« Application received | Main | Electoral conclusion »
September 25, 2008
Vice and virtues
After months of presumption, Barack Obama and John McCain are now the official standard bearers of their respective parties. More newsworthy than the nominating conventions, however, were the relatively late announcements of each candidate’s vice presidential running mate. Obama proved many prognosticators right with his selection of Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), while McCain surprised many by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to join his ticket. The role of vice presidential candidates during a presidential election—and indeed, the appropriate role of vice presidents in a governing administration—is frequently unclear and often highly variable. But the selections of both Biden and Palin have important foreign policy implications in this election. Each brings a very different set of ideas and skills to the race, and each reflects and reinforces the judgment that Obama and McCain have demonstrated so far in this campaign.
Politically, it is often said that the selection of a running mate is the first important executive decision that a presidential candidate must make. In the past, running mates have been selected to reinforce certain positive traits in the candidate, to compensate for perceived weaknesses, to provide ideological or geographical balance to the ticket, or to appeal to certain demographic groups. For the relatively inexperienced Obama, Biden provides the confidence and expertise of a long-serving, widely respected U.S. Senator. For a comparatively older McCain, who needed to mend his relationship with conservatives in his own party, Palin combines very conservative policy positions with the image of youth and vigor, while simultaneously appealing to disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Constitutionally, the vice president has only two jobs: to preside over the Senate and cast a vote in the case of a tie, and to become president (or act as president, depending on the situation) in the case of presidential disability, death, or resignation. Many former occupants of the office have described it in disparaging, often colorful terms. But if the thinly enumerated powers of the vice presidency have a flip side, it is that holders of the office (together with the president) can make of it what they will. The two most recent vice presidents have gone a long way toward dispelling the notion that the office is more ceremony than substance. President Clinton allowed Vice President Al Gore to assume an unprecedented range of responsibilities over certain issue areas and in his efforts to streamline the federal bureaucracy. His successor, Dick Cheney, has even greater influence, to the point that many people believe that he is the driving force behind the Bush administration’s foreign policies. Now that the precedent for a strong vice presidency has been established, the selection of a running mate has taken on an importance well beyond electoral politics.
Joe Biden has been in the U.S. Senate for 35 years, and he has run unsuccessfully for president twice. Aside from his longevity in Congress (and his occasional loquaciousness), Biden is known as a foreign policy expert. He has been either Chairman or ranking minority member of the foreign relations committee since 1997, and he is a leading voice for the Democratic Party on matters of foreign policy and national security. Compared to other Democrats, Biden is generally considered to be more hawkish and more amenable to the use of U.S. force abroad. In the 1990s, he was a strong advocate for confronting Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian leader who oversaw the bloody ethnic conflict that engulfed the former Yugoslavia. He voted to give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq in 2002, and in his abortive presidential campaign last year, he championed a plan to create a more strictly federal Iraq, with distinct Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiie regions. Both positions stood in contrast to Obama’s, but Biden did seem to share many of Obama’s thoughts on Pakistan (for more, see The Water’s Edge, November 2007).
In many ways, Sarah Palin is the opposite of Joe Biden. She presents an entirely different set of foreign policy credentials; many would say that she has none whatsoever. To be sure, such critiques are grounded in partisan politics. But even by an objective assessment, foreign policy is not Sarah Palin’s strength. She clearly knows this. Initial attempts by the McCain campaign to defend Palin’s foreign policy credentials included references to Alaska’s proximity to Russia and to Palin’s less-than-two year leadership of the Alaska National Guard. Such clumsy political fixes have largely been abandoned, and as Palin makes herself more available to the media, her foreign policy thinking (if not her experience) is coming into focus. She has echoed McCain’s aggressive views toward Russia and has called for admitting both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO (for more, see The Water’s Edge, August 2008). She is adamant that Iran should not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons and in her insistence that the United States cannot “second guess” the steps that Israel may take to defend itself. Palin has voiced support for a policy of pre-emptive military action but not necessarily for preventative action, saying that if “a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”
This election, however, is a presidential election. Despite the surprising discretion in how they can execute their powers, vice presidents have been and always will be secondary to the president. The choice in this election is between Obama and McCain, and no one else. But each candidate’s vice presidential pick reinforces existing impressions about their political characters. For Obama, Biden was a “safe” choice. He was a known quantity: unquestionably experienced and skilled in the ways of legislative politics. No one doubts that he would be able to serve as president, if circumstances called for it. In many ways, he is a living, breathing contrast to Obama’s message of “change.” But despite perceptions to the contrary, Obama’s political history has always been marked by cautiousness and a certain methodical sobriety. Especially for a candidate as new and different as Obama, a “safe” running mate makes a lot of sense.
For McCain, the selection of Palin is risky. It reminds voters of McCain’s “maverick” persona, in which he happily bucks his own party and takes unpopular stands for principled reasons. By dint of her gender, her policy positions, her life story, and her raw political skill, Palin was a bold vice presidential selection. It generated excitement for a lagging campaign and solidified support among several key constituencies. Palin has become a media sensation and has rekindled excitement among Republicans for their ticket. But like any risky decision, McCain’s selection of Palin has a potential downside. By any standard, Palin has limited government experience and foreign policy expertise. In her limited interaction with the press, Palin’s intuitive grasp of foreign policy issues has often seemed tenuous. For many, the question of whether she is prepared to be president is not easily answerable. This would be cause for concern in any presidential campaign. But in the case of McCain—a 72-year-old former POW with a history of cancer—the concern becomes far more visceral.
One can surmise about what kinds of vice presidents Biden and Palin might be. Obama has spoken at length about how he wants subordinates who will openly present their views and freely question his own beliefs. Although they agree on broad foreign policy principles, Obama and Biden do not hold identical positions. And even Joe Biden’s most fervent critics would acknowledge that he is not shy about speaking his mind. In an Obama administration, Biden could be a very influential advisor, and given his deep legislative experience, he could also have significant governing responsibilities of his own.
McCain, for his part, has a large reservoir of foreign policy expertise. He is fluent on a wide range of international issues and he is confident in his policy positions. This stands in stark contrast to Palin. With the possible exception of energy policy, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which McCain would seek Palin’s counsel on an issue of international consequence. Much of Palin’s appeal would vanish on Election Day; if the Republican ticket wins, she would have fulfilled her primary purpose. This is certainly a legitimate rationale for picking a running mate. But it appears very different than the rationale employed by Obama.
If nothing else, Biden and Palin will serve as prominent surrogates for their respective tickets. Whether they generate additional votes for their respective tickets, and how they might reshape the vice presidency in their own image, is unknowable for now. The first real opportunity to answer these questions will be at the vice presidential debate, to be held on October 8. The final opportunity will be one month later, on Election Day itself.
Foreign Policy Association, 25 September 2008
Posted by Daniel Widome at 09:09 PM to U. S. Politics
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.watsonblogs.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1627
