page 185, Mr. Lilienthal speculates on what would happen if politics should ever enter TVA: "TVA, if it were politically managed, could become a curse to this valley. Just what would it mean if politics had been injected into TVA's selection of personnel, or into detailed administration of funds by which the job is carried out? It would mean that the thousands of miles of transmission lines built by TVA's forces might have been located not for economic and engineering reasons, but upon a political basis. A city that votes 'right,' a county that delivers the 'right' number of votes for a particular organization or candidate, an industry that 'comes through,' could be rewarded by advantages in the location of transmission lines, though such a location was not justified by the business facts. A city and its industries that do not vote 'right' might find that its electric substations were not adequately maintained, that service was poor, that its industrial growth had stopped."

Thus Mr. Lilienthal shows that he is well aware of the inherent dangers of centralization and politics. This makes it all the more surprising to read his statement on page 48: "The TVA Act was nothing inadvertent or impromptu. It was rather the deliberate POLITICAL CONTROL; CHECKS AND BALANCES 45 and well-considered creation of a new national policy." This same thought is found on page 58: "It was the methods of the past which the Act creating the TVA deliberately repudiated. For in this major characteristic — the unified approach — TVA was a definite break with government tradition." As it used to be taught, government tradition in America was based on common law and states' rights, with strictly limited powers to the federal government and its agencies. Even that limited responsibility was to be hedged by the use of checks and balances and eternal vigilance to prevent our officials from abusing or exceeding the powers delegated to them by the Constitution.

But on page 169, Mr. Lilienthal calls this a "negative" concept of government: "The reasons why the laws creating bureaus, commissions and departments have, by almost invariable custom, failed to follow modern principles of management are not too difficult to understand. The policies of law-making in the immediate past have been largely regulatory and negative: 'This shall not be done/ The atmosphere of the legislature has therefore been heavy with this regulatory spirit, expressed in carefully limited responsibility, lack of trust, and forever setting one man to watch and checkmate another." Mr. Lilienthal believes that this "negative" approach is outmoded. He recommends that the new approach by government be: "This is to be done." The only puzzling element in that statement is why Mr. Lilienthal chooses to call it a new approach. Actually, it is as old as government itself. In fact, the United States government apparently is the only government in known history that was not established to force positive action on its citizens. The Federal Constitution was specifically designed to define and limit positive action by a federal government that was yet to be set up.

Thus far, two of Mr. Lilienthal's approaches to the TVA "idea" have been examined. On the one hand, he shows awareness of the 46 THE TVA "IDEA" inherent danger in centralized government, and he readily admits that politics could — and probably would — turn TVA into a valley of evil. But on the other hand, he advocates that the federal government keep TVA and set up the eight other similar Authorities that would completely cover the United States. That does not seem to indicate any great fear of centralization and political control. Thus, obviously, the TVA "idea" must mean to him something other than the basic issues of states' rights versus federal control, or private ownership versus government ownership. This "idea" must be something entirely new. Apparently its advocates consider it neither private ownership nor "old-fashioned" federal control or ownership. Mr. Lilienthal divides his definition of the TVA "idea" into two parts. He calls the first part "A Seamless Web — the unity of land and water and men." Beginning on page 58 he discusses some of the present activities included in the TVA web: "A single agency, instead of half a dozen, was to design and build the dams, buy the land, construct transmission lines, and market the power the river produced. One agency was to 'envision in its entirety' the potentialities of the whole river system, for navigation, for power, for flood control, and for recreation. . . . The TVA should directly select, hire, train and supervise the workmen and be responsible for the policies governing wages and conditions of work. . . . The job of providing adequate housing for the workers at dams built at isolated points was undertaken by the TVA itself . . . library service . . . public health facilities . . . 'family readjustment' . . . geology, agronomy, forestry, chemistry . . . wild life, fish culture . . . recreation . . . public parks and playgrounds . . . malaria control . . .

archeology . . . public finance." In addition, the TVA "seamless web" includes horticulture; the manufacture and distribution of fertilizer; the invention of a new type refrigerator; experimental farms; teaching teachers the TVA TVA PROJECTS; HELP FROM OTHER AGENCIES 47 "idea"; bringing schools, colleges and universities into the program; organizing cooperatives of various types; exporting the "idea" to other states; training Russian experts to build similar "plants that will produce power on streams 'somewhere beyond the Urals'"; furnishing technical advice and help to private industry; planning and building terminals to connect highways, railroads and waterways; administering TVA demonstration farm activities in twentyone other states of the Union; reforestation; control of soil erosion; and a host of other tasks. Nor is TVA the only federal agency involved. On page 37, one finds: "Moreover, scores of federal agencies cooperated.. . ." Then Mr. Lilienthal lists nineteen of those federal agencies and departments by name. But since the complete listing would be several pages long, he stops with this comment: ".. . and so on; the list, if complete, would include most national agencies."* At this point, one might be tempted to ask if there is anything not included in this TVA idea of a "seamless web." Certainly every person living in the Tennessee Valley is included. And just as certainly every taxpayer in the United States is included, whether he wishes to be or not. Which leads to the second — and most important - half of the TVA "idea." Since all of us are included in it, where does the authority for all this rest? Does it reside with the federal government? State governments? The 3-man TVA Board?

One man? Or with whom? On page 145, Mr. Lilienthal approaches this "authority" issue with commendable modesty: "We face a dilemma; there is no reason to conceal its proportions. I do not minimize the complexities and difficulties it presents. We need a strong central government. * Here is a statement from the April 3, 1939, minority report of the Joint Congressional Committee investigating TVA: "Millions of dollars have been spent by other government agencies on behalf of TVA, which sums have not been included on TVA's books nor in its financial statements to Congress."

48 THE TVA "IDEA" This is plain to everyone who sees the changed nature of our modern world. But I have deep apprehension for the future unless we learn how many of these central powers can be decentralized in their administration." The TVA "idea" of authority, found on page 143, logically belongs after that introduction: "The problem is to divorce the two ideas of authority and administration of authority." Mr. Lilienthal also phrases it another way: ". . . an effective combination of the advantages of the decentralized administration of centralized authority." Do you suppose that Mr. Lilienthal ever considered this obvious solution to his problem: Why not avoid the admitted dangers of centralized authority by beginning with the decentralized state and local governments? For all practical purposes, the state and local governments already possessed all the powers granted TVA. And, right or wrong, they could have done the job if they had wanted to.

There are three possible reasons why the Tennessee Valley states did not choose to do the job themselves: Either they just didn't want to, or they considered the cost greater than the benefits, or they were led to expect that the federal government would do it for them. Probably it was a combination of all three. But since the TVA "idea" has been defined as the decentralized administration of centralized authority, let's,take a look at how that purpose was to be accomplished. First of all, TVA is a federal agency, with all the powers of the federal government behind it. TVA supersedes state and local governments just as much as the federal government supersedes them. TVA has been given the power to force state and local officials to conform to its decrees and decisions. The defenders of TVA, while admitting that such power exists, maintain that it has seldom been used. In fact, a vital part of the TVA AUTHORITY; PEOPLE FORCED TO CONFORM 49 TVA "idea" is to secure the voluntary cooperation of state and local officials, and of all the residents within the region. What if they don't volunteer? Mr. Lilienthal gives us the answer on page 119: "Of course there are clashes which as of any given moment cannot be harmonized. The private interest must then be subordinated." But as Mr. Lilienthal points out, the majority of the people in the TVA region — along with their state and local representatives — generally have cooperated voluntarily.

There were, however, a few exceptions — the farmers who didn't want to be moved, the landowners who didn't want to sell their land, the private electric companies that wished to stay in business, all persons who were opposed to government ownership of the means of producing electricity, everyone who objected to the use of federal taxes for local projects, and a few others — especially those who believed that Congress should have direct control over every project that is claimed to be for the general welfare. The advocates of TVA maintain that Congress does have some control over it because the Senate must approve the President's selection of TVA board members, and the House of Representatives must make yearly appropriations of additional money to make up the TVA annual deficits. That is all true, but with the possible exception of the Atomic Energy Commission, TVA is still probably less responsible to Congress and to the people than any other administrative branch of government. And the advocates of TVA are in favor of that arrangement. They call it the TVA "idea" of decentralized administration.

It was carried to the extreme of no Civil Service control of TVA personnel. While granting that Civil Service is no guarantee of efficiency in government, it is still probably better than the old "spoils system" or the new TVA "idea" of hiring whom it pleases according to its own standards.

50 THE TVA "IDEA" The TVA advocates answer that by claiming that there is no politics in TVA. As Mr. Lilienthal puts it: "Who was to be employed and how selected were not written into our charter, but employment, it was stipulated, must be solely upon merit and without political considerations." Has any politician, in writing a bill, ever stipulated it any other way? Will any politician ever admit that he has hired his friends and relatives for any reason other than merit? In truth, is the requirement that TVA officials be loyal to the TVA idea any less political than party loyalty? Thus we have a quick review of the advantages and dangers of the TVA "idea" according to Mr. Lilienthal. He says that the advantage lies in federal ownership and its power to get things done. But the danger is that the holders of that coercive power — officials of the federal government — will misuse it. His solution is to retain the federal power, but to place that power in appointed officials who are not directly responsible to the representatives elected by the people.

Is this "democracy on the march"? On the one hand, the people are to be allowed to govern themselves through elected representatives. But on the other hand, the elected representatives are not to be trusted. Are our elected officials any less honest and able than the officials they appoint? If it is agreed that authority is a dangerous thing, why not restrict the authority itself instead of placing it in other hands? If the authority is not to be restricted, then our elected representatives in Congress are just as capable of handling it as are the appointed officials on the TVA Board. It is true that the people might elect a dishonest or inefficient representative. But that danger cannot be averted by appointing him instead of having him elected. Mr. Lilienthal himself once wrote a report to President Roosevelt indicating that the first apAPPOINTED VS. ELECTED OFFICIALS; POWER 51 pointed chairman of the TVA Board, Mr. Arthur Morgan, was not the right man for the job.41 A little later, Mr. Morgan was dismissed for "contumacy" (defiance of authority), and Mr. Lilienthal was eventually appointed chairman.

Who was right and who was wrong? For the purposes of this review, the answer is relatively unimportant. The point is that the TVA "idea" tends toward a government of permanently appointed men instead of a government of elected representatives limited by specific law and subject to periodic tests at the polls. Thus the TVA "idea" tends toward the exact reverse of the principle on which this government was founded. Relatively few people even know who was appointed successor to Mr. Lilienthal as chairman of the TVA Board. Is the new chairman honest? Is he capable? Doubtless he is both. But sooner or later there will be a chairman who will be corrupted by the tremendous power he has at his disposal. We should remember that financial dishonesty is not the only or chief temptation of men in authority. Political aggrandizement, or lust for power, is a more frequent failing than economic greed. As Mr. Lilienthal so aptly phrases it: "There is a limit to the energy and wisdom of the best; the ancient lust for power for its own sake burns in the worst."

That is why the Founding Fathers set up a constitutional government of checks and balances, divided authority and specified limitations to political power. TVA is a distinct departure from this concept of government. It has almost none of these customary safeguards. It is government by so-called experts. Through the device of federal administrative agencies, the experts are given coercive authority over the people, an authority which in many cases is frequently beyond the control of courts or Congress. The meaning of this trend toward administrative agencies, such as TVA, is discussed in greater detail in the following chapter.