Veep Critique

What good is a VP anyway? The five ps about the V.P. - policy, process, politics, the Presidency, and my PhD

Monday, March 3, 2014

Comey v. Cheney: In a Different Light

(OK, last of my overdue cross-posts from TerrorWonk. Sorry, but this is actually one of the best blog level analyses I've done.)

James Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General who famously stood up to the administration's warrantless wire-tapping policies is back in the news because he is about to be appointed Director of the FBI.  His back-story is also relevant as US domestic intelligence collection policies are in the news.

A quick re-cap, when Jack Goldsmith took over the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ he tossed out the previous opinion that authorized the administration's domestic intelligence collection.  He persuaded Comey that the opinion authored by his predecessor and used as legal support for the adminstration's domestic intelligence collection policies was not legally sound.  One aspect of the program was that it had to be re-authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence every 45 days.  Comey, acting in Ashcroft's stead during the Attorney General's hospitalization, refused to re-authorize the program.  This led to the infamous hospital scene in which White House chief of staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alfredo Gonzales went to Ashcroft's hospital room to get him to sign and had a confrontation with Comey.  Comey took the issue to the President, warning him that appointees at the Department of Justice would resign en masse if the program were continued.  The President, who reportedly did not know the extent of DOJ's dissatisfaction with the situation, altered the program.

This story is generally taken as yet another case of Cheney's nefarious influence.  Cheney's support of the intelligence gathering policy is not in dispute and apparently there was little love lost between Cheney and Comey.  But was Cheney really in the driver's seat?  I think there is another way to view the incident - not as a matter the facts, but rather the interpretation.

First, the episode occurred in 2004.  Bush's priority would have been on his re-election campaign.  He told his vice president to keep things off of his personal agenda if it all possible.

Second, the program had been re-authorized 20 times without incident.  From Cheney's perspective the question had to be, in effect, "What now?"

Bush called the ailing Ashcroft at his hospital to press him to sign and he agreed to do so.  When Bush's people arrived though Comey was there digging his heels in.  It could be argued that Cheney might have served the President better by alerting him to these kinds of difficulties so that the administration could address the problems before they became a crisis.  But by most accounts, Bush was not passively drawn into the extensive surveillance programs - he thought they were a good idea and was a proponent of them.  So his staff was acting as his bludgeon - pushing through his preferences.

So instead of Darth Cheney, architect of a surveillance program dimly understood by his callow President - we see VP Cheney doing what VPs have done since they were given a role: help the President do whatever it is the President wants to do.

VPs do sometimes provide the "wait a minute" moments - telling Presidents a difficult truth that no one else can articulate.  Maybe it would have been wise for Cheney to play that role (as Ford's chief of staff he sought to make sure Ford heard a range of views on key issues and ensure there was an orderly policy process.)  And maybe he did that on some issues.  But the President specifically tasked Cheney with ensuring there were no more attacks against the US, and Cheney took that mission to heart.

This is an alternate take, but it is tough to know what the real truth was.  Still as I keep thinking along these lines, I remember an old SNL skit:



Surprising Influence: The Age of Biden

(Yet another overdue crosspost from my main blog TerrorWonk.  Hey don't you have something better to do, like write your dissertation? Yes...)

The last week with the dramatic fiscal cliff negotiations should have been case study gold for this vice president obsessed PhD candidate.

Biden, as all but those sensible enough to turn off the news, must know negotiated a settlement with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to avoid going headfirst over the fiscal cliff.

Many, many articles touted Vice President Biden as "the most powerful" or "the most influential" vice president in history (or at least the 2nd most powerful - tough to rival Cheney). This one, in the Atlantic.com pretty much hits the tone. There was so much of this sort of thing that in The New Republic, Timothy Noah wrote:
What we can say with some confidence is that the vice presidency has always been worth a good deal more than a bucket of warm piss, and that at least since Harry Truman became president in 1945 it’s been a pretty reliable steppingstone to the presidency. In the modern era vice presidents have tended to be powerful even when they didn’t become president, probably because their selection has been based less on party loyalty or geographic, demographic, or ideological balance and more on perceived aptitude and compatibility with the chief executive....Powerful veeps aren't news. Time to stop pretending that they are.
A few fussy points (if I'm going to be an academic, I have to learn to be fussy.) My dissertation is about the question of influence, when the vice president effectively makes policy. Is that what happened here?  Biden managed the negotiations with McConnell and reached an agreement, but was that influential or more a matter of carrying-out a difficult task? This is not to downplay Biden's role, and it is a role other VPs have played in the past. Gore negotiated all kinds of difficult issues with Russia, Ukraine, and South Africa - but he was effectively carrying out policy, not making (there were cases where he pushed for policies within the White House and he was often successful.) Mondale handled sensitive issues with the Senate on Carter's behalf, most notably the Panama Canal Treaty. But the Treaty was Carter's idea, Mondale just helped make it happen.

On many other issues, it appears that Biden has been influential, but as important as his role was, I'm not sure if it is necessarily influence.

Brother or Uncle
I have observed before that age may be an indicator in President-VP relationships. The strongest relationships were between virtual contemporaries. Carter is four years older than Mondale, while Clinton is two years older than Gore. Reagan, on the other hand, was 13 years older than Bush, while Bush was 23 years older than Quayle. I am working on some analytical methods of rating vice presidential influence, but eyeballing it would make it appear that the closer the President and Vice President are in age, the more likely the vice president is to exercise influence. Mondale and Gore were pretty influential, Bush Sr. less so, and Quayle's influence was limited.

But what about a case in which the VP is older? Cheney is five years older than Bush 43 and Biden is 19 years older than Obama. These two figures are also towards the top of the scale in vice presidential influence.

Of course there are other variables. Obama was one of the least experienced President's in modern history. Bush 43 was much more experienced and had very little background in foreign affairs, which quickly became central to his administration. Bush Sr, while younger than Reagan, was extremely experienced but faced internal opposition from Reagan loyalists. There are obviously other factors determining vice presidential influence. But still, the trend is intriging.

Al Gore Redux?

(Another way overdue cross-post from my mainblog, TerrorWonk.)

Sunday morning I caught Al Gore on Fareed Zakaria GPS hawking his new book - The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change.

He will be 68 years old in 2016 - he could make another run for the Presidency.

I don't think he will. He is having a good time writing books (his first career, before politics was as a journalist) and making lots of money. Being a politician is not all its cracked up to be, the truth is being a journalist is more fun. His split from Tipper and the sale of Current TV to al-Jazeera might be fodder for the opposition.

Plus, campaigning is hard work and by most accounts Gore did not love it - not the way Clinton did. And running brings with it the risk of losing - one can easily imagine that Gore is not ready to go through that again.

Finally, politics can be like TV - the people want a new face. This goes for many leading political figures. Gore has been on the national stage since his first run for the Presidency in 1988 (25 years ago). This also applies to some other likely candidates. Hillary, in this regard, suffers from her association with her husband - we've now had 20 years of Clintons on the national stage. Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and ran for President in 1988. Jeb Bush, on the Republican side, suffers similarly. After two Presidents Bush and a Bush in national office for 20 of the past 32 years there is no particular hunger for another President Bush.

The irony is that these well-established figures often have the resources needed to win the nomination, but then can't win the general election against a fresh face. None of this by the way is a comment on the merits of a any of these figures as a potential President. But still, it is an intriguing possibility. If, for whatever reason, Hillary and Biden opt out and none of the Democratic party's 2nd team gets traction in the 2016 primaries, is a draft Gore initiative out of the question?  He remains and impressive, engaging figure who brings up issues that resonate with much of the party's base. And Gore has the intriguing quality of "what might have been" had things in 2000 gone just a little differently.

It makes me think of the end of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises:
“Oh Jake," Brett said, "We could have had such a damned good time together."
Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The car slowed suddenly, pressing Brett against me.
"Yes," I said. "Isn't it pretty to think so?”

Story of Joseph: Viziers and Vice Presidents

(Way overdue crosspost from my main blog TerrorWonk!)

I am afraid I have nothing to say about Christmas - not my thing, but I recognize it was a profound moment for all of mankind and for those for whom it is significant I wish them all good things.

Meanwhile, around the world Jews are reading the story of Joseph (not the father of Jesus - the earlier one.)  Joseph was Jacob's favored son, his brothers resented the favoritism and sold him into slavery (ah, those were the days...)

Joseph however had a knack for falling into manure and coming out smelling like a rose.  In Egypt he got into some trouble but through ability and foresight became head of the household of the captain of Pharoah's guard.  When he rejected the entreaties of his master's wife she had him imprisoned.  Joseph quickly rose to become the superintendent of the prisoners.  He also had a talent for interpreting dreams, which reached the ear of the Pharoah - who had been having troubling dreams.  Joseph interpreted the Pharoah's dreams and was appointed vizier.  (One can easily see this tale reproduced - not as a musical, been done - but as an intrigue.)

Naturally I began to wonder, was Joseph a sort of proto-VP? (OK, I'm obsessed, but that's what doing a PhD is, a kind of obsession.)

On most levels, absolutely not.  Pharoah set Joseph above all but himself.  But he did not make Joseph his heir.  Joseph was still "help" or, as we would say it now, "staff."  Further, traditionally the vizier's role was as Executive Officer.  In effect, the XO makes sure the ship is running well, wherever the Captain wants to take it.

The U.S. Constitutional system does not really have space for a formal XO.  In some ways the White House chief of staff fulfills that role.  Sometimes there is a particularly prominent cabinet member (Jim Baker in the case of Bush Sr.) who plays the role of mayordomo.  But vice presidents tend to shy away from this role, although in rare instances they will undertake efforts on the President's behalf on particular issues in order to energize the bureaucracy.

Arguably Cheney, as Bush 43's VP did take on this role.  Cheney does not prove that the VP is inherently unsuited to this role - it is more accurate to say that many people were unhappy with his policies.  On a gut, non-analytical level, I believe that having the VP appear to run day-to-day operations is deeply unpalatable to the American people.  On a common-sensical note, the VP cannot be fired, thus if they fail as "vizier" the President is stuck.

But Joseph achieve his role through tremendous competence (everywhere he showed up he ended up being placed in charge), but also through dream interpretation.  It is not a goofy "New Age" idea that dreams often are telling us something profound.  Further, with a little elaboration, it is easy to imagine that Joseph is collecting intelligence about what's going on that helps inform his interpretation.  He was tracking palace intrigues as well as information from throughout Egypt.  So when the dreams were described, Joseph was well-placed to understand the deeper anxieties provoking them.

Vice Presidents are not dream interpreters.  The US probably does not need a President going through a  Jungian vision-quest.  But, one can imagine a VP, with his own sources of information, helping a President see where he really wants to take the country on a given issue.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

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.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

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.