Presidential nominees have used the vice presidency to balance the ticket by naming a running mate from a different region, or one who speaks with a different ideological accent to a specific constituency. This means that a president’s death generates a double shock: The nation not only mourns a fallen leader, it must deal with a replacement who may push in a new direction.
Teddy Roosevelt (in photo) – who replaced William McKinley when he was assassinated in 1901 – may have been a great progressive president, but he had been named as vice president by the archconservative McKinley simply to carry New York. The country elected a right-winger but ended up with something else entirely.
Recent elections have lulled us into a false sense of security. But John McCain’s surprising choice should lead us to think again. We should designate the secretary of state to be in charge until a special election can be held to replace a president. – Bruce Ackerman, professor of law at Yale University, for the Los Angeles Times
That’s rather like saying that football teams don’t need a backup quarterback because, after all, the other guy is likely to have a different style and we’d therefore be better off having the kicker fill in.
The death of a sitting president is a national shock. If it comes as a result of assassination or other unnatural cause, it’s a genuine national crisis. That’s not a great time to be fumbling around for a successor, let alone scrambling to hold a special election.
It’s hard to think of a modern example when the secretary of state was both more prepared for executive leadership and closer to the president’s ideology than his vice president. We choose secretaries of state by an entirely different process than presidents, emphasizing different skill sets. To the extent that people are genuinely afraid of John McCain dying and Sarah Palin being given the launch codes, they’re less likely to vote for McCain. – James Joyner, outsidethebeltway.com
20 Comments
Makes sense. VPs really haven’t been known for their presidential abilities. They have been known as being the attack dog, which obviously moose gal has embraced. But would she make a good President? I doubt it. Her cutesy mannerisms wont wash on the world stage. I also have my doubts about Biden. But we got what we got. Guess we just got to live with it until something better comes along.
Can we then use the Speaker of the House as the Senate tie-breaker? Less confusion on the legislative vs. executive, and it may foster intercameral working relationship.
I never thought of Mondale as an “attack dog.” Dan Quayle was maybe an attack poodle. Al Gore was there to be a Washington personage to counterbalance Bill Clinton’s small state lineage; but he was hardly an attack dog.
Back during the Republic Party convention I asked in this forum just what issue would a President McCodger stop a meeting and say, “Let’s hear what Sarah thinks about this?” I can’t imagine having to ask Joe Biden such a question; I mean, just how would you shut him up?
(The Big) Dick Cheney was the Praetorian Vice-President. It couldn’t have happened if the guy in the Oval Office hadn’t been incompetent.
Considering the quality of the presidential candidates we keep getting, I think we first need to fix how we select our president.
No, I don’t have any bright ideas on what needs to be done. But are not seeing our most capable, qualified people in the mix for the most important job in the world.
Okay, “outlander” –
So who are “our most capable, qualified people,” in your opinion, who would be presidential timber?
Be specific.
I like the system as it is.
The trouble comes not from the system, but from incompetent candidates like John McCain. Now his choice in Sarah Palin IS an extremely poor one. NO ONE rational imagines Sarah Palin as President without an absolute shudder. But the way to address that is to not vote for John McCain.
We LEARN from a candidates choice in running mates. In choosing Gore, Bill Clinton picked a man to help him. In picking Cheney, bush demonstrated that he really didn’t want any responsibilities as President and wanted someone else to actually run the country. WHY McCain close Palin is unclear but speaks to his incompetence in his first most important decision.
Valid point, Bluejay. When a topic like this comes up, my “conservative” streak kicks in. Abolish the vice presidency? It seems a little extreme. The founders were just as human as the rest of us and therefore prone to imperfection. That said, any time you start messing with a system that basically works, you open yourself up to unintended consequences. Humans are sophisticated and capable of adaptation, but we often fall short when we look in the crystal ball. Let’s try, instead, to make the existing system work a little better.
To that end, it might be worthwhile to remember the elements that are essential for a successful democratic system. In “Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy,” Yale University scholar Donald Kagan says the following: “An examination of the few successful democracies in history suggests that they need to meet three conditions if they are to flourish. The first is to have a set of good institutions; the second is to have a body of citizens who possess a good understanding of the principles of democracy, or who at least have developed a character consistent with the democratic way of life; the third is to have a high quality of leadership, at least at critical moments. At times, the third qualification is the most important and can compensate for weaknesses in the other two.”
Kagan’s “high quality of leadership at critical moments” is especially telling. In essence, in our case, with our institutions, it’s up to the political parties to nominate contenders who possess the necessary qualities, and it’s up to the presidential nominees to use the qualities to secure the interests of the country by picking VP candidates who can handle the job.
In the ‘08 cycle, then, McCain has failed miserably in his responsibilities. In picking Palin, who does not understand the world and America’s place in it, he has failed to measure up to Kagan’s third condition.
We are at a critical moment in American history, and we need high quality leadership. If the Republican party can’t do any better than Palin, then they need to look at their priorities, go in for a bit of self-examination, and return to the world’s stage with a renewed commitment to fulfilling their obligation to America’s institutions and America’s requirement for high quality leadership.
Leave The Constitution alone! IT works fine, the devil’s we put in place to protect it…not so much.
Governor Palin would be alright as VP if her job was to sit on the roof of her house and keep an eye on Russia and call NORAD when Putin rears his head over Alaskan airspace. Otherwise, not so much.
The example provided by Ackerman (McKinley/Roosevelt) can easily be countered by Kennedy/Johnson. Although Kennedy was recognized for his work on civil rights, it was Johnson that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
I fail to see how the one example provided is grounds for messing with the Constitution. The principle is sound, some of the choices (Quayle? Mondale? Palin?) are questionable.
I think the authors of the Constitution were most concerned about a smooth transition of power in the executive branch. The “original intent” — that the person who came in 2nd in the election would become Vice-President — was obviously flawed.
I’ve read a lot about Harry Truman’s selection as Vice-Presidential candidate in 1944. It makes you appreciate the advantages of smoke-filled rooms. A lot of Democratic Party fat cats were concerned about FDR’s health. And they saw something in Truman (maybe that he was a former machine politician and take orders from above; maybe that he had the stuff to step into the job.)
But a congressional battle of presidential succession just doesn’t sound like a good idea.
It would take too long. And, as with the JFK assassination, there was a lot of concern that it was the first shot fired in a Cuban or Russian attack on America (11 months after the Missile Crisis).
No, it’s essential, even if the VP pick is a political ploy (as it is with the Republic Party this year) that people understand up front a few consequences of “what if?”
Actually, McKinley and party leadership put Roosevelt in the Vice Presidency to get rid of him. McKinley just had the misfortune to get assassinated
“TomPaine” accurately notes –
“…McKinley and party leadership put Roosevelt in the Vice Presidency to get rid of him. McKinley just had the misfortune to get assassinated.”
Yeah, that did put a crimp on McKinley’s plans.
No the Vice-Presidency should not be abolished. However, it should be changed.
Like in most races, if something happens to the winner, the runner-up steps forward to become the winner.
Same should be done with Pres and VP.
No ‘running mates’.
The Presidential candidate that gets the most votes should be President, and the one who gets the second most votes should be Vice-President. That way, if something happens to the President, the true will of the people is played out by having the second pick take office.
“brian_nuevo” –
That’s how the Constitution was originally written.
It was a disaster.
Under that “original intent” constitutional you advocate, had John Hinkley been a better shot, Jimmy Carter would have returned for a second term.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what the American people had in mind back in November, 1980.
(Although Jody Foster might have been impressed.)
This line of thought reminds me of the 17th amendment. While it seemed logical the solution was worse. Before the state legislature would pick (for better or worse) the two Senators. After the amendment both positions are the result of a popular vote. Once the position was disconnected from the state government the power shift to Washington D.C. accelerated and eventually came the unfunded federal mandates.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted October 8, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
“brian_nuevo” –
That’s how the Constitution was originally written.
It was a disaster.
Under that “original intent” constitutional you advocate, had John Hinkley been a better shot, Jimmy Carter would have returned for a second term.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what the American people had in mind back in November, 1980.”
Well, we cannot know “what the American people had in mind back in November, 1980″ if Reagan had not been in the picture because he was. This comes down to second guessing whether the People would have elected Carter or Bush in 1980, and since they were not running against each other is entirely hypothetical.
My point was that we need to change the philosophy behind the role of the VP.
Leave the constitution alone. This VP question wouldn’t even have come up if the libs and dems wasn’t afraid of Palin. I do not want socialist Obama to be our next president.
2 relevant points,
‘David Brooks: Sarah Palin “Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party”‘
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html
“Brooks praised Palin’s natural political talent, but said she is “absolutely not” ready to be president or vice president. He explained, “The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there’s no time to think or make decisions.”
The New York Times columnist also said that the “great virtue” of Palin’s counterpart, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, is that he is anything but a “yes man.”
“[Biden] can’t not say what he thinks,” Brooks remarked. “There’s no internal monitor, and for Barack Obama, that’s tremendously important to have a vice president who will be that way. Our current president doesn’t have anybody like that.”
I’ll have to actually put some thought into this- I don’t have an opinion one way or another.
I think that it would make setting up assassination more palatable against a President you didn’t like, knowing that there would be a new election. At least you know the replacement is going to be generally closer on the same team.
My idea isn’t set in stone, I’ll have to listen to more arguments before I decide hard one way or another. But my initial gut is NO, don’t change it.