The various discussions about who would be the best running mate for Barack Obama seem to be taking place upon an ever-shifting quicksand of criteria. The fact that candidates such as Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are being seriously considered, even advocated for, in the liberal blogosphere would seem to suggest that many observers are simply confused about the criteria.
The question "Who would make the best vice-president?" is greatly complicated by considerations about the electoral appeal of a ticket, and questions about the actual significance and role of the vice-president’s office.
I believe there are three major pieces of criteria that need to be addressed in selecting a VP, and I’d like to attempt to cut through the confusion by examining each one in turn.
Criterion 1 – Who would make the best president?
The vice-president exists in order to assume the highest office in the event that the president is killed, removed or incapacitated. It would therefore seem to be of some importance that we ask similar questions of our vice-presidential candidates that we ask of our presidents. What am I looking for in an ideal president?
First and foremost, I’m looking for progressive values. I want a president who believes that wealth and power should be spread among the many rather than concentrated in the hands of the few. I want a president who will only engage the military as an absolute last resort and who understands the inherent illegitimacy of an aggressive foreign policy. I want a president who makes protecting the environment a top priority and who has the courage to lead a radical change of course in U.S. energy policy.
Secondly, the president has to have the personal qualities that will make him an effective leader. He needs to be able to communicate his vision with clarity and force; he must have unimpeachable personal integrity and he has to be brave enough to stand up in the face of searing opposition.
So, if Barack Obama wasn’t in the picture, and I could simply select someone to become president in November, who would I choose? Well, I’d seriously consider an economic populist like Sherrod Brown and I’d be attracted to the environmentalism of Al Gore. It would also be nice to have a president who would fight for single-payer healthcare, such as Dennis Kucinich or (maybe, eventually) John Edwards.
However, without too much difficulty, my choice for president would be Russ Feingold. His progressive values are not in question and he possesses the personal qualities of integrity, courage and lucid communication that would make him a genuinely great president.
So, that was easy. What’s the problem?
Criterion 2 – Who would maximize a Democratic victory on a ticket with Obama?
Russ Feingold is a twice-divorced, currently single, liberal Jew from a state that borders Illinois. He also considers John McCain to be a personal friend of his and would not exactly relish the "attack dog" role that running mates often assume to keep the presidential candidate above the fray. According to most measures of conventional election wisdom, he would not appear to be the strongest choice according to this criterion.
It is commonly understood that if the long-term purpose of a vice-president is to potentially replace the president, then the short-term objective is to secure victory in a general election. No vice-president gets to be president without first winning the election. Furthermore, it is not enough to talk simply of winning – we must ask who would maximize electoral victory, who could help achieve a Democratic landslide, providing coattails for the downticket candidates, thereby putting a powerful majority in control of the House and Senate.
This is where we discuss the idea of "electoral appeal". The idea is that the vice-presidential candidate can secure votes that the presidential candidate would not win on his own. This is why people talk about "balancing" the ticket. The notion is that a white male from the South with centrist or even Republican leanings will push extra voters into Obama’s column, whereas somebody very similar to the presidential candidate will not add any votes that aren’t already being secured. To provide a stark example, this argument maintains that Jim Webb would garner far more votes than Deval Patrick, since an African-American from Massachusetts is not attracting any voters that Obama does not already have in the bag. There is an undeniable strength to this line of reasoning.
However, while this argument has a certain logic, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Chris Bowers at Open Left has argued quite persuasively that "balancing" a ticket is poor strategy because it implicitly confirms perceived weaknesses in the presidential candidate. By selecting an older, "experienced" running mate, Obama thereby implies that he is inexperienced. By selecting someone with military credentials, he suggests that he is not so strong on national security.
It is also worth noting that recent history does not look favorably upon the "balanced ticket" argument. Did John Edwards carry the South for John Kerry? No, and he didn’t even win his home state. Did Bill Clinton seek to "balance" his ticket, while winning two elections in a row? No, he chose someone in Al Gore who reinforced his own candidacy, both ideologically and demographically. Therefore, we need to tread very carefully when we consider electoral strategy, because the received wisdom may not be so wise.
However, I do find it hard to believe that Obama-Feingold would win by a greater margin than Obama-Webb. Jim Webb was Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and would reassure certain voters that the Democrats will be "strong" on military affairs. He would savage John McCain on a daily basis and his pugnacious approach may endear himself to the working-class white demographic that Obama has yet to win over. He would help win Virginia, and could even put some other southern states in play. So, even though I harbor doubts about the reliability of this kind of electoral calculus, it is conceivable to me that Obama-Webb would win by a landslide.
So then, is this the answer? I don’t think so, because as far as I’m concerned, Jim Webb utterly fails the first criterion: I think he would be a disastrous president. He is a former-Republican, conservative militarist whose position on Iraq is his only remotely progressive stance. His vote in favor of telecom immunity is a grave blemish on his judgment, and his feisty aggression (which could be a great asset in a campaign) would not be so positive were he to succeed Obama as president, either in the wake of a tragedy, or in 2016.
This is the difficulty with selecting a vice-president: the two central criteria are often in direct conflict. The ideal choice for "best future president" may not have electoral appeal, whereas somebody who could secure a landslide may make an appalling leader. When people advocate on behalf of Chuck Hagel or Michael Bloomberg, because they smell a bipartisan landslide, they need to remember that we are discussing the person most likely to become the next president. So, while I consider the second criterion to be important, I think it must be subordinate to the first; otherwise our conclusions will stray so far off base they may end up in dangerous territory.
Criterion 3 – Who would not be "wasted" in the office of vice-president?
It needs to be remembered that the office of vice-president is typically not an office of particular influence. The degree of power wielded by Dick Cheney is extremely unusual and not likely to be repeated until we elect another president as singularly inept as George Bush (i.e. not likely). The influence of the vice-president is extremely dependent on the influence that the president allows his deputy to have. A vice-president may have the ear of the president, or not, as the case may be. They attend cabinet meetings and perhaps exercise a tie-breaking role in the Senate, but it should be recalled that FDR’s vice-president said of the office that it was not worth "a warm bucket of piss."
When we consider all the good work that Russ Feingold has done in the Senate, we should need a very good reason for him to vacate that seat. The vice-presidency may not be a strong enough role for someone of his qualities. I am much more excited by the prospect of Feingold as Attorney General than I am of having him attend state funerals for eight years. For different reasons, we also cannot afford to lose Jim Webb from the Senate. Having beaten George Allen by such a slim margin, it would be perverse to pave the way for his possible return. We need Sherrod Brown in the Senate. We need Jack Reed in the Senate. We need red state governors like Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Brian Schweitzer and Tim Kaine to remain as governors of those states and help to make the 50-state strategy a reality.
It would be ideal to select a vice-president whose appointment would not represent a "waste" of a position elsewhere. It is preferable to take a former senator or governor and "put them back to work" as vice-president. There are a handful of strong candidates who fall into this category. However, John Edwards and Al Gore have already ruled themselves out of consideration for another run at the vice-president’s office. Wes Clark ruled himself out when he proclaimed to the media that Barack Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief and Gary Hart is as old as John McCain and unhelpfully emblematic of political sex scandals.
The strongest candidate in this category is Bill Bradley. As a highly intelligent and experienced former senator, he is currently doing an excellent job as an advocate for Obama. Despite his extensive experience, he would still be consistent with Obama’s platform for change, having challenged the establishment candidate in 2000 and having been outside Washington for the past eight years. He is a supremely likable individual with massive crossover appeal for independent and Republican voters and I think Obama-Bradley could win by a landslide. In the event of a tragedy befalling Obama, he would be an extremely capable president with an appetite for progressive change. In 2016, he’ll be 72 years old and incredibly unlikely to run for president. This would provide the opportunity for an open primary in which candidates such as Russ Feingold could step up to take the party in a positive direction.
This is what Paul Wellstone had to say about Bill Bradley: http://www.thenation.com/...
When this third criterion is seriously considered – as I think it should be – it drastically narrows the field of prospective candidates, excluding all governors and current members of Congress. It removes all concerns about vacating precious Senate seats and squandering good representatives in an office of limited influence. It also tends to favor older, experienced candidates who would be unlikely to run for president in 2016, which I think is a positive, because it keeps the future of the party more open and democratically determined.
Who do I think would make the best president, other than Barack Obama? Russ Feingold.
Who do I think would help secure the largest general election victory in November? Jim Webb, maybe.
Who do I think would be the best choice for vice-president? Bill Bradley.