The Vice Presidential Pick: What Does It Really Mean?

With both major parties having settled on their respective presidential nominees, speculation now turns to who they will choose as their running mates.

While I love to prognosticate as much as the next pundit, I’m going to resist the temptation to analyze the names and personalities currently being bandied about in the media. Instead, I want to look more generally at what the pick says in terms of symbolism and philosophy. I’ll also look at considerations and factors that conventional wisdom says are driving Obama and McCain’s respective picks. Finally, I’ll ask the question that often gets lost in the shuffle of personalities and geopolitical electoral strategizing – In the end does the running mate really matter at all?

When you look at running mates, there are a number of different factors that play into their ultimate selection. Experience and the ability to bring gravitas to a ticket is often a prominent consideration.

From Walter Mondale to Al Gore and Dick Cheney, running mates have often lent their considerable Washington resume to presidential nominees with little to no experience on the national stage. Cheney in particular is seen as a prime example.

Having been Chief of Staff in the Ford White House, followed by ten years in the House of Representatives then serving as Secretary of Defense to President George H. Bush with stints at the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and five years as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney was the consummate Republican insider. With a portfolio that included executive and legislative branch experience, as well as a strong grasp of defense and energy issues, he counterbalanced the contrastingly slim resume George W. Bush brought to the 2000 Republican ticket. Furthermore, his association with prominent Neoconservative think tanks reassured the Conservative wing of the Republican Party that the junior Bush would be more reliably conservative than his father had ultimately been as president.

In similar fashion, Al Gore brought fifteen years of legislative experience in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as his service in the Army during the Vietnam War to the 1992 Democratic ticket. As Walter Mondale did in 1976, Gore’s selection and status as a seasoned Washington hand signaled both an acknowledgement of their patron’s inexperience in the nation’s Capitol. Furthermore, their picks also highlighted the recognition of Carter and Clinton’s need for someone to assist in their integration into the labyrinthine political environment of Washington.

Moreover, Gore and Cheney have both elevated the profile and role of the Vice Presidency. With both being actively and often intensively involved in the development of significant policy initiatives and decisions, the vice president is no longer just the conveyor of official condolences. Then again, that’s not to say that this won’t be the case again sometime in the future, depending on the personality and management style of the president.

Ronald Reagan’s selection of George H. Bush, in addition to adding his Washington and foreign policy experience to the 1980 Republican ticket was also an attempt to shore up the more moderate Gerry Ford wing of the party. With Reagan aggressively challenging Ford for the nomination in 1976 and concerns that his brand of Conservatism might result in another ideologically satisfying but electorally unsuccessful exercise similar to Goldwater’s 1964 run, there was considerable apprehension and division within the party.

Though initially listing Bush as one of the few people he would never have on the ticket, ultimately Reagan acquiesced, particularly when confronted with rumblings suggesting he put Ford himself on the ticket. Choosing to forgo the complications of a perceived co-presidency and the impression he needed minding by a former president, Reagan’s choice of Bush appeased the Ford wing and paved the way for him to confront incumbent Jimmy Carter without having to worry about the state of unity in the Republican Party.

In sharp contrast to the political dimensions at play in Reagan’s selection of Bush, Bush’s selection of Dan Quayle was a managerial and egocentric statement. By selecting Quayle, Bush was stepping solidly out of the shadow of Reagan and announcing he needed no assistance as president.

With arguably one of the longest and most thorough resumes of anyone seeking the Oval Office, Bush placed the emphasis squarely on himself. He had the experience; he would make the decisions and Quayle would wait dutifully by the Oval Office door for his weekly half hour lunch with Bush. If condolences were to be made, Bush would make them personally by phone and Quayle would follow on as diplomatic and strategic considerations required. To Bush, his vice president was little more than an afterthought, both in terms of politics and policy.

Having considered the last five vice presidents and their impact – or lack thereof – on the office, tomorrow we’ll look at the conventional wisdom revolving around Obama and McCain’s impending picks. In addition to that, we’ll also look at the question that often gets lost in the shuffle of personalities and geopolitical electoral strategizing – In the end does the running mate really matter at all?

Getting close to the time to play “Pin the Tail on the VP pick”, faithful readers. Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and the auditions begin.