Dick Cheney & the Future of the Vice Presidency
By Christopher Keith Wimbush, President of GW Discourse
The Rise and Fall of a Vice President
Much ink has been spilled on Richard B. Cheney, arguably the most powerful Vice President in American history. Cheney, a former congressman, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary of Defense, has been a central player in domestic and foreign policy developments at the White House since being elected in 2001. He has spearheaded the administration’s efforts in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq, coordinated the expansion of the government’s domestic security apparatus at the expense of civil liberties, and pursued a neoconservative agenda on the national stage, all while serving as the President’s and the GOP’s attack-dog. During the first six years of Bush’s term, key members of the President’s cabinet were former Cheney colleagues and ideological disciples, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former World Bank President, Iraq War architect, and former Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Until recently, Cheney marginalized and isolated more moderate and pragmatic members of the administration, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor, Condoleezza Rice.
While the Vice President was definitely a political asset during Bush’s first term, he has increasingly come under harsh criticism and condemnation. Heavy Republican losses in the 2006 Midterm Elections, U.S. failures in Iraq, accusations that Cheney bullied intelligence analysts into supporting his claims that Saddam Hussein was not only developing Weapons of Mass Destruction but was linked to the 9/11 attacks, and the conviction of Cheney’s former Chief of Staff L. Scooter Libby for lying to investigators looking into the CIA leak case have caused some to question if Cheney has become a distraction to a White House already under siege. A recent Gallop Poll taken the week of March 11th, 2007 found support for the Vice President at 34% with 56% of Americans saying they disapprove of the job Cheney is doing.[i] When asked in a CNN Poll, “do you think he [Cheney] is qualified to serve as president if it becomes necessary, or not,” 60% of Americans deemed him “unqualified.”[ii]
The Modern Vice Presidency: Gore, Bush, Mondale
While many Americans clearly have a negative perception of the Vice President and his role in the Bush cabinet, Dick Cheney’s expansion of the Office of the Vice President has been in keeping with recent trends dating back to Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush and Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who had an extensive legislative background, complemented President Clinton’s experience as a governor and state attorney general. Gore acted as a middleman between the White House and Congress as well as a senior advisor on a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues. Gore also led the National Performance Review, which served as the nucleus of President Clinton’s efforts to shrink the size of the federal government and streamline its operations.[iii] While relations between Clinton and Gore soured after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and during 2000 Presidential Election, Gore’s role in the Clinton White House was indeed a strong one.[iv]
As United States Ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. Representative to China, and Director of Central Intelligence, (Vice) President George H.W. Bush was able to leverage his previous experience and access to President Reagan in order to be an effective voice and manager in the administration. President Carter’s Vice President, Walter Mondale, was the first modern VP to convert the office from what Vice President John Nance Garner IV said was “not worth a bucket of warm spit” to an active component of the White House Staff. However, not all recent Vice Presidents have had strong roles in governing the country. Dan Quayle was widely belittled by the political establishment for his perceived lack of intelligence, and Nelson Rockefeller was given few responsibilities before being dropped from the ticket during in the 1976 election. Despite these two examples, modern predecessors have taken an increasingly larger role in White House affairs, stunting criticism that Chaney unilaterally enhanced the office during his time as Vice President.
A New Model for the Vice Presidency
While Vice President Cheney’s legacy may be permanently linked to that of George W. Bush, I believe the strengthening of vice presidential powers he has continued has been advantageous to the presidency. It is from this continued evolution of the Vice Presidency that I hope a much needed paradigm shift in the role of the Vice President will take place. In an age of terrorism and globalization, international and domestic concerns have become too much for any one person to manage. While many of the afore mentioned Vice Presidents stepped up to the plate to assist their Presidents in managing the country, I believe future Vice Presidents should take on a more expansive role: a formalized and statutory function in governmental processes. The Vice President would serve as the Chief Operating Officer of the United States Government. In this new model, responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the federal government and policy implementation would be given to the Vice President to coordinate with the Cabinet.
This would make the position more analogous to the Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Japanese Secretariat System in that the Vice President would preside over and coordinate the functions of the cabinet, serve as the President’s representative to Congress, and be a more public face for the administration. Of course policy development, strategic planning, and all of the traditional powers and duties of the presidency would continue to rest with the President, whose role would now be (and has really already become) equivalent to a corporate Chief Executive Office of a major multinational corporation. In other words, while the President is on the road selling his plan or engaging in high-stakes diplomacy, the VP can be back at the White House, minding the store and making sure the trains run on time. A change like the one I’m proposing would have a dramatic effect on presidential elections. No longer could the Vice Presidency be a dumping ground for political undesirables or simply a stepping stone for future political office. In choosing a running mate, a presidential candidate would have to pick someone with deep policy, management, and political skills, as well as someone who could execute the President’s agenda without hesitation.
This article is not the first time that a proposal has been made to change the nature of the Vice Presidency. On the eve of California Governor Ronald Reagan’s acceptance of the Republican Party’s nomination in 1980 in Detroit, there was a thirty hour period in which serious talks were going on about the possibility of former President Gerald Ford becoming an “uber-vice president” with the power to coordinate domestic, economic, and budget policy.[v] While the plan eventually fell through and Reagan went on to tap George H.W. Bush as his vice president, the idea of shifting management authority to the Vice President is a reasonable measure in an age of complex and inefficient government.
A properly planned and structured shift to this model could remove some burdens from the shoulders of both the President and the White House staff. In addition, a single point-person (and professional support staff) managing the fourteen federal departments and coordinating policy execution across overlapping arenas could provide unrealized synergies and effective government. Hurricane Katrina and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are three examples of where this model could prove beneficial. In the case of Katrina, a lack of coordination and a game of interagency “hot potato” between the White House, FEMA, the Department of Homeland, and the Department of Defense prompted a bungled response to the crisis. Under my proposal, the Vice President could assume command of the recovery, issuing directives to different cabinet agencies and providing a single point of contact for state and local officials in need of help. This would cut out the existing bureaucratic and unresponsive multi-agency/department command structure and provide real results. Iraq and Afghanistan presents an interesting case in that the White House recently put out a call for a new “policy execution czar”that would compensate for the White House’s inability to respond to requests on the ground and settle disputes between the Departments of State and Defense on stabilization and reconstruction.[vi] In my proposed idea, the Vice President, free from bureaucratic fighting, would be in the best position to settle differences and achieve goals.
None of my proposal is possible as long as the current administration remains in place. However, short of a broad (and unlikely) governmental restructuring, shifting operational and coordinating responsibilities for the federal government is the only way to deal with recent failures and the increased complexity of our government. There is no doubt that any such move towards an empowered Vice Presidency would require a great deal of study and legislation to make any changes enduring and meaningful. However, the current and most recent vice presidents have at least created the environment to allow this discussion to take place. One thing is sure; it is unlikely that the 47th Vice President of the United States will be willing to just be “a warm bucket of spit.”
Share your thoughts on this article on the GW Discourse Discussion Board
[i] “Vice President Dick Cheney: Job Ratings” http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm
[ii] Ibid
[iii] “Vice President Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government,” http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/index.htm
[iv] Margaret Carlson. "When a Buddy Movie Goes Bad." Time Magazine 11 Feb. 2001. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,98988,00.html>.
[v] David M. Alpern, "How Ford Almost Became Reagan's VP," Newsweek 28 July 1980, 13 Apr. 2007 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16371870/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/>.
[vi] Peter Baker, and Thomas E. Ricks, "In White House Plan, War 'Czar' Would Cut Through Bureaucracy," The Washington Post 13 Apr. 2007, 13 Apr. 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202147.html>.