This is an unusual day for me. Most days, I can find something in the Boston Globe that's just plain stupid politically, and today's no exception. But for once, the dumbness isn't based on their bias, but just plain ignorance.
Today, they ran a column by a former CEO of John Hancock Financial Services. Mr. D'Alesandro thinks we should make the office of the vice-presidency an elected one, independent of the presidency.
Mr. D'Alessandro puts together a few good arguments, but he overlooks some stark political realities. The biggest is in looking at the very nature and role of the vice president.
Go and look at the United States Constitution. The sole duty given to the vice-president is to preside over the Senate -- and only vote if there is a tie.
That's it.
Everything else relegated to the vice president is purely potential. They can assume the powers of the president upon the president's disability or absence. They become president upon the president's premature removal. And they have a part to play in declaring the president disabled.
Translation: every single power of the vice president -- apart from Capitol Hill -- is derived from the good will of the presidency. The president can entrust the veep with all manner of authority and responsibility -- and can take it back at whim.
That means that the office of veep is worth, as one of its occupants put it, "a bucket of warm spit." (Personally, I believe the rumors that reporters cleaned up Mr. Garner's language, which referred to an entirely different bodily fluid.)
Which makes the compatibility of the president and vice-president absolutely essential if the vice-president is to have anything at all to do.
Perhaps Mr. D'Alessandro's idea could work, if it was combined with giving the vice-president a bit of authority on his own. But I don't think so. That would detract from the singular power of the chief executive, and that is an essential part of our government.
So yeah, the office of the vice-presidency is, by and large, an afterthought, an "appendix" of the body politic. But as any good doctor will tell you, you don't pre-emptively remove it. You wait until it proves a problem. In the meantime, it isn't causing any real problems -- and this "fix" would only make it worse.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (12)
Also, we've tried the VP as... (Below threshold)1. Posted by meep | September 17, 2007 7:22 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Also, we've tried the VP as runner-up in electoral votes and it didn't turn out so well. I see no problem with voting for Pres & VP as a package deal. There may be more difficulty when the VP was never voted on (such as with Gerald Ford), but that's something different.
1. Posted by meep | September 17, 2007 7:22 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 07:22
2. Posted by jpm100 | September 17, 2007 7:38 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I think these thoughts arise from the use of "Darth" Cheney as an advisor. This is not unlike wanting to ditch the electoral college. At least until a Democrat wins again by the electoral college rules, then they will be a.o.k. The same will go for when Democrats take the Presidency again. Then it will be all about maintaining tradition.
2. Posted by jpm100 | September 17, 2007 7:38 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 07:38
3. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | September 17, 2007 8:09 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Two notes: first, we started out with exactly this system, and the second amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was to fix it, because it failed in practice; second, the VP was designed this way because presiding over the Senate was considered critical enough to merit a constitutionally-protected office. The founders were, largely, Whigs (even if not by party affiliation), seeing the legislative branch as the preeminent branch of government.
3. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | September 17, 2007 8:09 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 08:09
4. Posted by moseby | September 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Chalk it up to "doddering old fool" syndrome like greenspan. Man, we got him out in time, eh?
4. Posted by moseby | September 17, 2007 10:08 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 10:08
5. Posted by spurwing plover | September 17, 2007 10:16 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And when the veep had that hunting accedent last year the liberal left-wing news media went on a feeding frenzie as they always do no wonder the sharks and vultures dislike them
5. Posted by spurwing plover | September 17, 2007 10:16 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 10:16
6. Posted by Scrapiron | September 17, 2007 11:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Congress is already one of the most dis-respected organizations in the country, only slightly above the MSM. Let them try this and they'll fall below the media, a short fall, but a negative (below 0) number by those that approve of the democrat congress will look even worse.
6. Posted by Scrapiron | September 17, 2007 11:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 11:45
7. Posted by wavemaker | September 17, 2007 12:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
D'Alessandro is a twit. Since he's given up his High Horse (left Hancock), he's been trying to establish himself as some big political essayist. He's got an ego the size of Rhode Island and the political sense of Alfred E Neuman.
7. Posted by wavemaker | September 17, 2007 12:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 12:07
8. Posted by Mikey NTH | September 17, 2007 5:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As Jeff and meep said, we tried this before. It didn't work. Can you imagine 1980 with this system? Ronald Reagan president, former president Jimmy Carter vice-president. Oh that would have been fun!
Or two separate slots? Ronald Reagan president, Walter Mondale vice-president?
Talk about incoherent!
8. Posted by Mikey NTH | September 17, 2007 5:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 17, 2007 17:59
9. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The tradition the Bush Administration broke was wasting the talents of a fine person by making them Veep.
=====================
9. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 18, 2007 07:49
10. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just think what Al Gore might have matured into if he hadn't spent 8 years in situation where no one took him seriously. On second thought, nevermind.
========================================================
10. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:52 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 18, 2007 07:52
11. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:53 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
On third thought, no one's ever taken Al Gore seriously, except himself. And it shows.
====================================
11. Posted by kim | September 18, 2007 7:53 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 18, 2007 07:53
12. Posted by moseby | September 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wait one damn minute!! al gore serves a purpose!! I love pointing and laffing at that clown!!
12. Posted by moseby | September 18, 2007 10:30 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 18, 2007 10:30