“Potatoe” Kings Why Vice Presidents Are Doomed From the Start Tyler Isaman P-O-T-A-T-O. The word was scratched on the old blackboard in crisp white chalk causing a comforting smile stretched across the Vice President’s painfully young face. The clean cut, black suit that hung off Dan Quayle’s shoulders and the red patterned tie that was fastened tightly around his neck gave him an air of importance and intellect. William Figueroa, on the other hand, was an overweight Puerto Rican sixth-grader in a plain blue tee shirt who had to travel over an hour by bus to get to Trenton’s Muñoz Rivera School’s spelling bee. "You're close," Quayle said, "but you left a little something off. The e on the end."1 William looked at his vice president, the man who was second-in-command of the free world, then slowly scratched an “e” on the blackboard. Moments later at a press conference a reporter entreated Quayle to spell “potato” and the media debacle began, forever implanting the misspelled “potatoe” next to Quayle’s name in American history. This, coming only months after millions watched “Danny Boy” get affronted by Senator Lloyd Bentsen at the vice presidential debate, sparked further questions about whether or not Dan Quayle was competent enough to be the next President of the United States if there was an emergency. Quayle’s embarrassment follows a pattern that appears relatively often in vice presidential memoirs. A young, fresh faced man who has just dipped his feet into politics is suddenly up for the position of vice president. But, upon accepting the great honor that John Adams called, “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived,” he suddenly realizes that he is unprepared to handle such a position. Or, 1 Allen Raymond and Ian Spiegelman, How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative, (Simon and Schuster, 2008). 1 even more frequent, is the story of the vice president who was chosen during a stressful election period. Suddenly, through national tragedy, the vice president assumes the role of president only to realize that he does not agree with his predecessor’s polices. In fact, many who get elected to the position disagree with their president on key issues, or, like Dan Quayle, agree on the issues but were clearly chosen for the wrong reasons and are not the best candidate to succeed to the presidency. The fact of the matter is that vice presidents are often not the most qualified people to be president is often a result of the president himself or his party. There are two goals of presidential nominees: to get elected and to choose a vice president who will be effective in handling ongoing duties and as a presidential successor. The problem with these two goals is that they can potentially compete with each other because, as Douglas Kriner, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University, points out in a recent Presidential Studies Quarterly segment, “the latter [of these goals] is meaningless without the former.”2 This mentality frequently causes candidates to become blinded to the possibility that their running mate is not, in fact, the most qualified person to succeed to the presidency. To them the vice president is only a politically expedient choice to gain an electoral or popular vote advantage in the general election. To presidential candidates and their parties, the vice presidency provides the means to gain a very specific end. While the position might not originally have enormous pull, to undecided voters a familiar face in the vice presidential spot could be the small push they need to vote Republican or Democrat. So by geographically, ethnically, or demographically choosing their running mates, possible presidents can sway the electorate. The problem with having the relationship between the president and vice President be a political marriage of convenience is 2 Douglas Kriner, “Institutional Change and the Dynamics of Vice Presidential Selection,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, September 2008, 21. 2 that it creates several problems, the most pressing of which is that it often leads to radical, immoral, or inexperienced candidates who are unfit to take over the presidency. Surprisingly, there are no rules about who is considered able to take over the presidency, because the description of the vice presidency has, for the most part, been left to personal interpretation. The Framers of the Constitution spent four grueling months delineating the roles of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the presidency in hot, humid Philadelphia, before even considering the vice presidential position. Today it is known that the Framers, who were more concerned about what would happen to the balance of power if misfortune left the president unable to perform his or her duties, created the job as an afterthought. As evidence, James Madison’s, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 proves that the Committee of Unfinished Portions created the position of vice president on September 4 as an alteration to resolutions drafted on August 31 that same year. On September 4, the addition of a paragraph in section 1, article 10 established the Electoral College as the method of electing the president, and stated, the person with second highest number of votes would become vice president. Madison’s September 4 notes on section 3 describe the vice president’s job as, “ex officio President of the Senate,” who “shall not have a vote unless the House be equally divided.”3 This amendment also marked the first time the word “vice president” was even used in the Convention. Amid this new idea of “vice president,” debate swirled about the legitimacy of the position, the separation of powers, and the best way to select such an official. Madison notes that Elbridge Gerry “opposed [having the vice president preside over the Senate],” claiming, “We might as well put the President himself at the head of the Legislature. The close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president makes it absolutely improper.”4 Roger 3 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, (W. W. Norton & Company, 1987). 4 Ibid. 3 Sherman, on the other hand, “saw no danger in the case,” arguing, “if the vice-president were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member by being made President must be deprived of his vote, unless when an equal division of votes might happen in the Senate, which would be but seldom.”5 In the end, both Mason and Gerry refused to add their names to the Constitution because, among other reasons, they opposed the vice president being head of the Senate. However, what is most interesting about the debate surrounding the vice presidency, is that both Gerry and Sherman were right. Having the vice president be head of the Senate would put him in two branches of our government, but without the Vice President holding that job, he would have no real authority at all. This is the main reason the vice presidential position is so complicated; the position seems to have to straddle two branches and countless organizations, but realistically holds little power. Currently in the United States government, the vice president’s job description is as follows: President of the US Senate, National Security Council member, diplomatic representative, presidential advisor, deputy leader of the party, and President-in-waiting. The two priorities of the vice president, President-in-waiting and President of the Senate, function in two very different branches of American government, making the position, as Walter Mondale said, a very “awkward office.”6 Asking if the vice president is an Executive Branch member who spends some of his time performing Legislative duties, or a Legislative member who spends some of his time performing Executive duties is similar to asking if a zebra is black with white stripes or white with black stripes. Mondale rightly described the vice presidential position as, “a public officer, the only one in our government system who belongs to both the executive branch and the legislative branch. But for most of our history, since the vice presidents were in both 5 Ibid. 6 Walter Mondale, Address by Vice President Walter Mondale, The Leader's Lecture Series, United States Senate (4 Sept. 2002) 4 branches, they have been treated as if they were in neither.”7 The job of the vice president blurs the line between the Executive and Legislative branches and so creates a level of uncertainty. The positions lack of a defined jurisdiction caused officials to not know where the vice president’s desk should be housed. In fact, it was not until Nixon, who held the position under Eisenhower, that the vice president had an office anywhere in the Executive Branch, and it wasn’t until President Carter that the vice president was given an office in the West Wing.8 This is one example of how the Carter presidency marked real growth in the position of vice president. Under Carter, for the first time, the vice president became a senior adviser and troubleshooter for the president, and had real influence.9 In 1976, Carter was a little known governor who won the presidential nomination by surprise, so by choosing an experienced running mate he in many ways legitimized his ticket. This form of ticket balancing worked out, however, because he formed a close relationship and collaborated with Mondale on several issues including foreign policy, and Mondale’s position quickly moved from a figurehead to a respected leader. Since Mondale, other vice presidents have retained some of the resources that were available to him such as his weekly lunches with the President.