Choosing a Vice President

Sandy Levinson

One of the most truly dubious features of a generally defective Constitution is the vice presidency.  Under the original scheme, which was exposed as making no sense even by 1796, when the establishment of a party system was well underway, electors would vote for the two people they believed best equipped to become president.  This made a modicum of sense in the absence of political parties, but no sense otherwise, so we ended up with Adams and Jefferson in 1796.  And then, of course, there was the fiasco of the 1800 election, with the tie vote and Burr's (and the Federalists') machinations to deprive Jefferson of his victory.  That was rectified by the Twelfth Amendment, but it in fact legitimized picking second-raters as VPs as part of a political strategy to gain support from key states or blocs.  Is it a coincidence that the first three VPs to become president because of death or assassination were John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson, all of whom would be on a list of our worst presidents?  We've done better in the 20th century, but recall some of the idiotic choices of running mates, including, most memorably for anyone alive today, McCain's unforgivable choice of the totally incompetent Sarah Palin in 2008.  Whatever explained Donald Trump's choice of Mike Pence, it was certainly not a defensible belief that he was truly equipped to be President (unlike, one has to admit, Dick Cheney, a person with truly appalling views but with the experience one seeks in a president, as was the case, for that matter, with Reagan's decision to choose Bush as his own running mate in 1980.

I find myself thinking of such things because of the fact that it now appears quite likely that the two candidates in November will be septuagenarians.  One should at ponder the possibility that the VP will succeed to the office because of the death of a then-octogenarian.  So that brings me to the increased speculation about whom various Democratic candidates might choose as their running mates.  Chuck Shumer has suggested, for example, that it would be a really good idea to pick an African-American woman.  One of the persons he suggested was Kamala Harris; the other two, however, were Stacey Abrams and an obscure member of the House of Representatives.  Let me suggest that he could not possibly believe that the latter two are equipped to become President at the present time, even if one concedes, arguendo, that isn't the case with Sen. Harris.  I greatly admire Ms. Abrams; I wish very much she had chosen to run for one of the two now-open Senate seats in Georgia.  I can easily see her as a national leader in the future.  But it simply is not serious to say that she is capable of entering the Oval Office right now.  Barack Obama, whom I avidly supported over Hillary Clinton, certainly could have been more seasoned in terms of relevant experience.  It speaks very well for him that he chose Joe Biden, who complemented him in many important ways.  Obama was truly serious in picking a VP; I fear that Senator Shumer is not.  Or, to be fair, he is serious only about winning back the White House, a worthy goal.  But single-minded focus, however understandable, is also a symptom of what Jack aptly terms "constitutional rot" inasmuch as it is evidence of reckless indifference about the actual ability of the person named to take on the awesome responsibilities of a president on literally a moment's notice.

Indeed, I think it is highly desirable if the various remaining candidates indicate well before Milwaukee whom they will pick as their running mates.  And, as I've argued earlier, I wish that candidates for the presidency would also indicate during the campaign their intended cabinets.  We have drifted into a terrible form of an elective monarchy, something none of the candidates wish to talk about even as they justifiably denounce the sociopath in the White House as unfit for the office.  But, frankly, that's like shooting fish in a barrel.  It allows us to pretend that there are not truly serious problems with our entire constitutional order that need to be addressed.

Actually, though, my preference would be that the VP, assuming we choose to retain that office in my constitutional convention, be chosen after the election along the lines set out in the 25th Amendment:  I.e., the new president, even before inauguration (which I hope would be sooner than the present January 20) would nominate a VP, who would have to be confirmed in a joint session of the House and the Senate by a majority vote.  This would, I am relatively confident, assure the selection of someone competent to enter the Oval Office if need be.  I would also make the VP fireable by a similar vote, since I see literally nothing to be said for giving the VP the same assurance of tenure in office as the president now has.  (I would, of course, much prefer a process by which we could also fire a president in whom we had lost confidence.)
Posted 12:17 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]