|
George W.
Norris: Nebraska reformer
By James C. Olson
 Anyone
involved in the study of Nebraska’s history in the 20th century
sooner or later must confront George W. Norris, whose decade in the
U.S. House of Representatives and 30 years in the U.S. Senate
constituted one of the longest and most productive public careers in
American history.
Those of us who studied history at the University of Nebraska in the
late 1930s and early 1940s had a sense that we were at the center of
things, partly at least because of George Norris’s pivotal role in
American public life—this despite the fact that he was a remote
figure who rarely visited Nebraska and who few of us had ever met.
I heard him speak just once, at a large meeting in Omaha near the
end of the 1940 presidential campaign. This was Norris’s last major
speech of the campaign, and it was broadcast nationwide from the
Orpheum Theater. He had been campaigning for Roosevelt throughout
the West, and particularly in California. It had been a grueling
trip, and the white-haired old warrior showed every one of his 79
years as he sat on the platform in a rumpled grey suit waiting to be
introduced. At the podium, however, the years seemed to melt away as
he fulminated against Wendell Willkie, FDR’s opponent, “the power
trust incarnate,” and painted his vision of an ever-expanding good
life in America if we would only learn to use our resources for the
benefit of all.
Within Nebraska, Norris was best-known for his role in the creation
of the Unicameral Legislature and for the promotion of Nebraska’s
public power and irrigation projects. Both were local manifestations
of his national efforts.
From his earliest days in Congress, Norris was interested in the
process of government and in governmental reform. Throughout his
life he espoused the old Progressive causes such as governmental
efficiency and broadened democracy. Two of his major achievements
were in furtherance of those causes: the 1910 revolt against Speaker
Joseph Cannon in the House of Representatives, culminating in
passage of the resolution that the House, not the speaker, should
appoint members of the rules committee; and the 20th Amendment to
the Constitution providing for the inauguration of the president on
Jan. 20 rather than March 4, and ending the “lame duck” sessions of
Congress. Norris felt that the period between election and
inauguration was too long and frustrated the will of the people as
expressed in the election. (Had he lived to experience instantaneous
communication, he might have set the date of the inauguration even
earlier!)
The Unicameral legislature was an expression of Norris’s interest in
governmental reform. He considered the conference committee, in
which designated members of both houses of the legislature
met—frequently behind closed doors—to work out differences in bills
passed by the two bodies, to be a particular abomination which
frequently thwarted the will of the people and subverted legislative
intent. His solution was simple: establish a one-house legislature
and do away with the need for a conference committee. The
legislature would thus be brought closer to the people, and that
appealed to Norris’s Progressive instincts. Moreover, the economies
that could be achieved with one rather than two houses also fit in
with the old Progressive view that government should be operated as
economically as possible.
Many in Nebraska looked upon the Unicameral legislature as further
evidence of the state’s leadership role in governmental reform, and
many political observers thought that other states would follow
Nebraska’s example and establish one-house legislatures. In more
than half a century none has done so. At the same time, Nebraskans
have shown no disposition to do away with Norris’s handiwork. The
Unicameral legislature remains a living memorial to George W.
Norris.
Again, Norris’s sponsorship of Nebraska’s public power and
irrigation projects were local expressions of his efforts on a
national scale—and of all his struggles in Congress Norris is best
known for his fight on behalf of the development and preservation of
the country’s natural resources.
Norris’s concept of conservation was the simple, classical one: the
use of the nation’s natural resources for the greatest good of the
greatest number for the longest time. His most important achievement
in the field was TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority. It began as a
struggle over the development of Muscle Shoals, a series of
whirlpools and rapids on the Tennessee River. Lasting for more than
a decade, the struggle involved bitter conflict over who should
develop the resource—private interests or the federal government.
Norris succeeded in blocking private development, but because of
presidential vetoes he was unable to secure approval for
governmental development until the election of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Very early on in his administration Roosevelt called on
Congress to create a Tennessee Valley Authority, and after he had
signed the bill he handed the pen to Norris. Indeed, FDR didn’t even
read the bill (which Norris had introduced and pushed through
Congress), asserting that if it met with Norris’s approval there was
no need for him to examine it.
Norris exercised great influence in the Roosevelt White House, and
the ease with which the Nebraska public power and irrigation
projects were approved bears witness to that influence. In the
political realm, the decline of the Democratic Party in Nebraska
during the 1930s was another result of Norris’s influence on FDR,
who consistently backed Norris—a Republican and then an
Independent—against the regular Democratic nominees.
For those of us who lived in Nebraska and were studying history
during the last years of Norris’s life and in the decade or two
following his death, the senator’s contributions to American
political history were sources of great interest and considerable
pride, and we were heartened by the fact that our opinions of his
role in American history were shared by our colleagues from around
the country who generally recognized him as one of the greatest
figures in the history of the U.S. Senate, ranking along with Henry
Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert M. LaFollette Sr.
The perspective of half a century has only reinforced that
assessment. George Norris had perhaps the most extensive list of
accomplishments of any senator in American history, and those
accomplishments were not peripheral, but centered around two
fundamental concerns in American public life.
First, Norris did much to further the Progressive ideal that
government is the servant, not the master of the people, and that
both honesty and efficiency in government are essential to its
proper operation. Norris opposed corruption and inefficiency
wherever he found them. His life was a constant struggle against the
efforts of the rich and privileged to exploit the country’s
resources and their fellow citizens for their own benefit.
Second, Norris, more than any other person, except perhaps Franklin
D. Roosevelt, successfully advanced the notion that government
needed to be an active as well as a passive participant in solving
society’s ills and advancing the general welfare. That, for example,
is what TVA was all about. The issue, of course, remains unresolved.
In his later years, Norris was sometimes referred to as America’s
senator-at-large. The characterization is apt. George Norris was no
mere local representative, running errands and doing favors for his
constituents. He was a national visionary, a national doer. His
career offers a remarkable framework on which to build an
understanding of the history of the United States in all of its
dimensions, both local and national.
Editor’s note: This article by James C.
Olson was first published in the spring 1993 issue of Nebraska
Humanities. Olson, an historian of the American West who died in
2005, had served as director of the Nebraska State Historical
Society and was Regents Professor of History at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln before becoming chancellor of the University of
Missouri-Kansas City.
top |
