Authority in Washington
by HERBERT FEIS
1
» The country at large has little idea of what the weight of authority feels like to those conscientious experts who have been called to Washington ever since the S OS of depression.
LAST evening in Washington, my old friend, John, who is a permanent official of the government, began to talk about the nature and inner life of Authority.
“You know,” he began (and by that annoying form of expression he meant, of course, that he thought he knew, “a person who moves into the government from the study finds that one tag of his past life stays with him whether he would leave it behind or not — the tag of title. If, as is more than likely, a kindly faculty bestowed upon him the title of ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor,’ that distinction shares his seat on the railway and accompanies him to every introduction and crisis of his working career. He is ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor’ to one and all.
“Gradually it becomes evident that different men employ the form of address for different reasons. He learns to detect the intention behind its employment; to perceive whether it is used to cast down or to elevate, whether in irony or in respect, whether to convey the condescension of purposeful men or to transmit their flattery, whether to maintain distance or to show affection. He will not have surmised, before, that the handle could be so delicately manipulated. When he does, he has a choice of becoming tough or morbidly sensitive.
“Washington is a city of titles. The titles are the marks of power and authority. And the one fact that impresses itself most clearly during every day of an official’s working life is the greatness of the power, the authority, and the responsibilities of the American government. How immense these are is appreciated only as one participates in their operations at close hand.
“These operations extend to, and shape, human affairs in every corner of the land — in the quiet prairie villages, in the blackened towns that cluster near the coal pits, in the suburbs and centers of great cities. And, as the world shrinks and both the defense of our country and the welfare of our people become ever more closely connected with events and conditions outside, the scope of governmental activity expands correspondingly. In earlier times the government appeared only in the background and along the border of the pattern of events; now all threads go through its looms, and the whole pattern takes its dyes.
“The authority to direct the whole performance, and the responsibility for the outcome, concentrate in the hands of a comparatively small number of officials. They,” my friend emphasized by a grave expression, “are compelled to make a far greater number of difficult and important decisions than anyone in private life, and sometimes to make them upon short notice. Decisions which would be of critical consequence in the life of any individual or private organization can command but a small segment of the crowded schedule of government.”
My friend paused, to sort out illustrations that crammed his memory. “An hour’s conference can translate itself into the back-breaking work of thousands building a highway to Alaska through forests and snow of the sub-Arctic. A series of telephone conversations, urgently conducted because a Committee of Congress was knocking at the door, may determine what food is set upon the tables of a nation during the year ahead. It becomes the duty of a few men finally to decide, in the midst of violent and anxious controversy, whether another country so threatens our peace and safety that we must deny it opportunity to secure petroleum and scrap iron — with the knowledge that the decision may bring war nearer. A cable demands a speedy answer: whether to fall in or to fall out with the judgment of a military commander that the necessities of battle require that an unsatisfactory goveminent be retained in office. The need of making decisions of this kind inevitably transmutes the outlook and character of the individuals who put their names to them and vouch for their correctness.
“It is responsibility in such matters that gives reality to the titles of authority. It is the decisive reason why, in Washington, title and office are never forgotten.
“The sense of being alone with power and responsibility is augmented by the circumstance that public officials often make decisions on the basis of reports that are kept secret, or for reasons they do not wish to disclose. It is true that very often there is news behind the news. The sources of information in departments are tremendous and sensitive, often conveying intimations of conflicts and problems before they emerge into public view. A large government department is the focus of an unending flow of reports upon the world’s plight. Many significant items of information are received in secrecy; others come from sources that might be stilled if they were detected.
“It is not for me to judge,” my friend modestly admitted, “whether the information at the disposal of the government might be more fully shared; there is always much that even our prying and alert press does not systematically solicit.
“At any rate, it is clear that the existence of secret, unrevealed grounds for action tends to increase the height of Olympus on which the public official dwells. The stuff of which history is made flows before him. With the noise of that massive and dramatic waterfall always in his ears, the voice of any individual is small.”
2
MY FRIEND broke off, and then turned to another aspect of government — with his habitual though illegitimate turn of phase: “You know,” he resumed, “another fact about the American government that is not generally appreciated is the efficiency with which it conducts its usual affairs. Of course, during this war period, there have been extreme and prolonged instances of confusion and waste. You do not have to search for them; any luncheon table where the cold and competent witnesses assemble will acquaint you with all the cracks and peeling wallpaper in the mansion of government. Each morning that I take the crowded bus, I recall that some branch of government failed to acquire a sufficient rubber supply for the duration. My tax bill makes me receptive to the opinion that public funds are sometimes used in place of the competence that might have secured the same result at lower cost. And you may be sure,” he chuckled, “that on the day when we unfurl the Stars and Stripes over Berchtesgaden the management of the manpower of the nation will still be less than perfect.
“ But I tell you ” — he came a few steps nearer, as though he felt that nearness was an aid to persuasion — “that in general the administrative work of government is conceived with good sense and timing, and executed with devotion and energy. The military expeditions that landed on the coasts of Africa, Italy, the Gilberts, were not planned, organized, and equipped by lazy or inefficient men. The long chain of discussions and measures by which, under the guiding Presidential hand, the military and civil branches of the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and China have been brought into unison, for common purposes, required devoted effort and insight of the highest order; any single great blunder might have caused a fatal flaw in this unity.
“Error and inertia of an ordinary character — as, for example, in converting plants to wartime production — usually occur when the task is new and not well understood; and these are sooner or later corrected; the correction may require three reorganizations and set officialdom off at a dismal dance. The eyes that constantly pass the performance of government under review are so numerous and so skeptical that thoroughgoing error or incompetence seldom persists. Occasionally, as in the business of provisioning ourselves with the raw materials for warfare, government does take advantage of the whole period of grace that a kind Deity allows.
“When and where inefficiency and incompetence persist, it is because some stubborn underlying condition — inside or outside the government — prevents correction. Such may be the muddled division of responsibility between different branches of government — as was the case for long in the field of foreign food production. When authority and responsibility do get thoroughly confused, the result is a maze of committees, agencies, directives, suggestions, cross-purposes, jealousies, that become as difficult to trace as the waters of the Upper Amazon. Or it may be that popular opinion is determined on a whole course — as was the case during the period of resistance to price control.
“Or, and this is the most usual case, the inefficiency may be forced upon the government by the necessity of satisfying some economic interest that will not be reasonable, or some large voting group which cannot be led into a just compromise. When a government is not wise and skillful enough to manage problems that spring from causes such as these, it becomes and remains a poor and inefficient government. But the instinct of the government machine to do its work well is constant; and it is unhappy, not indifferent, when it fails. The inner spirit and the desires of the American government are sturdily healthy.”
3
ENCOURAGED by my nod of agreement, my friend lit a fresh cigar, walked about the room, then cast his reflections backward. “It is the way in which pressures are met,” he resumed, “that puts the quality of a government or government official to its most decisive test. The force of the pressures that operate are fully appreciated only by those who must endure them. I tell you that public officials are entitled to their occasional flares of bad temper, and to their consoling memoirs. They live in the trenches, while hostile forces clean their weapons in conference rooms, in the columns of the press, or on the floors of Congress. The energy unit of democracy is the organized demand. All causes have their spokesmen, all organizations their paid or unpaid advocates, all regions their political representatives.
“Government officials, even the highest-placed, when making policy, look not into space, but into the eyes of determined people who either want the government to do something, or want it not to do something.
“Of course there is an enormous difference in the ways in which various officials respond to these pressures, and in the means and methods they employ to deal with them. The best possess understanding of the forces that must be taken into account, determination not to be swerved from the path of public interest, a willingness to make enemies along with a gift for avoiding them, and faith that public support will be forthcoming for the correct course. The poorest are over-hesitant, evasive, preoccupied with their relationships with their colleagues, superiors, the press, or the political support on which they lean. They will make no move unless the gallery is packed. They confront all embarrassments with a stale general formula.
“Why, in a playful sense it can be said that, in order to take care of pressures and criticisms, the organization of some government departments resembles that of an army on the battlefield, including companies of sharpshooters, machine-gunners, scouts, liaison officers, and public relations experts. These are employed to conduct the defense of the department, to secure allies and outwit foes, to give a good report of its work, ensure proper public appreciation, keep up morale, and build up reputations.”
My friend paused, waited for me to appreciate his humor, then turned it quickly aside. “It is remarkable the extent to which, in the face of so many stern pressures, the government preserves an atmosphere of financial incorruptibility. Few men in its service arc vulnerable to financial inducements, direct or indirect, actual or prospective. In the conduct of their official duties they stand up well against the blandishments of wealth and remember their obligations to the millions of people of ordinary means, to the poor and to the needy.
“The same atmosphere is reflected in the private life of the official. Circumscribed as it may be by barriers of official status, it is comparatively free of those barriers of income and financial status that are so often encountered elsewhere. The official circle is relatively little concerned with financial standing and rewards. The individual finds that this attitude contributes to his inner ease and assurance, and imparts fairness and steadiness to his work.”
My friend’s eyes showed that he was recalling the graceful houses, usually small and set well in their city gardens or country fields, to which the government officials return at night. “No,” his voice trailed on, “it is not money that ordinarily shapes the career and character of the official in government. It is his contact with power and authority; for these determine the conditions of his work, his opportunities and his outlook.
“ The display of power that he observes is certain to affect his vision of the world — for better or for worse. Acquaintance with the inner circle of decision, with its guarded preoccupations and inner strains, will bring new questions into his mind as to the relations between people and government. The world outside, of ordinary men, will seem to him at times to plod along, indifferent and ill-informed, while authority shapes its fate. Full candor, community of feeling, and mutual trust between government and people will seem unattainable.
“But when great issues emerge and call forth the full latent vigor of democracy, his faith is renewed. He watches a great people adjust itself to the lessons of prolonged depression, and grope insistently for a correction of institutions and policies to prevent its recurrence. He watches them come together in unified and devoted patriotism after Pearl Harbor to defeat the enemies who would prey upon their tolerant selfishness. He watches the surging growth of conviction that this country must play its destined part in the maintenance of international peace. When the nation finds a clear voice, he comes to believe again that a true mutuality of feeling and trust can be established between government and people. He ceases to fear, no matter how dark the morning news, how confused the understanding, that they will fall apart.”
4
MY FRIEND took a long breath, and when he resumed, his thoughts had taken a leap. “It is endlessly fascinating to watch the struggles and development of the individual under the straining tests and temptations that the world of authority contains. I have in mind particularly the men of advanced or expert training — in the law, or political science, or economics — who acquire government posts of some responsibility. They discover many new worlds of behavior, and may undergo curious transformations.
“They will find, for one thing, that the receptivity within the circle of high authority to new ideas and proposals fluctuates. When the affairs of the country are going well, and it is judged that the people want most of all to be let alone, receptivity fades and intellectual curiosity lags. The speculative mind is regarded as looking needlessly for trouble; routine is esteemed. The market for brain-trusters is at its low. But when troubles descend, the student expert gets his chance to produce his memoranda and propound his ideas. Change in course is gustily welcomed in some offices, admitted with grudging reluctance in others. Ideas before rejected as unsound come into their own as the new wisdom. In the hurly-burly of change the rise and decline of reputations is often decided by chance or journalistic connection. The current genealogy of many an idea frequently is at least in part myth.
“At all times the official finds that the determination of government policy and the disposition of his own work and proposals are a rather unsystematized process. It is affected by the inclinations, moods, and personal relationships of those in authority, and is subject to the balance of pressures to which the authorities respond. And this is to be noted: the most illuminating analysis, the most wisely devised proposal, may rest in oblivion without the backing of authority. In fact, without backing, the official may be as detached from the actual course of the government as if he were living in Iceland. That is why unfathered memoranda drift about Washington as thick as snowflakes in a blizzard, looking for a cap on which to fall.
“When the official recognizes how decisively the reception of his work and the prospects of his advancement depend upon the interest and favor of authority, the realization sometimes has a marked effect upon his behavior. It may overstimulate his desire to assure himself of the sympathetic regard of authority and of the stronger pressure groups. His conduct and work are then directed primarily to obtaining access to, and influence in, the centers of authority, and of preserving his influence at any cost. This aim breeds many faults — all regrettable. It instills undue caution against difference of opinion or forthright speech — caution which in time is deemed its own recommendation. Why, there are men so fearful of dissipating their influence with authority that they handle that influence like a deposit in the bank — not to be drawn upon except in case of serious personal sickness. This brings disguise into speech, and deception into friendship.
“The official may, at first, be surprised to discover the great discretion that rests with great authority — especially if he is trained in the doctrine that ours is a government of laws and not of men. And so it is. But the laws are made and administered by individual men; and each authority, within the circle of his realm, is master of the life and the welfare of its inhabitants. Every trait of authority thus compels the attention of the official and affects his working days. What happens to him seems largely to depend on the rule of individuals, even under the broader firmament of law. This causes some, as I have remarked, to shape their work to serve their advancement — in the certainty that their advancement is essential for the progress of their work.”
5
MY FRIEND stopped and sighed. “But I would not have you believe that ordinarily authority is arbitrarily exercised, or that officials are always warped by submitting to it. Quite the contrary. I mention those possibilities because to omit to do so would be to ignore what certainly is an important feature in the working life the official finds for himself in the government in Washington.
“Now, bear in mind that open intellectual expression may be hazardous and restricted. Why, I know a fellow” — at this point my friend became jocular again — “who, while still on a university staff, published a paper on ‘The Government Regulation of Fisheries.’ It seemed to sink silently into waters of neglect as deep as those which the fish inhabit. But three years later, after he had entered the government, its corpse rose to the surface in a committee room of Congress, and he was criticized as preferring fish to freedom.”
My friend forced himself to be sensible. “It is true, of course,” he added, “that it is necessary to enforce a reasonable measure of conformity and responsibility upon the public intellectual performance of government officials. The people have the right to be protected against the confused government policy that otherwise would result, and authority has the right to ask that its critics and opponents be not aided. But supervision may become excessive, used as a protective disguise, and at times be against the public interest. Where unease and suspicion prevail, it may extend even to personal associations. Then the official is forced to move among the gentlemen of the press as sinuously as a soldier in a mine field. The sanctions are severe.
“Free intellectual expression is hazardous in still another way. It is at the mercy of the turns and twists of opinion and history. In 1923 the exponent of social security programs received few friendly smiles or rapid advancements; in 1943 his views seem only somewhat rusty. Anyone who advocated close relations with the U.S.S.R. in 1923 was then regarded as the enemy of all his fellow citizens; to have done so then is regarded now as proof of his prophetic insight.
“In other words, the official learns that in government the expression of opinion may be restricted and inexpedient, and tends to reserve it for his private circle, which may or may not include a friend in the press.”
My friend paused for a moment at these last words, then quickly resumed: “Restraint in public utterance is no great hardship to those officials who can count upon regular and instructed channels for the results of their work, for those who are enlisted as participant, not servant. This is not always the case; it is often assumed that expert knowledge is like water in a tap that may be turned on and off with a careless movement of the hand, in whatever quantities may be desired at the moment, and in a suitable container. You have heard the maxim, ‘The expert must be on tap, not on top’; junior administrative officials are apt to employ it when their rule is threatened.
“Of course, any official who is regarded merely as a standing cistern of wisdom will dry up; there w ill be nothing there when the tap is turned. For in matters in the economic and political spheres, at least, work that throws light on the dark spaces of the future does not grow merely out of the soil of intellectual curiosity; it must be fertilized by emotional attachment, and needs the vitamins of congeniality. Experts become productive when, along with official inequality, there are intellectual equality and social equality. In the realm of ideas there is no hierarchy. The talent to use well the abilities that the expert official can bring into government is one of the important qualifications of a good public authority.
“The most common complaints against the official who comes into government from the study or workshop are that he is impractical in idea, aggressive in manner, and domineering in action. I am afraid” — my friend grinned — “that I cannot clear all my colleagues of these charges. The blithesome impracticality that some display upon arrival is exceeded only by the forcefulness with which they insist that they are practical. But certainly the answer a man may give to the question ‘Have you ever met a payroll?’ is no index to either practicality or fitness. The successful management of business enterprise is only one of many ways in which pertinent experience may be attained and human conduct tested. Besides, there are so many different ways of meeting a payroll!
“The expert’s impracticality is supposed to express itself particularly in a devotion to ideas that would extend the size and realm of bureaucracy, make it st ill more cumbersome and oppressive. I cannot deny that a bent in that direction is often found in ideas born in the study.
“But the experts arrive in Washington mainly to fill a need and not to create one. They do not build the vast government establishment, nor do they always, as is so often thought, lie awake dreaming of a bigger one. True,” he said, thereby contradicting himself, “some of the economists that have been down here would have unwisely rushed us into unmanageable schemes, requiring huge new government bureaus with huge new powers. But economists are notorious nuisances — even those that have learned how easy it is for plans to go astray, who come to accept the fact that the American people are willing to pay a certain price of imperfection for the privilege of muddling their own affairs. The most ardent blueprintmakers, I notice,” he went on, “come to use a smaller drafting board in government than the one on which they leaned outside.
“As for the arrogance in manner and act, time, harsh t reatment, and the opposition of equally valiant opponents usually bring correction — though not always. Why, I have known arrogant selfassurance, when combined with guile and inside connection, to be turned into a lasting asset by suitable advertisement. Such officials can destroy the peace and effectiveness of whole departments. But government usually disciplines and softens manner, and increases understanding. It was on the campus, not in government, I believe, that two young doctors of philosophy took to settling their differences of doctrine by hitting each other over the head with bottles; such weapons are banned by department regulations. It is narrowness of mind or knowledge in the student that must be guarded against more than these other more blatant shortcomings, for they are more difficult to discern and less subject to correction.”
6
MY FRIEND noticed that my attention had begun to wander, and he raised his voice. “You are wondering,” he said, “why I go on so long about the experience and characteristics of the expert in government. It is because I believe that government will need him in the future even more than in the past — as the peoples of the world are forced into ever closer mutual dependence. He will be needed not only for his special knowledge, but for his other qualities. He has the impulse to care, to be emotionally devoted to the proper outcome of the affairs within his trust; this lends ardor to his work. He has a feeling of self-reliance, of ability to take care of himself by virtue of his training, of freedom from obligation; this confidence lends independence to his work. He possesses a belief in the importance of thorough intellectual investigation and in the curative power of knowledge; to the student, the ignorance of mankind, not its malevolence, is the enemy; this conviction lends faith to his work.
“ When these characteristics are marked — for they vary enormously among individuals — they make him often a moving force within the circle of his labors, but at the same time often cause him to be difficult to digest within an organization, troublesome and importunate; and indeed, unless he has the suppleness of mind and spirit to bend to the needs of organization, he may well be so. Whether, as he becomes aware of his own shortcomings and of the length of the road that effort must travel, he loses or reaffirms his ardor, his independence, and his faith is the test of his enduring worth to government.”
The reference to the long road that effort must travel seemed to fatigue my friend — I must say to my relief. He stood up and yawned, then spoke: “Well, I’ve drifted on long enough. I’ve tried to sketch at least the good and bad the student will find in government. Some give up; they become but indifferent fabricators of indifferent memoranda, who drag along in drowsing cynicism. But most of the men I’ve known have found more stimulating opportunities in its service than was ever granted them before, and their contribution to government has been an essential one. I believe it will remain so. It is not going to be easy for this country of one hundred and forty millions to beat its swords into plowshares, convert its tank plants into andiron factories. The demands upon government from every group will be more intense than ever. The government must be the school that instills the common good and the authority that measures it.
“In the increased productive power of the country, we shall have the basis of improved conditions of life and work for all. In the deepening sense of social responsibility, we shall have the impulse toward achieving greater social equality. In the patriotism and bravery of our fighting men in this war, we shall have a quickened national pride and glory. In the fierce desire of peoples to avoid the repetition of present sufferings, we shall have the will to organize international relations so that peace will prevail.
“The means for achieving all these ends, while preserving our liberties, will be in our hands. The great power that the government possesses, we bestow upon it. The expert in government can help to assure that it is used for all, not for a few; for enduring ends, not for transient ease.”