The Vice Presidency

Andrew quotes from Arthur Schlesinger's 1974 Atlantic piece on the evils of the Vice Presidency:

It is a doomed office. No President and Vice President have trusted each other since Jackson and Van Buren. Mistrust is inherent in the relationship. The Vice President has only one serious thing to do: that is, to wait around for the President to die. This is hardly the basis for cordial and enduring friendships. Presidents see Vice Presidents as death's-heads at the feast, intolerable reminders of their own mortality. Vice Presidents, when they are men of ambition, suffer, consciously or unconsciously, the obverse emotion. Elbridge Gerry spoke with concern in the Constitutional Convention of the "close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president." Gouverneur Morris commented acidly, "The vice president then will be the first heir apparent that ever loved his father."

It's interesting to me how conceptions of the Vice Presidency have changed over time. As we saw on John Adams last week, the first Vice President was not deeply involved in the counsels of George Washington's administration. He did, however, succeed Washington and become the second president. Then Jefferson and his party took power, and for a while succession ran to the Secretary of State with Madison succeeding Jefferson, Monroe succeeding Madison, and John Quincy Adams succeeding Monroe. This makes a certain kind of sense, since the SecState needed to be someone in whose abilities the president had a lot of confidence whereas the Vice President could be an expendable ticket-balancer.

But then in the second-half of the twentieth century we wound up with a lot of Vice Presidents who either became President or at least secured their party's presidential nomination -- Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore -- which creates demand to try to pick a plausible president, and in the case of both Gore and Dick Cheney saw the Vice President emerge as an important member of the administration. But of course everyone hates Cheney now, so maybe we'll see a move back away from that. Certainly, I think most indications are that John Kerry picked John Edwards for VP despite a lack of personal rapport betweent hem.

Comments

I think this administration demonstrates that the trend, which began with Mondale, of giving significant reponsibility and power to someone that is almost impossible to fire is a very bad idea, not that this President had any inclination to do so.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 4:46 PM

Pretty obviously Dick Cheney has proved that it's not a "doomed office".

Being the "gray eminence" behind the throne isn't all that bad a job in most power structures. You've got a front guy to blame when things go to pot over your bad decisions (Iraq, anybody?) and you have the freedom to do what you want without anybody looking over your shoulder (Energy Commission? Undisclosed location? Not part of the Administration AT ALL? Guy in the bunker running 9/11?)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 12, 2008 4:59 PM

The first vice presidents were the runners-up in the electoral college (except if I recall Washington who was elected unanimously).

Under that system, Al Gore would have been George Bush' first vice president.

Posted by hopeless pedant | April 12, 2008 5:08 PM

One thing that seems to be oddly missing from your narrative is the passage of the 12th amendment in 1804. Until then, the vice president was literally the president's opponent in the general election -- first place goes to president, second runner-up becomes VP. It's a bit odd to say "then Jefferson and his party took power" after John Adams without mentioning that Thomas Jefferson was, in fact, John Adams' Vice President every bit as much as John Adams was George Washington's Vice President, but because of the constitution of the time, this was the equivalent of John Kerry being George Bush's vice president.

Posted by Julian Elson | April 12, 2008 5:08 PM

As we saw on John Adams last week, the first Vice President was not deeply involved in the counsels of George Washington's administration. He did, however, succeed Washington and become the second president.

Of course, until 1804, the runner-up in the presidential election became Veep. Which, albeit problematic in a partisan system, actually a set-up that has something to be said for it, in order to offset the fixed-term presidency. It's more luck than design that the US has avoided the perils of being unable to replace the party leading the executive branch, absent a double-resignation or other extraordinary circumstances.

(Of course, were that possible, more bullshit impeachment proceedings would be the order of the day for a GOP-majority House.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 12, 2008 5:10 PM

It was only happenstance, by the way, that Jefferson, Adams's opponent, became VP in 1796. Lack of party discipline basically kept Thomas Pinckney from becoming VP.

At any rate, the Schlesinger article is smart, although obviously it fails to anticipate developments of the coming decades - I think it was Carter who really started to increase the responsibility of the role.

As to Cheney, he seems more than ever a reason to abolish the office. Schlesinger was right then, and he's right now - the vice presidency is a stupid office, and should be abolished. Let the Senate pick its own president, and let's have a special election if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office during his term.

Posted by JohnT | April 12, 2008 6:24 PM

What's the argument that Gore was an important part of the Clinton Administration? I remember things differently. In fact, I remember distinctly that Gore had to spend a lot of time in his 2000 campaign trying to argue, with mixed results, that he was anything other than the irrelevant figurehead that a VP normally is.

Thats how the whole James Lee Witt thing came about I recall. He was trying to argue that he actually did have some leadership experience and he brought up meeting with Witt, which turned out to be a minor misstatement for which the press branded him as a congenital liar.

So, how exactly was Gore influential during his White House days? I am asking seriously. I just don't remember him being involved in much of anything which is pretty much how it goes with VPs.

Posted by brent | April 12, 2008 7:02 PM

I have never understood why Bush didn't replace Cheney in 2004 with someone better able to be his successor. It was obvious that Cheney was not going to run for president in 2008 and that the Republican Party would be better off with a sitting vice president as its nominee. Bush could have kept Cheney around the White House as a counselor or something and his power would be undiminished--the only real power anyone in the White House really has is access to the president anyway. If the Republicans lose this year, they may trace it, ultimately, to Bush's decision not to pick a new vice president when he ran for re-election, something many past presidents have done.

I suggested this idea in an article in the Los Angeles Times back in 2004 and was widely criticized by my Republican friends for being anti-Cheney, at a time when people still respected him. I wonder how they will feel on November 5?

Posted by Bruce Bartlett | April 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Simple solution

Get rid of both offices. The VP is merely useless. The presidency is positively dangerous, and yields no benefit to outweigh the serious risks the office presents to a republican form of government in this country.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | April 12, 2008 8:56 PM

It's pretty clear that Cheney has found about a zillion loopholes that can be exploited throught the "Fourth Branch". I'd be for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the office of VP, making Secretary of State second in line for the office, and calling for a new election 90 days from the time the elected President kicks the can.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 12, 2008 9:19 PM

I still don't think it's been explained to me how it happened that Cheney assumed the role of being able to give orders to the air force on 9/11, and then later to approve torture techniques without Bush knowing about it. Maybe I missed that day of class, but it seems that there is an interesting inside story to be told there. Does Cheney still have that kind of authority, and if not, then when did he lose it?

I think the fact that the presidential nominee can choose the successor-in-the-event-of-death, and the fact that this successor is frequently next up for the nomination, are both good things. The result is that in most elections, the public will get to vote for or against the past 4 years.

It seems to be very strong conventional wisdom among historians and political observers that the VP job is a pointless. That seems wrong to me, if for no other reason than that the VP breaks ties in the senate. Getting to vote only when it makes a difference is still a pretty important thing. The VP also has an important political role to play as the second most prominent memeber of the executive branch and the future of the party. Perhaps it's that VPs aren't in charge of anything in particular, that they wait for the pres to die, for the senate to tie (hey that could be worked into a nice limerick), so they feel kind of useless or out-of-place. But a lot of VPs have become president, aside from everything else.

Posted by Colatina | April 12, 2008 10:23 PM

Bruce Bartlett:
The whole Darth Cheney thing is probably Boosh's most lasting legacy to the Republican party. For a party that prides itself on order, they don't have any at the present moment. Are Huckabee and Romney gonna run again in '12? Does someone like Sanford of SC have aspirations for higher office? I am suprised as you are that Bush didn't pick someone else for Veep in '04. If only to cement his legacy(mainly Iraq of course).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 13, 2008 12:19 AM

"I have never understood why Bush didn't replace Cheney in 2004 with someone better able to be his successor. It was obvious that Cheney was not going to run for president in 2008 and that the Republican Party would be better off with a sitting vice president as its nominee. Bush could have kept Cheney around the White House as a counselor or something and his power would be undiminished--the only real power anyone in the White House really has is access to the president anyway. If the Republicans lose this year, they may trace it, ultimately, to Bush's decision not to pick a new vice president when he ran for re-election, something many past presidents have done."

Especially considering that if they cited health reasons as Cheney's reason for stepping aside, people would likely have believed it.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 1:26 AM

Please, no more pictures of Cheney.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 13, 2008 8:35 AM

> I still don't think it's been explained
> to me how it happened that Cheney assumed the role
> of being able to give orders to the air force on
> 9/11,

I personally think Cheney is one of, if not the absolute, most despicable human beings on the face of the earth. But I don't blame him for his actions on 9/11, particularly if the stories that slowly leaked out over the next two years about Bush's incapacity on that day are anywhere near true. /Someone/ needed to take charge and give definitive orders; Bush wasn't doing it so Cheney stepped up. That was fine. It was what happened on 9/12 and after I blame him for.

I can only imagine Clinton, HW Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, James Garfield, even Jefferson Davis at that Florida airfield walking up to the cockpit of AF1 and saying "I have listened to the Secret Service and respectfully declined their advice. Head for Washington at maximum speed, but be prepared to divert to New York if I tell you so". Hiding in a hole in Wyoming for 24 hours? Big man, that W.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 13, 2008 8:41 AM

Is there some detailed work about Cheney's role right after 9/11? I'd love to read it.

Posted by Brian | April 13, 2008 9:10 AM

Is there some detailed work about Cheney's role right after 9/11? I'd love to read it.

Posted by Brian | April 13, 2008 9:22 AM

"I personally think Cheney is one of, if not the absolute, most despicable human beings on the face of the earth. But I don't blame him for his actions on 9/11, particularly if the stories that slowly leaked out over the next two years about Bush's incapacity on that day are anywhere near true. /Someone/ needed to take charge and give definitive orders; Bush wasn't doing it so Cheney stepped up. That was fine. It was what happened on 9/12 and after I blame him for."

I agree with you. However, the legality question is still there. Let's pretend that Bush was actually competent and had thought up some intelligent course of action that did not involve shooting down a plane that had a likelier chance of success. Now pretend Cheney hears falsely that Bush is scared shitless not doing anything and gives the order to shoot down the plane. A bunch of problem crop up in such a scenario in which a strengthened VP stepping on the prez's toes in ways that are at best legally murky.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 11:14 AM