Another note on the passing of the great Walter Mondale, from my friend Joel Goldstein, who has the rare distinction of being a scholar of the vice presidency.
[image_caption]Joel Goldstein[/image_caption]
Goldstein, now an emeritus professor at the St. Louis University School of Law, summarized his findings on Mondale’s role in elevating the office (which Franklin Roosevelt’s first vice president, John Nance Garner, once described as an office that was “not worth a bucket of warm piss”) to an unprecedented significance that seems to have changed it permanently, in a fresh essay for the History News Network.
It’s not long, and you should read it all. The main point — that Mondale deeply and permanently changed the office — is not much in dispute. But Goldstein is an expert on the Mondale transformation. Here’s the opening paragraph from Goldstein’s HNN piece:
Walter F. Mondale transformed the American vice presidency. Converting that disparaged position into the true second office of the land was an historic accomplishment that tells a lot about the gifted public servant he was. Whereas others had failed to make the office consequential, Mondale created a new vision of the vice presidency and demonstrated that it could be a force for good. He reinvented the office, not as an end in itself, but to allow government to better promote the general welfare and foster a more just society and more peaceful world.
I already recommended the whole piece and here’s a link to it.
It is interesting that since Mondale transformed the office that nobody has been required to step into the top spot. Some of our most consequential presidents like T. Roosevelt, Truman, and L. Johnson ascended to the presidency in the days of the do-nothing vice presidency. Of course A. Johnson is an example of an awful president who was a vice president. At some point we will find out if a more active vice president results in a person who is more effective when taking over the presidency.
“At some point we will find out if a more active vice president results in a person who is more effective when taking over the presidency.”
One would certainly think so. If the “norm” is that the person selected for VP will have consistent input and influence on day to day operations, it is (hopefully) less likely to see another Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin:
“This person is my full partner and confidant and will be in the room when every significant decision is made”
Agnew, Quayle, and Palin were all selected other than their capability to do the job. Agnew was supposed to appeal to the Rockefeller liberal-moderate wing of the Republican Party. Quayle was a fresh-faced relatively young man, and Sarah Palin was supposed to be gender-balancing. No one thought any of them could step in to be President (did you ever see the famous “President Agnew” ad?).
Was that the one were it shows a TV screen with Agnew and someone laughing hysterically in the background?
That was the one. I’ve only seen it on shows discussing advertising.
I had not before, but I have now:
https://6ammarketing.com/blog/1968-political-ad—laughter
And:
9th Grade Civics, 1968, Wednesday after the election: the final call Nixon V Humphrey came in during class time as we watched.
Humphrey = Biden?
Not quite so simple.
I’ll give you Truman, but for TR and LBJ had major political careers before becoming President; they were well acquainted with the mechanics of government.
Harris had also been a (very unsuccessful) Presidential candidate as well as a Senator, District Attorney and Attorney General.
Very different from Quayle and Palin.
Good story, by both Eric and Professor Goldstein. I hope Biden follows in Carter’s footsteps in that regard, giving Kamala Harris an opportunity to further develop her chops as an administrator and policy-maker, as well as a source for advice and counsel that, like Mondale, doesn’t stick to the “Yes man” model followed by others – most recently Mike Pence, who should, along with his egocentric boss, go down in infamy.
The chief difficulty with the office is that the Constitution merely grants it the power to preside over the senate and break ties. Apparently the Framers had no thoughts that the VP would even be part of the executive branch. A “vice president” seemed a sort of necessity in the days of sudden deaths at age 50 so it was created, with no real thought of any real ongoing function. The office was simply poorly conceived from the get-go.
As the giant corporation that is the US government evolved, it only made sense that the CEO president would find some actual work for the corporation’s (only) vice president to do. What’s incredible is that it took took so long to do so. It’s not like it was hard from the 20th Century on to find massive national problems that needed increased executive coordination. Then of course with this “development” in the office we have the huge potential problem of the Cheney presidency (or the Bush Potemkin Presidency, take your pick) where the people had no idea whom they had really elected as president.
Another complication is that it has come to be expected that the VP toes the company line in all things; that’s the required “loyalty oath”. Of course this can be taken to the ridiculous levels of Agnew and (lately) the hapless Pence, to whom Trumpolini never entrusted anything. Supposedly Humphrey chafed at this problem. So we have situations like Papa Bush pledging fealty to presidents that they derided during primaries. Obviously Harris and Biden fit this mold as well.