Rise of the Vice President's Staff

Originally posted on TerrorWonk on December 20, 2012.

One measure of the expansion of the Vice President's role is the increasing prominence of the vice president's staff.  Under Carter, the Vice President's Chief of Staff also became an Assistant to the President and performed numerous tasks on the President's behalf.  Still much of Mondale's influence came from having allies on the President's staff.  The same was true of George H. W. Bush, who during Reagan's first term benefitted enormously from having his close friend James Baker serving as the President's chief of staff.

But under Gore the formal integration of the Presidential and Vice Presidential staff continued.  The VP's chief of staff was again an assistant to the President.  However, previous National Security Advisors to the Vice President (VPNSA) had had a lower profile.  This changed, Gore's VPNSA Leon Fuerth was by most accounts present at most major National Security Council meetings and was an intergral part of the decision-making process.

This was continued (and probably expanded) in the Bush Administration, where Cheney's chiefs of staff also held the rank of advisor to the President.

But this integration has reached a new level in the Obama-Biden administration.  First are the number of people with strong links to Biden in the West Wing.  But also, according to the invaluable Plum Book, besides Biden's chief of staff, there are five Biden staffers who also hold the rank of Deputy Assistant to the Vice President (including the chief of staff to Jill Biden) and two more who are Special Assistants to the President.

But a picture tells a thousand words.  In the now iconic picture of Obama and his team in the situation room monitoring the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, indicated in the picture with a big yellow circle and arrow (helpfully added with the app Penultimate) is VPNSA and Deputy Assistant to the President Antony Blinken.  He may not be in the front row - but he is in the room.  And in government, once a position/procedure/protocol is established it goes on forever.

Hanukkah, Athens vs. Jerusalem & Vice Presidents?

Reposted from TerrorWonk, where it appeared on December 12, 2012.

Jews around the world are now well into Chanukkah, which like most Jewish holidays has some really fun surface stuff (presents, gambling, and fried food), and deeper meanings.  Hanukkah celebrates a military victory.  During the Hellenic Age, Israel was under the rule of Selucids of Syria - a dynasty established by one of Alexander the Great's generals.  He sought to Hellenize the Jews.  Plenty of Jews were open to this new culture, but traditionalists opposed it and when the Greeks began pushing for pagan sacrifices in Jewish temples the traditionalists revolted.  The Jews won, threw off the yoke of Greek oppression and made a holiday out of it.

But this goes deeper because it was a clash between two already ancient yet revolutionary civilizations with deep cultures.  It is a clash that has continued through the ages in various forms.  Perhaps now it is best understood as a tension, but this tension often referred to as the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem is one of the great drivers of Western civilization.

I will not elaborate on this conflict.  I remember the speaker at my graduation from St. John's College characterizing it as the conflict between freedom (Athens) and equality (Jerusalem) and he didn't have much use for the latter.  I didn't have much use for the speaker.  I thought the conflict was more reason vs. transcendence - but I'm just a tourist in this land.  It might be spinakopita vs. falafel for all I know.

But there are big differences between Greek and Jewish culture.  Inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi are the words "know thyself."

Inscribed above synagogue arks around the world are the words, "know before whom you stand."

People visited the oracles seeking wisdom and advice about the challenges they faced and for help making tough decisions.  There are more than a few stories about generals seeking the oracular wisdom before a crucial battle.  The visit to the oracle was to obtain information to help the seeker move forward in the world and for that knowing oneself is of great value.

But at synagogue people stand before the Almighty to pray.  Certainly one can pray for benefits, but prayer is much more complicated than that.  It might be understood as a humbling connection with the awesome existence of all creation.  The inscription above the ark is a rejoinder that what is being done is no joke and that the one praying is a tiny piece of an enormous cosmos - wisdom is to be found in humility.

Perhaps the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem can be characterized by AJ Heschel's characterization of space and time (or maybe Saul Bellow on the self vs the soul).  Space is the physical world around us.  Greek discoveries in science, technology, and organization dramatically expanded humanity's ability to master the physical world - a baby step towards the comfortable modern society we currently enjoy.  We are tiny in the face of the universe, but in our immediate human dominated surroundings we can forget that.  Time, in contrast, is simply beyond human control and quickly stretches our powers of comprehension.  The best we can do is come to terms with this.  Jewish theology and practice can provide some small succor and give birth to other monotheistic religions that could also provide this comfort.

And VPs?
Right, but let's bring this back to my obsession - the vice president.  The words at Delphi and the words above the synagogue ark are both useful pieces of wisdom - but they depend on one's circumstance.

The President, has risen to the pinnacle of achievement, but faces the endless challenges of the one on top - the big boss.  The President must know him (her) self.  What are my strengths, weaknesses, what can I do and what can't I do?  In consulting the oracles (political consultants) the President must weigh their advice against his own abilities and tendencies in his efforts for worldly success.

The Vice President is effectively powerless, except when the President listens.  The Vice President requires tremendous humility - not easy for a politician who is extremely accomplished in their own right.  Presidents are not the Almighty - but a Vice President must know the one before whom they stand and be humble in the face of their ultimate responsibility.

OK - it was a reach - but this is how people writing dissertations start to think.  If there is an oracle for PhD students it should probably have the wisdom - know for whom you write.

Mannes in Politico on the Republican Future

Politico asked if Republicans need to cut their ties to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? I answered the question, but not quite directly.

My regular fans (assuming I have any) know that I am quite taken with Steve Skowronek's schema of the presidency.

One of his observations is that dominant political orders arise when the previous order is beholden to its various constituencies and can no longer take the actions needed to govern. Reagan established a new political order when the Democrats, in great part because of their commitments to their primary constituencies, could not effectively address the nation's fundamental problems.

Now, decades later, the same is happening to the Republicans. Reagan's rhetoric of cutting taxes and shrinking government resonated when top tax rates were 70 percent and the Democratic party shaped by FDR and LBJ had a reflexive response to every social problem of enacting a giant government program.

Three decades later, with Republicans effectively shaping the national political discourse, they are trapped by the weight of their history. Reagan did thus and such, so key constituencies of the party expect to continue on that course. But those responses, so necessary in the 1980s are less salient today. Smart Republicans want more flexibility. In the 1980s Reagan articulated messages of morality and personal responsibility that many welcomed. (Important note: That Reagan articulated messages of morality is not to imply that Democrats were in any way personally immoral. Personal weakness knows no party. Rather Reagan was able to discuss these issues in a manner that reached many Americans.) Now, decades later this message has become shrill, preachy, and at times downright offensive - the American people seem to have had about enough of it and it offers little guidance to the real problems faced by the American people.

But important components of the Republican party will insist on this, their own constituencies and livelihoods depend on them - and they believe in these values. It will be hard to distance the party from their own stalwarts.

Skowronek observes that after a dominant political order collapses, the losing party slowly learns its lessons and becomes the party of flexibility and maneuver because without those attributes they will be shut out from power. In a world shaped by Reagan, Bill Clinton became a great Republican president who pushed for a major free trade treaty, balanced the budget, and initiated welfare reform. But that only happened after nearly a decade in the wilderness and a series of devastating defeats.

----

That is what I wrote, now a few additional thoughts. First, I don't think Obama is the transformational president, I believe he is in the category of Clinton, what Skowronek calls a pre-emotive President. The Republican order may have one last gasp. They still have control over the House and did manage to get 48% of the popular vote. But their next President will face impossible demands from his own constituencies and be, effectively a Republican Jimmy Carter. (This will be followed by an order establishing Democratic President - but I am far from ready to predict the details.)

Bigger then that is the question overshadowing Presidential studies: the man or the moment? So much of what we assert as Presidential leadership is a decision made that was incredibly constrained by political realities. Every President has a few specific programs that are "theirs.". Carter seized on the Panama Canal Treaty and Middle East Peace as the foreign policy centerpieces of his administration. But in 1981 nearly any Republican President would have cut taxes. In the 1990s, facing a hostile Congress any Democratic President would have played defense and focused on small initiatives rather then big government programs.

Christie as VP: The Fun We Missed

Rumor has it Romney’s first pick for VP was New Jersey Governor ChrisChristie.  Neat how stuff starts to come out as the election gets closer.  Reportedly, Christie didn’t show the discipline the Romney campaign likes to see – showing up late to campaign events.  One can see Christie’s electoral/political appeal.  His brashness and earthiness would have contrasted nicely with the polished and heavily scripted Romney.  A Biden-Christie debate would have been a blast!

It still probably wouldn’t have made much difference, VP choices usually don’t and Ryan was also a solid pick.  Although Ryan does look a lot like a Romney offspring...

It is interesting to think how Hurricane Sandy would have played in the campaign with Christie as vice presidential candidate.  Christie probably would have needed to drop campaigning to manage the disaster that struck his state.  Although this would have been mentioned constantly in the news so it might not have hurt the campaign’s exposure.  If he had appeared effective the storm response might have even helped the campaign.

One of the reasons the story about Christie’s almost being the VP pick came out is because Christie has praised Obama’s aid to NewJersey.  There are rumors of bad blood between Christie and Romney now.

But what if Christie were the VP candidate?  Would he have still praised the federal aid to the state – possibly appearing magnanimous, above politics, and pragmatic?  Would he have criticized it and insisted he and Romney would have done it much better?  The political analysis would have been so much fun (probably irrelevant, but fun.)

Christie as Governing Partner

Following the theme of my work on the vice presidency, I still argue that Christie would not have been a good VP choice.  First, looking at historical data the last two governors to be vice president were disasters – Rockefeller and Agnew.  The former was too big for the job; the latter was too small.  Granted this was four decades ago, but what has really changed?  Governors are captains of their own ship, within their state environment they are the 500 lb. gorilla.  They don’t have to ask someone else if they can travel, give a speech, or how to structure their time.  Given this experience, serving as someone else’s number two does not come easily.

From the President’s viewpoint a governor also is a problematic VP.  The VP slot is a chance to bring an extremely experienced advisor into the White House.  Presidents have no shortage of advisors of course – almost anyone in the world who is an expert on anything would be happy to drop whatever they are doing to brief the President.  But an experienced Senator or House member with high-level knowledge of some issues can not only bring policy background but also knowledge of the people and institutions that Presidents have to deal with - what I've called (stealing a line from F. Scott Fitzgerald) "the whole equation."  Several recent vice presidents were experienced Senators and their Presidents found their counsel on the Senate invaluable.  Some recent vice presidents have brought substantial knowledge of international affairs or military affairs.  On a key issue it isn’t just a matter of identifying the preferred policy, but how to get that policy through Congress or get the appropriate allied nations to buy in.

Chris Christie appears to be a talented politician, but there is little he could tell a President Romney about how to deal with the Senate or the leadership of NATO – he would face the same learning curve as his President and that learning curve is steep.

Should Hillary replace Joe?

There are other things to write about in the world, but when the Politico Arena asks about the vice president, I must answer the call (and enjoy the 10 days every four years that anyone actually cares about the vice president). The other day, in the wake of Biden's obnoxious comments, the Arena question of the day was about Hillary replacing Biden. A fun rumor, but it is not going to happen.

I wrote:

First, replacing the vice president is almost always a bad play.

The last president to pull it off and win re-election was FDR. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush Senior (or at least some of their advisors) all toyed with doing it, but there were constituencies in the party that rallied behind the VP. The one president to actually remove his vice president and replace him in the past half-century was Gerald Ford. Replacing Rockefeller with Sen. Dole (who came off badly in the debates with Walter Mondale) probably wasn't what defeated the ticket but it certainly didn't help.

On the off-chance this could be engineered, Hillary would not be a good replacement. This is not due to any fault of her own. She has proven savvy and capable as secretary of state and her experience as an active first lady legitimately gives her insight into the unique pressure cooker that is the White House. However, she brings her husband and he is problematic baggage. Again, this is not through any fault of his own, but rather because ex-presidents need to be kept a healthy distance from the Oval Office. Bush Senior was rarely around when his son was president and Reagan stayed away from Bush Senior. These were sound precedents and should continue.

A few additional notes. First back in the nineties I was a bit of a Clinton-hater, I have come to respect the virtues (irony alert) of the Clinton Administration.  But I still think ex-Presidents need to stay off the main-stage.  That being said, nothing prepares one for the Presidency like serious time in the White House.

Biden's comments were pretty bad, and if it were a Republican probably would have far more blowback.  One of the difficult things about politics is how policy preferences and values began confused in the public debate.  Opposition to a specific policy intended to help a community or population does not mean those opposed hate that population.  It means they have legitimate questions about the efficacy of that policy or the whether that policy should be prioritized.  That is not to say that this opposition is not at times a cover for unacceptable views but one should not leap to that conclusion.  Being a Republican does not mean I don't care about the (fill in the blank here - poor, women, African-Americans.)  It means I have questions as to whether the policies Democrats prefer will help that population or whether the other costs of that policy will outweigh the benefits.

Ryan as Governing Partner

So we have a VP candidate and the media have something to talk about.  The term game-changer will be used as punctuation in every comment about it.

VeepCritique will not be left out, however the focus here is on the vice president as governing partner.  So let’s dispense quickly with the politics of Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan and rush to how a Romney-Ryan team might work together.

The Politics of Picking Ryan

The impact of the vice presidential candidate is nearly always over-estimated (historic analysis is pretty consistent on this) and usually involves trade-offs.  The candidate that appeals to the unaffiliated voter will perturb the base and vice-versa.  There is no magic bullet in VP selection, the key is to do no harm and maybe get a bit of help.

This choice was over-shadowed by McCain’s unfortunate selection of Sarah Palin.  Romney wanted to avoid this at all costs and he did.  Ryan is young and telegenic (and really does look like he could be another member of the Romney brood.)  But he is not an amateur; Ryan has been in the House of Representatives for seven terms and has become the party’s leading spokesman on the budget.  One does not get that far in life merely by being cute.

Whether or not Ryan’s views will hurt or help Romney’s candidacy is tough to say.  His budget plan gives plenty of fodder for the Democrats to rally their base – just as it gives the Republicans plenty of fodder to rally theirs.  How it will impact the undecided voters is tough to say (presumably the ultra-analytical Romney team has done some pretty serious study of this question.)  But most voters don’t do in-depth studies of complex issues, they make their decisions based on general impressions.  Republicans mean less government and taxes – Democrats mean more government and taxes.  The rest is commentary.

Finally, over the next decade the budget will be THE ISSUE.  The United States is facing some pretty serious fiscal challenges – we can address them (we are the wealthiest society in history) but the sooner we do so the less difficult the adjustment.  Ideally we would have taken this stuff on in the 1990s.  One may not agree with Ryan’s plan – but at least he is in the game in a serious way.

Ryan as Governing Partner

The top determinant for the vice president’s role in an administration is whether or not the president is inclined to turn to his vice president for advice on critical decisions.  It is unknown if Ryan and Romney have this kind of relationship.  Often this friendship is forged in the heat of the campaign as the individuals and their staffs learn to work together.

One past indicator is that older Presidents do not tend to take advice from younger vice presidents.  The most influential vice presidents in recent years have been Mondale (four years younger then the President), Gore (two years younger then the President), Cheney (Cheney five years older then the President), and Biden (19 years older then the President.)  Quayle, by contrast, was 23 years younger then President Bush Sr. Another example is Eisenhower who was 23 years older then Nixon.  This is the age difference between Ryan and Romney – it is not destiny, the sample of President-Vice President relationships is extremely small.  But it could be a factor.

That being said, Ryan would almost certainly have a role in a Romney White House.  It is extremely difficult to block the vice president out of the policy process.  The West Wing office along with access to White House meetings and the President have become traditional perquisites of the vice president.  They are not enshrined in law, but it would be embarrassing to remove them.  It would be a public admission that the President did not have confidence in the Vice President.

Vice presidents strongly associated with a wing of their party are often expected to be their advocate within the White House.  They are usually disappointed.  The vice president can make the case, but ultimately the president decides and the vice president must publicly support the decision or risk alienating the commander-in-chief.  Most vice presidents have advocated forcefully for positions that were not in line with their previous political views (and which they may have privately opposed).

Vice presidents are probably at their most influential as a high-level sounding board that can compensate for a President’s analytical weaknesses.  President Carter, an engineer by training, labored over details in an effort to find perfect technical solutions.  Mondale sought to remind him of the political realities that had to be taken into consideration.  In contrast, Clinton had a fine-tuned political antenna and maneuvered according. Gore would counsel him to take stands on principle.

Whether Romney is open to having Ryan play this role is an open question.  Ryan will almost certainly play an active role as advisor, administration spokesperson, and point of contact with Congress.  Whether or not he will also be a source of influence in the administration is difficult to know, not only for outside observers, but probably for the candidates themselves.

Romney's VP Options: A Resume-based Analysis

The question of personal chemistry is unknown to outsiders. There are rumors that Romney and Pawlenty have a warm friendship, but these are rumors. All of the top choices are experienced politicians who have probably had to learn to get along with their colleagues. 

That leaves the issue of experience. The Presidency is a job like no other. Romney is a capable individual with a variety of experience, but there is little doubt that he will find very steep learning curves with many aspects of the Presidency. At a recent forum at the Brookings Institute, Ambassador Chase Untermeyer, who was an assistant to Vice President Bush and then head of Presidential Personnel in the George H. W. Bush White House, observed that Capitol Hill experience should be a pre-requisite for the vice presidency. The last two vice presidents who came from governorships to the vice presidency were Agnew and Rockefeller – both had difficult experiences in their new role. Congress is a unique institution and a new president who does not know it well himself will need counsel and will probably benefit from his VP’s personal contacts. 

In terms of Hill experience the leaders, by far, are Rep. Ryan and Sen. Portman. Both were elected to the House of Representatives seven times. But Portman was also elected to the Senate and has the additional virtues of substantial executive experience close to the White House as a staffer, OMB chief, and US Trade Representative. All of these positions are in areas where Romney may find that he needs an experienced hand to offer assistance and advice. 

On the one aspect of the VP selection process that is clear to outsiders (resume) Portman has a strong lead. But there are many other factors – including the all-important issue of personal chemistry.

It occurs to me, I did not address the question of Chris Christie.  He is a talented politician and interesting character.  But he has been governor of New Jersey for less then 3 years.  Prior to that he was US attorney for New Jersey for six years.  This is important experience, but not electoral experience.  Most importantly, Christie's background suggests little that substantially augments areas where Romney is weak - experience with Washington and international affairs.

Another candidate worth a bit more examination is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.  He has a bit of Washington experience - 3 years in the House and 2 years as Asst. Secretary at HHS.  He is an extraordinarily capable politician and young enough to have multiple shots at the presidency himself.  But his Washington experience is slender and offers Romney little complementary experience.

Finally Rubio also has only two years of Washington experience, thus not bringing the right skill set to the table.