An Actually Serious Discussion About the Vice Presidency and the Debate

The Vice Presidential debate mattered a lot last night for surface issues; it was the Duel of the Gaffes. Would Sarah Palin continue fumbling her way through responses with the same cluelessness she had during her recent string of press interviews? Would Joe Biden get angry and impatient, losing poignant arguments in a barrage of verbiage? Who would have the best one-liners? Would anyone cry?

Were this the core of the debate--and to many people, this is the only reason they tuned in to watch--then both candidates exceeded expectations spectacularly. After viewing the debate, one would probably say, wow, everyone seemed to have their shit together. No major screw-ups and no major positive game-changers. So for the surface, the debate mattered because neither team swung the momentum in the other team's direction.

But in terms of substance--of what each candidate would actually say after we stopped concentrating on how they said it--the VP debate matters very little. The Vice Presidency is, in essence, a wing-man kind of position. The job of the VP is to be an "agent" for the President. According to the Constitution, the VP has no real executive powers. The VP's most important jobs are to 1) take over for the President in the event of death, impairment, or resignation, and 2) to preside over the Senate and to act as a tie-breaker in the event of a tie vote. Beyond that, the VP does whatever the President asks him/her to do and represents the administration overall. It's a position of mentoring--to give the President advice when it is solicited, to be a spokesperson for the President's views, and to be a general sense of support for the President. And of course, to be ready and willing to step in and take over if it's necessary. In a way, the VP is a steward of the adminstration. With little outlined responsiblities, the Vice President can act as a check within the executive branch, supervising, aiding, and guiding his colleagues.

Over the past 8 years, the Bush administration has stretched the boundaries of the vice presidential position. Vice President Cheney has removed the buffer that the vice presidency provides the Executive and has inserted himself into controversial policies and programs that should require a more objective lense and second opinion. And he's clouded the office with an unprecendented amount of secrecy and unaccountability. Most importantly, the Bush administration has asserted that the Vice President is not only a part of the Executive Branch, but also the Legislative Branch, given the VP's (usually minimal) role in the Senate. Such an assertion goes beyond the basic function of the VP in the Senate--a tiebreaker in a rare occassion of impasse--and compromises on of the fundamental pillars of our democracy: a strong system of checks and balances. By exerting Executive power within the Legislature, the Bush/Cheney version of the Vice President infects this carefully constructed system of checks and balances with unnecessary partisanship and almost unstoppable executive power.

Because the current administration has, in essence, redefined the role of the Vice President,--a role that, frankly, I feel is unwarranted and almost dangerous--I was most interested in hearing how both VP candidates see the job of the Vice President. In last night's debate, towards the end of the broadcast, Gwen Ifill asked for what I had been waiting for:

IFILL:...Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.

(cutesy exchange of little substance)

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that's where I want you, I want you to lead. I said, I can't wait to get and there go to work with you.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: (brief comment about education from previous question)

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues.

I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Indeed, not only, to me, was this the most important question of the evening, but provided the most important responses. From both candidates' responses, it is clear what role each sees the Vice President as having. Sarah Palin champions the increased role of the Vice President in the Senate. She repeats that the flexibility that she believes the Constitution gives the Vice President will allow her to"usher in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda". To me, this translates to: the Executive's agenda is most important, and dissenting opinion, in the Senate or otherwise, will be trumped.

In contrast, Joe Biden, along with stating outright that he believes that the Cheney Vice Presidency has gone too far, advocates a role for the Vice President that not only rolls back the unwieldy powers of Bush/Cheney, but goes so far as to provide a check for the President himself when he feels he disagrees.

Given who the candidates are as people, these contrasting views are not surprising. John McCain, as the more experienced on his ticket and, arguably, the most heated and opinionated, chose a running mate with little experience and knowledge, but who can exert power (and, again, arguably, abuse it) when needed. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is less experienced and very open to advice and guidance when he admittedly is not an expert on certain issues. He chose Joe Biden, a Senate veteran and someone who is known to never hide how he feels. But as an aging leader, he's happy to take a back seat and play support.

I wanted to watch the debate last night because, like many Americans, I wanted to be entertained. As primetime entertainment, the debate wasn't very exciting. Surprisingly, however, what I came away with--and what I hope many Americans did too--was a clear picture of what and who the Vice President should be.