I don’t envy those hearty souls in the Upper Midwest receiving a thrashing by snow but we are seeming rather wet and chilly in the Chesapeake. Mindful that loyal readers saw me mention our rain deficit of up to fourteen inches last year, I won’t outright complain about the rain but I will wish it a rapid transit so we can go from this morning’s photograph to spring flowers in abundance.
A blanket disclaimer upfront today: I am speaking of individuals’ qualifications purely based on their demonstrable information rather than anything else. I am NOT trying to cast aspersions on anyone’s character, intention, or family.
Long time readers also know I have a distinct bias I will acknowledge up front: I think it’s nuts to elect anyone to the highest positions in the country, Pres and—by extension—Vice Pres, who has not served in public elected office, preferably for several years. Governing is not a for-profit enterprise, it requires compromise, proven learning and executive abilities on public policy questions, and an appropriate temperament tested by surviving and winning campaigns where the individual puts her or himself before peers to earn their votes. Running THIS country of 340 million is not running to be the Chair of the Board for a private corporation nor is it a touchy feely seance. The trade offs, consequences, and issues are profoundly important.
I also admit I am dubious of any third party runs as our voting system is structured to favour a two party system. We can, of course, change that but it would have consequences we wouldn’t entirely agree upon either. Actions create consequences but that is not our topic today.
I vehemently opposed H. Ross Perot for failing to meet those criteria. Government is not a business, whether we like it or not. Ask the people in Baltimore about emergency decisions that need be made. I think Ralph Nader, Marianne Williamson, Carly Fiorina, and others were similarly unqualified for the presidency. Governing is a full time job with no dress rehearsals.
Robert Kennedy, Jr. is the latest in a line of folks who thinks he could wrestle the entire system into shape, I suppose, hence his run for president. He is a lawyer and a man aggressively dubious of vaccinations for public health. Again, fair disclosure: I support vaccinations as I trust replicable, tested science more than casual associations between an action and an effect—good or bad. I believe all third party candidates really run on a single issue: he doesn’t like either of the presumptive major candidates. I won’t pretend I follow his campaign in depth for the reasons noted above.
Most interesting to me, however, is the person he chose as his vice presidential nominee. Nicole Shanahan, from what I read, is a fabulously wealthy lawyer by virtue of starting, then selling a patent management company. Ms. Shanahan must have been talented in patent law which is a niche but crucial field so she has creds in that area. She is Chinese-Irish-German American, noteworthy in an era of such vehemently anti-Chinese sentiments in some quarters. Her selection may be a tribute to Kennedy’s willingness to push ethnic boundaries or to focus on a woman who has promoted women’s health issues or worked her way up from a lower level of financial security or some combination of things. It’s possible he liked the colour of the barrette in her hair for all I know. Nicole Shanahan may be the nicest woman on the planet or she may be a shrew.
She has, like Mr. Kennedy himself, shown no preparation for serving as chief executive of this country. Period. Whatever one’s personal views of Sarah Palin, she was an elected governor of a state in the union as was Mike Pence. Kamala Harris was a senator who previously served as Attorney General overseeing the administration of justice in the largest state in the Union for several years.
This peculiarly American fantasy that unelected novices from the ‘private sector’ are a massive improvement over experienced politicians is fascinating and perpetually troubling. If memory serves me, Barack Obama had been a one term Senator who, looking at his eight years in office, managed to work with an increasingly hostile legislature to accomplish a number of things. Like it or not, the Affordable Care Act was a landmark piece of legislation. I am aware Obama remains the bane of many conservatives’ preferences but he actually ran a fairly coherent, successful administration in the face of challenges. It was not completely successful as true of any and every administration but we lucked out that the former civic organiser, lawyer, and single term senator was as successful (in getting some major bills passed, bringing us out of the 2008 financial morass, and not making foreign policy worse than it was) as he was. It could have been much worse.
Prior to that, the last four non-executive presidents were Gerald Ford, House Minority leader for several years and thus a man experienced in political compromise (a trait I find more important than virtually any other for a POTUS), Richard Nixon (who famously served in the House for a term, the Senate for a term, then as Eisenhower’s vice president for eight years), Lyndon Johnson (a multi-term Texas senator who evidenced both an iron will and solicitous words where needed but had no executive experience), and the Kansas City haberdasher Harry Truman who served as the ‘Pendergast Senator’ for a while. I most certainly abhored Nixon’s abjectly appalling criminal behaviour but he, Johnson and Truman accomplished substance effectively in their positions; Ford’s term was brief. Again, things could have gone far worse in any of the three administrations. Johnson’s transformation of civil rights and expansion of social safety net provisions may be ideologically repulsive to some but was a markedly difficult task to accomplish. Nixon’s legacy included many environmental steps still in place fifty years hence.
You thought I forgot Ike? Hardly anyone ever oversaw as detailed an execution and need for compromise as the general in his Supreme Allied Commander role before, during, and after D Day in Europe. No governor, including Ronald Reagan, had a tougher job, perhaps.
The point is that simply being a fresh face without experience in making things happen while also creating an inclusive governing apparatus is at the heart of the American chief executive role. We are electing people to the highest executive offices for two reasons: to craft, then execute the agenda for Americans and to represent us as a symbol. The executive agenda is the heart of governing rather than standing by the Christmas tree or attending a state dinner in Bogotá. Were you ever able to envision Ralph Nader crafting, then executing a legislative agenda? Ross Perot loved to mandate that his male employees wear white rather than colourful shirts but would he ever have been able to convince others of that, much less wrangle through a tax bill?
The Presidential choice is a crucial one for every American voter. The winner of the Electoral College majority becomes the woman or man occupying that role for a four year term. In today’s environment, however, we also need take a hard look to assure that whomever we elect brings along another qualified partner because things happen in our world. It strikes me that we should weigh the presidential and vice presidential candidates equally on questions of probity and some minimal experience in working within a government executive organisation in making our choices. Other things are less tangible and fuzzier, I readily acknowledge. That does not mean they must be mirror images of each other. It is perfectly understandable that a candidate would name someone from a different region (the Constitution mandates, of course, that the two individuals must be from different states) or background to compliment her or his own but the bare minimum needs always be that the person in the second place on the ticket could execute seemlessly should tragedy occur.
Note I did not say they must have foreign policy experience, though it is desirable. We do have a bureaucracy for a reason—to execute and to remember.
Harry Truman famously knew nothing about the atom bomb in April 1945 yet he used it against Japan four months later after a steep learning curve. Probably few vice presidents will ever be as clueless as Truman but FDR was an extraordinary president in the final stages of a long war. I, for one, will consider vice presidents as a major factor in looking at candidates. A successful one need probity and experience working with others to accomplish things, not merely to pontificate.
Which takes me back to someone floated as a potential vice presidential choice for Kennedy several weeks ago. I believe it was a Saturday Night Live or late night television skit that brought forth his name. Football players, like ‘influencers’ (whatever that means; think about it: what a dumb idea), have no experience yet Aaron Rodgers’ purported veep consideration merited a column in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times recently. Of course Kennedy would not select Rodgers but weird things are happening as we confuse popularity driven by the internet with competence to govern. Perhaps I am misremembering and that was all it was but in an era of seemingly diminished capacity for logical thought on the part of millions of citizens—some of whom who vote—makes me weary of stupid. The entire Aaron Rodgers nanosecond was stupid but two major newspapers carried it.
Thank you for bearing with me today. I do feel strongly about governing, probity, experience, and a range of aspects any political candidate ought weigh before you and I the voters get to choose a ticket. I welcome your thoughts as I may have it all wrong. Perhaps Ms. Shanahan represents a terrific break from the past as we seem to cherish each election cycle. Weigh in, please.
Thank you for reading the column today and any day. Please feel free to circulate if you see it as appropriate. I appreciate the paid subscribers so much and would welcome any of you to join as you support my work.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Rebecca Davis O’Brien, ‘Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura Top R.F.K., Jr.’s List for Running Mate’, New YorkTimes.com, 12 March 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-aaron-rodgers-jesse-ventura.html?searchResultPosition=3
Joe Queenan, ‘No ‘Aaron Rodgers for Veep?’ We can still have political football’, wsj.com, 28 March 2024, retrieved at https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/no-aaron-rodgers-for-veep-we-can-still-have-political-football-aa397b73?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1