Vice-presidential selections were once thought to be a form of consolation prize and of little interest. Accidental presidents have resulted in more interest in the process. A high point in intrest seems to have been reached in the this election. We might best understand the current consideration through the review of some not-too-ancient history.
One person considered as a running mate by FDR was Maryland Governor Albert C. Ritchie. Ritchie was the first Maryland Governor to serve more than a single term and was a great Governor who served four terms. Ritchie turned down the offer based on ideological differences and was defeated in his bid for a fifth term by a “New Deal Republican” who was one of the worst governors in state history.
FDR settled on John Nance Garner of Texas. This was a sop to the conservative Democrats and implied a certain ideological and geographical balance. Garner was invisible and kept well in the background. Garner found the office to be meaningless and would not serve for more than two terms. He was replaced on the ticket by Henry A. Wallace. Wallace was a nominal Republican with some very radical views. He was Secretary of Agriculture at a time when that Department was an entry point for Soviet moles.
The declining health of FDR made the possibility of an accidental Wallace presidency a threat to the nation and FDR succumbed to Congressional pressure to dump him in favor of Harry Truman for the 1944 election. This provided a reassuring ideological balance. However, FDR never seemed to seek the advice and counsel of his vice presidents.
Truman selected the well-regarded Senator Alben Barkley as his running mate in 1948 and did not ignore him. An ill-treated former vice president gave his vice president respect and set a new standard.
The choice of Nixon by Eisenhower provided an image of balance. There was a balance of age and geography and there was an image of ideological balance. Nixon had ‘made his bones’ defeating Liberal Democrats and was involved (sometimes reluctantly and peripherally) in revealing the treasonous espionage of Alger Hiss. This selection was a symbolic sop to conservatives bitter about the defeat of Robert A. Taft by the dominant GOP Eastern Establishment.
In 1952, the Democrat bosses ignored the primary election and selected Adlai Stevenson, a man who had been earlier chosen as window dressing by the Chicago Machine. The ploy worked. A semblance of geographic and ideological balance was provided by the choice of Alabama Senator Sparkman as the VP nominee. This did not stop the Ike juggernaut in November.
Four years later, the Democrats selected Estes Kefauver as their VP nominee. This partially undid the slight did him four years before but did not assure victory.
In 1960, both parties sought a balance for their tickets. Nixon was paired with former Senator Lodge of Massachusetts. Lodge was pure Eastern Establishment. Kennedy was paired with Lyndon Johnson of Texas. There was a certain irony of images in that the corrupt liberal from Texas was perceived to be the conservative counterweight to John Kennedy, man whose expressed geopolitical views might put him in the ranks of the ‘neo-cons’ were he alive. His tax policies were closer to those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than any current Democrat heavy hitter.
For the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater played no balancing act with the selection of Miller but LBJ was paired with Hubert Humphrey. This provided a geographic balance and a shoddy façade of ideological balance. There was an unspoken ethical balance in that Humphrey had not become a multimillionaire as an elected official.
Nixon made a comeback in 1968. His primary opponents were Governors Reagan and Rockefeller. Reagan had been elected Governor of California and the former Democrat was riding a wave that began with a powerful speech in support of Barry Goldwater. Rockefeller personified the GOP Eastern Establishment. Maryland Governor Agnew had once been a Democrat but made a tactical switch. He alienated much of his constituency as County Executive. His run for Governor was seen as quixotic but when the wrong man won the Democratic Primary, Big Labor on the ‘insiders’ assured his victory. He was seen as a ‘progressive’ Republicans and could cut deals with Democrats that sometimes crossed ethical and legal bounds. He was an early supporter of the Rockefeller presidential campaign but was not informed when the ‘Establishment’ candidate dropped out. A miffed Agnew switched support to Nixon. Then came an angry confrontation between Governor Agnew and an army of black political appointees. He needed their help in quelling riots in Baltimore and they turned on him. Soon the image of a conservative Agnew was concocted. His inclusion on the ticket provided a geographic balance and was seen as an element of a Southern Strategy. The Liberal leanings of the Old Agnew were dumped into the Memory Hole and no one looked into a pattern of growing corruption.
Democrat nominee McGovern initially chose moderate Senator Tom Eagleton as his running mate to provide some ideological balance. McGovern dumped his running mate after learning of some electroshock treatment for depression and replaced him with a Kennedy in-law.
After the Agnew resignation, Gerald Ford was selected as Vice President. Ford was allied with the Eastern Establishment and after the Nixon resignation, Nelson Rockefeller was selected as Vice President. This removed any semblance of ideological balance and there was a vigorous Reagan challenge to what was seen as a challenge to the coronation of Ford in 1976.
Ford had Bob Dole as his running mate and the Kansas Senator brought little to the ticket. He had opposed JFKs tax cuts and appeared to be a high-tax Republican. Georgia Governor Carter lulled the electorate into overlooking his liberalism with a southern accent. He provided a ‘balance’ for the left by selecting one obviously of their mindset in Liberal Senator Walter Mondale. A narrow victory proved that you can fool almost half of the people at least once.
Four years later, Carter was exposed as a spineless and bumbling Liberal. A hard-fought struggle for the soul of the Republican Party pitted Reagan against Bush, an Establishment Republican who had been transplanted to Texas. Nominee Reagan may have contemplated Ford as a running mate but the rather dull-witted former President demanded too high a price so the task went to Bush. There was a party solidification without a power sharing.
In 1984, the Democrats ran two Liberals with Mondale-Ferraro. The balance was sexual and it was not a winning gambit. Reagan-Bush won every state except Minnesota.
For 1988, Bush was assured of nomination and Senator Dan Quayle was selected as his running mate. He was young, handsome, conservative, and had never lost an election. A few verbal lapses allowed some to question his intellect but perfect glibness has never been the mark of true leadership. The Democrats attempted an ideological and geographical balance with Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen. As with Lyndon Johnson in 1960, Bentsen ran for his Senate seat concurrently with his role as vice-presidential candidate. The election was a romp for the Republicans.
The 1992 race saw the inevitable result of an incumbent president abandoning much of his base in an outreach effort to win over his enemies. There was also the diversionary effort of the Ross Perot candidacy, one with a message of unsophisticated pseudo-populism with strains of isolationism, xenophobia, and protectionism. Rather than seek an image of balance, the Democrats turned on the Southern Charm with Clinton-Gore. A Southern accent always hinted of conservatism in a president, as long as one overlooked Johnson and Carter. The ploy worked through two elections.
Senator Dole had former Representative Jack Kemp as his running mate. Kemp had been known for is innovative ideas but they gained little attention. The Dole legislative record was not that distinguished and his opposition to JFKs income tax cuts worried many Republicans who care more about issues than generic partisan victories. The ticket did not inspire enthusiasm.
George W. Bush selected a running mate who assured conservatives that they were not being ignored and Bush had a good record in Texas. The balance was one of experience and neither man had been political careerists throughout their working lives. Al Gore was the second generation of political hucksters who never worried about the aroma coming from their wealth. He chose as his running mate the liberal Senator Lieberman. Lieberman departed from the radicalized Party Line by giving more than lip service to the preservation of Israel. To do otherwise would seem to be political suicide in his constituency. He provided what some saw as a pointed ideological balance in the area of National Security.
John Kerry was an undeniable Liberal and he sought a façade of balance by selecting North Carolina Senator Edwards, Edwards could play the pseudo-populist role as well as Al Gore Senior or Junior but he made his millions as a trial lawyer with a great skill at influencing juries of dullards and emptying out some allegedly deep pockets. This may be less offensive than being on the payroll of a KGB money launderer. While a tawdry affair may have doomed his political future, he did display a bit of political integrity (unique for a Democrat) in not running for his existing job while seeking the vice presidency or presidency.
Now we come to the over-hyped selection of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate. What does Biden bring to the ticket? Three electoral votes from Delaware? There is little in the way of ideological balance as both Senators are from the left wing of their party. Experience should be more than decades of repeating past errors. Will Biden bring any special constituency to the ticket that might have stayed home on Election Day?
Will Biden have the political integrity of a John Edwards and abandon his Senatorial re-election campaign to demonstrate his faith in the future of the ticket? Or is he just another time-server who dreams of grabbing the brass ring on the political merry-go-round?
