It's probably because I watched too many cartoons and read too many comic books in my youth, but I tend to view politics with a decidedly four-color tint. I've written before about the Arch-Villain Theory of History. Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate this past week has led me to consider the Sidekick Theory of Vice-Presidents.
There's a story that when Ronald Reagan first ran for president, a Hollywood wag remarked, "Reagan for president? No. Jimmy Stewart should be President with Ronald Regan as his Best Friend." And really, apart from the Constitutional duties of the Vice President, in the public's imagination the Veep's role is that of the President's Sidekick.
This idea probably isn't original with me; I might well have picked it up someplace or other; but it has always seemed to me that presidential candidates tend to chose running mates less interesting and less exciting than they. After all, it stands to reason that if you are your party's candidate for President, you don't want to be standing next to a guy who looks like the better man for the job.
This is the reason why Ronald Reagan chose George Bush to be his veep, and why Bush chose Dan Quayle. It's why I never really thought that Obama would pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. By virtue of who she is, she would have drawn attention from the top of the ticket. Instead, Obama chose Joe Biden: solid, dependable, and unexciting. A supporting character, not a star.
John McCain forgot this principle when he chose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Or perhaps he just failed to anticipate how big a spotlight hog she would be. Palin's example underlines the rule: The sidekick is there to support the star and to make him look good.
Mitt Romney seems to have followed the same trap as McCain. Romney comes off as stiff and boring; the most interesting things about him, (his father's political legacy, his wealth, his term as governor, his religious beliefs), are things that for one reason or another he doesn't want to talk about. How do you choose a running mate who won't overshadow your candidate when your candidate is already in the shadows?
(It's not impossible: John Kerry managed to pull it off by choosing John Edwards, a running mate who looked like Burt Ward; the perfect sidekick. You can even imagine him saying "Holy Economic Inequality!").
Romney has chosen Paul Ryan, a man who is outspoken, dynamic, controversial, and interesting. He even has a degree of charisma, something which Romney seems to lack. Already Romney himself has highlighted the disparity in their personalities by accidentally introducing Ryan as "the next President of the United States." I wonder how long it will be before people begin regarding Romney as Ryan's running mate instead of the other way around and before Romney starts wishing he'd picked Dan Quayle instead.
Let me repeat. The Sidekick's job is to make the Leading Man look good. I don't think Paul Ryan is good sidekick material.