As we await the monarch's choice of a VP

Sandy Levinson

[FURTHER UPDATE: Joel Goldstein, the ranking expert in the American academy on the vice-presidency, has an interesting contribution in the comment section below that is very much worth reading. I think the most compelling point he makes is that the duty of the VP to campaign throughout the country undoubtedly develops contacts and alliances that might well stand him/her in good stead should events lead to inhabiting the Oval Office. There's no doubt that my proposal would reduce that reality. The question is whether we should continue to risk a presidential candidate's picking someone for crass short-term political reasons as against a measured view that the person selected in fact possesses the skill set, including demonstrated judgment, to become president. I think it can safely be said that reasonable persons can disagree; my hobby-horse, of course, is the necessity to have such discussions and to decide, either for ourselves or as a nation, what serves us best in the 21st century rather than to feel stuck with institutions created more than two centuries ago. In any event, I thank Prof. Goldstein for his contribution.]

[UPDATE: I hope it is clear, as it seemed not to be to a couple of commenters below, that under my proposal the incoming President would nominate the VP. Congress's role would be limited to confirmation (or rejection, which would mean that the President would nominate someone else). There is no plausible reason to believe that Congress could force the nomination of someone from what is stipulated to be Congress's own party, as opposed to a President of the opposite party). They could, to be sure, keep rejecting nominees, but at some point this would surely create a mixture of a political and perhaps even constitutional crisis. To suggest that this is a realistic possibility is to have an even more despairing view of the Ameican political system that I currently have. It really does evoke Weimar full scale, i.e., the complete breakdown of a governmental system, as opposed to "mere" dysfunctionality.

Further, for the life of me, I can't figure out what is partisan, either Democratic/Republican or liberal/conservative about suggesting a modification in our system designed to increase the likelihood that a Vice President would actually have demonstrated at least some skills relevant to stepping into the role of president, which almost by definition would be at a time of great national nervousness, if not outright crisis (as with an assassination).]

We are being treated to the quadrennial spectacle when we should realize exactly how monarchical our system has become: I.e, the candidate-designate, on the basis of God only knows what criteria, appoints a running mate. Sometimes, one can believe they were picked because the pickers actually believed they could be effective presidents if need be--see, e.g., Biden and Cheney (whose resume was that of an excellent president-in-waiting, whatever one thinks of the actual VP). Sometimes it is impossible to take the choice seriously in that regard--e.g., Palin and John Edwards. Sometimes it's hard to tell--e.g., Joe Lieberman, whose main qualification was that he was/is a Jewish prig who led the moralistic attack on Bill Clinton and was thought to be helpful in Florida, or Bob Dole, in 1976, whose main qualification was his willingness to be an attack dog, a typical function for VP candidates, though he had also demonstrated some capacity to work well with Democrats like George McGovern re food stamps. But then there are Geraldine Ferraro and Dan Quayle (though at least Ferraro was politically explicable re appealing to women, as distinguished from the justifiably forgotten Quayle).

Of those being mentioned as within Romney's gaze, only Rob Portman could possibly be taken seriously for an instant as a possible president. The others--Rubio, Christie, Paul Ryan, Bob McConnell--are all jokes in that regard. Their selection would be just another example of the degradation of American politics. Which element of the "base" does Romney want to pander to?

Do we need a VP at all? Perhaps. But there is no reason at all for the VP to be selected in the current manner, which, as suggested back in 1803 by some opponents of the 12th Amendment, generates a strong incentive to pick second-raters, a prediction amply confirmed throughout American history (with, obviously, some exceptions). What would be preferable? The answer is easy: The winner of the election should simply follow the model set out by the 25th Amendment, when there is no VP, and nominate someone, subject to confirmation by both houses of Congress. (My own preference would be a majority of Congress meeting collectively so as to limit the power of the indefensible Senate.) We would be almost certain to get more qualified VPs, including, among other things, VPs who might in fact know how Capitol Hill operates. Certainly Romney has not the slightest idea (nor, for that matter, would one give Obama high marks in that respect), which is another reason that suggests Portman instead of one of the governors or fledgling senators or even Paul Ryan, whose talent for compromise in negotiation appears minimal.

There is only one downside: The VP would be "unelected." But this criticism depends on taking seriously the premise that we really-and-truly "elect" our VPs. No political scientist would argue that the VP candidate accounts for more than a fraction of the voter's ultimate decision. It's the equivalent of claiming that we "elect" the First Lady or First Children (or First Dog).

Unfortunately, such a sensible change in our system would require a constitutional amendment (unless a candidate was so bold as to state publicly that our present practice is indeed monarchical and idiotic and, therefore, that she/he will await the actual election before naming a choice for VP, though even here one would have to trust electors simply not to turn rogue and name someone as VP). And we all know that requiring an amendment even for "innocent" changes--i.e., those without genuine partisan valence--is basically the kiss of death.
Posted 1:14 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]