Clinton's Running Mate - Analysis and Prognostications

It appears that Donald Trump has selected Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana, as his running mate.  Pence is a solid social conservative who may help assuage the fears of movement conservatives about Trump's policies.  While I'm disappointed that my science-fiction-loving, history-writing, jowl-shaking favorite, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, didn't make the cut, Pence was a strong choice, especially against more questionable figures like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (too much like Trump, not conservative enough) or Iowa Senator Joni Ernst (too inexperienced, not enough name recognition).  He'll bring a sense of stability and experience to the ticket, even if he lacks Newt's erudition and pizzazz.

So now we turn our attention to Hillary Clinton's vice presidential search.  Secretary Clinton indicated that she would wait to make an official selection after Trump's decision was finalized; with the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia just a little over a week away, look for her to make a decision soon (possibly during the Republican National Convention next week in Cleveland).

I'm not as steeped in Democratic Party politics to the same extent as the Republican Party, and even there I'm mostly wading in the shallow end of the pool.  That being said, the Democrats seem to be experiencing the same internal power struggle as the Republican Party.  Just as the Republican Party consists of various factions (broadly falling into the "establishment" and Tea Party sections, and now with a new Trumpist element, although the real breakdown is far more complicated than these categories), the Democrats increasingly seem divided between Clinton-style corporatism--a cozy relationship between government and certain key firms--and social progressivism and economic socialism.

"...Democrats exercise amazing party unity...."

The latter group gained a powerful voice in the form of (formerly Independent) Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, who went from polling around 4% last summer to losing only narrowly to Clinton in the Democratic primaries in June.  Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren also represents this aggressive, progressive, economic populist wing of the Democratic Party, and both Sanders and Warren have had Clinton running further to the left than normal.

Unlike Republicans, though, national Democrats exercise amazing party unity, and once a nominee is selected, they tend to stick doggedly to their party's pick.  This discipline applies, at least, to elected officials; voters, of course, often don't demonstrate the same degree of party loyalty.  For example, there is the so-called "Bernie or Bust" group (much like the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary crowds), some of whom are breaking for Trump over Hillary.  However, I expect most Democratic voters will "hold their noses" and vote for Clinton, just as many Republicans will do for Trump.

"[Hillary Clinton] is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment."

Much like Trump, then, a lackluster Clinton campaign potentially has much to gain from a prudent VP pick.  Whereas an unscripted, shoot-from-the-hip Trump was probably wise to pick a more established, reliable, mildly boring figure (as Dinesh D'Souza said on Sean Hannity's radio show Thursday, Trump went for "white bread" over the spicier Gingrich), Clinton may benefit from an unconventional running mate.  She is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment, having lived in a cossetted world of taxpayer-funded luxury for most of her adult life.  A scrappy outsider could be her best bet, and could throw some red meat to the Democratic Party's increasingly progressive base.

On the other hand, Clinton may want to double down on her establishment bona fides, making the argument that her campaign is the "serious" one that will maintain the status quo and incrementally advance progressive pet projects like a higher minimum wage and "free" college (among other taxpayer-funded goodies).

The tight-lipped smile and beady eyes of vice-presidential contender Senator Tim Kaine.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Kaine,_official_113th_Congress_photo_portrait.jpg)

***

So, who are Clinton's potential nominees?  Here's a list, pulled from this article at CNN.com:

1.) Virginia Senator Tim Kaine

2.) Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

3.) Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

4.) Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack

- Honorable Mention:  Labor Secretary Tom Perez

- Wild Cards:  Housing Secretary Julian Castro and California Congressmen Xavier Beccerra

Most of the reading I've done (and, admittedly, it's not much) indicates that Tim Kaine is the likely choice.  He certainly seems to be the safe choice--he's generally inoffensive, experienced, and bilingual--but that might not be the best move for Clinton.  While the CNN article linked above indicates that the Democratic base isn't as important this time around, that assumption is premised on Bernie Sanders's endorsement.  It appears that endorsement was fairly hollow, if consistent with the Democratic Party's strong party discipline.

What about a Clinton-Warren ticket?  Clinton could double down on the "historic first" aspect of her campaign--pretty much her only real selling point--saying, "why not elect the first female Vice President, too"?  But how much would that benefit her, really?  It would neutralize a potentially powerful opponent to Clinton's left, and Warren has a demonstrated ability to fire up crowds, but her fiery, socialistic rhetoric ("you didn't build that") could hurt Clinton with moderate voters.

At one point there was quite a bit of buzz around Julian Castro and his brother, both of whom seemed to be Hispanic Obamas--young, dynamic, ethnic, hip--but that possibility appears unlikely.  Indeed, most of the rest of the names on this list appear to be cabinet members in a Clinton administration, but not running mates (except possibly Tom Vilsack).

"...Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964:  the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs."

It's unwise, however, to underestimate the power of identity politics to the Democratic Party.  While the Republican Party is historically made up of three factions--national security conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives--the Democratic Party is a vast hodge-podge of clients looking to government to serve as their patron.  This phenomenon explains why Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964:  the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs.

With so many clients--and with the odious racial balkanization pushed by far left groups like Black Lives Matter, et. al.--any Democratic administration and presidential ticket has to perform a delicate balancing act of patronage to appease the myriad factions demanding a seat at the table.  Clinton's VP pick will be a part of that broader calculation.

***

Who do I think Clinton will pick?  I have no idea.  I've heard talk of a Clinton-Sanders reconciliation ticket, but that strains credulity.  I get the impression the two can barely stand each other, and Clinton needs someone younger to step into the presidency in the event that her health problems worsen.  An elderly, bitter socialist is probably not the best person to have one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Tim Kaine does seem like the kind of blandly conformist, minimally inoffensive pick Clinton would make.  More importantly, he doesn't threaten her in any way, and she could safely ignore him for four or eight years.  I don't think she'd have that luxury with Elizabeth Warren.  I also suspect that Warren has her eyes on the White House herself, and might hold back for a run in 2020 in the event of a Trump victory.

Regardless, I can guarantee that Clinton's pick will be calculated and focus-grouped to nth degree to benefit her electoral prospects as much as possible.  For Republicans, let's hope Mike Pence takes debating lessons from Newt Gingrich before the Vice Presidential Debate this autumn.

Trump's Running Mate - Analysis and Prognostications

On Friday, I dashed off some reflections about the office of the Vice President, and promised a run-down of those on Donald Trump's alleged "short list" of potential running mates.  Today, I offer up my take on these possible picks, and offer up some predictions.

Here are the candidates I will explore today:

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence

- Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

- Wild Card:  Lieutenant General Michael Flynn

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - Christie was the first major Republican presidential candidate to endorse Trump after suspending his own campaign shortly after the New Hampshire primary.  As a conservative, I've always had mixed feelings about Christie:  I know I shouldn't like him, but I do.  In his exchange with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul in the first GOP debate last fall, I thought Christie came off looking like a responsible adult concerned with national security, while Paul appeared petulant and childish.  My libertarian readers will disagree with this assessment vehemently, and Christie's style might not sit well with some, but I think Christie won that exchange, and was very effective in addressing the American people, not just his opponents on stage.

Nevertheless, I would argue that a Trump-Christie ticket would be doubling down on too much New Yorker/New Jerseyite brashness.  Christie failed as a candidate because Trump stole his thunder.  There were two loud, brassy Northeasterners on stage, and Trump was the more entertaining and, for many voters, compelling of the two.  Christie would certainly bring strong prosecutorial chops to a debate--and a Trump administration--but such a heavily Northeastern ticket could turn off conservatives who might be wary of a Trump presidency as it is.

Here's a piece arguing that Christie should be the VP:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-donald-trumps-best-choice-for-veep/

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton - I don't know much about Cotton, although I did hear him speak at the 2016 Silver Elephant Banquet (no, it's not a Republican strip club--it's the annual fundraising dinner for the South Carolina GOP).  I had to slip out early, but I was not too terribly impressed.  What he lacked in on-stage chutzpah, however, he makes up for with a strong, attractive background:  admirable military service, a tenacity in Congress, and youthful energy.  Cotton would appear to fulfill for Trump what Paul Ryan was to Mitt Romney:  a young, dynamic, wonky guy who could eagerly assist his older commander-in-chief.

"...[M]ost voters... vote for emotional, rather than rational, reasons."

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst - Similarly, I don't know much about Ernst, so I can't say much.  Like Cotton, she's a rising star in the GOP.  Her primary appeal seems to be that she's a woman.  To be clear, I abhor identity politics--no one should ever vote for a person simply because that person is a certain race or gender--but I've heard the argument that "Trump struggles with women, so he needs a woman VP to show he's not a cad."

Political pundit Dick Morris has made this case for months (he pushed for New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as a VP pick before Trump dissed her), and it's an interesting approach:  essentially, Trump's VP would be part of a public political "marriage," and Trump would show women voters that he does treat women well, by doing so with his female running mate (in this case, Ernst).

That might not be too flattering to women--who strongly favor Hillary Clinton over The Donald--but there is some wisdom to it; after all, most voters (not just women!) vote for emotional, rather than rational, reasons.  If the ploy worked, it could help Trump shore up his numbers among the fairer sex.

But what of Joni Ernst herself?  She's only been in the Senate two years; before that, she served a brief stint in the Iowa State Senate and as auditor for her home county in Iowa.  All that being said, her Senate run in 2014 was ingenious, and she's a huge star in some quarters of the conservative movement.  Like Cotton, she has an admirable record of military service (she's the first female combat vet to serve in the Senate); like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, she's proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service.

Nevertheless, it might be wise to let Ernst gain more experience in the Senate.  Trump's camp could probably use a more seasoned hand to reassure voters that there's a steady hand at the helm.

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (full disclosure:  I voted for Gingrich in the 2012 South Carolina primaries) - Newt was an early Trump apologist (if not outspoken supporter), and I think he probably "gets" Trump the most of any of the folks on this list.  Speaker Gingrich would bring to the Trump ticket the experience and policy knowledge it lacks, but without losing its slightly crazy, unpredictable, outsider edge.  Gingrich, in other words, provides the perceived benefits of the establishment without really being a part of it (even though he probably is).

Gingrich also approaches problems in unique ways--you've got to love a politician who counts Isaac Asimov's Foundation series as a major influence on his thinking--and is a fierce, knowledgeable debater.  His debate performance in a South Carolina Republican primary debate in 2012 pretty much won him the state, although he flamed out in Florida after vowing to have a functioning lunar research facility on the moon by the end of his second term.

And that's Gingrich's biggest flaw as a running mate:  as the man who would be the steady hand of the Trump campaign, Gingrich is not always predictable.  This could be a strength--a "doubling down" on the Trump formula--but it could also prove problematic for messaging in the general election.

Still, wouldn't you like to see a vice-presidential debate between Newt Gingrich and Elizabeth Warren?

The Jowls of an Angel

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#/media/File:Newt_Gingrich_(6238567189)_(cropped).jpg; Attribution:  Gage Skidmore)

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence - Like Cotton and Ernst, my depth of knowledge about Pence is relatively shallow, although I know he has a reputation as a solid and effective governor in the State of Indiana.  Indiana is probably the reddest of the Upper Midwestern states, a crucial belt with swing states like Ohio.

Pence on the ticket would be the straight-man to Trump's pantheric chameleon, and would provide a great deal of stability to the campaign.  Pence strikes me as a less-embattled version of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (my initial favorite in the GOP presidential primary field before he dropped out of the race)--blandly inoffensive, a bit boring, but effective at bringing together the disparate factions of the fraying Republican coalition.

Pence could also help in a part of the country where blue-collar Democratic defection is crucial to swinging states to Trump.  Trump's electoral strategy seems to depend upon driving up white male voter turnout, and he's popular among those voters who have been hit hardest by globalization.  If enough of these "Trump Democrats" vote Republican, Trump could edge out wins in key states.

Of course, does Trump need a figure like Pence?  Pence's name recognition is not huge outside of the Midwest, and he doesn't seem to fit Trump's style.  That could be a useful contrast, but it could also deflate some of the excitement around Trump's campaign.  Controversial polemicist and die-hard Trump supporter Ann Coulter argues this very point in a recent piece for Human Events, "My VP Prediction:  Trump's First Mistake."

For further reading, here's a pro-Pence op-ed:  http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/07/05/donald-trump-vp-search-mike-pence-rings-most-bells/86719122/

- Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions -Senator Sessions is the poster-boy for stopping illegal immigration, but also for limiting legal immigration, a stance that was rare in both the Republican and Democratic parties prior to Trump's candidacy.  Ann Coulter argues in the piece linked above that Trump needs Sessions to stay in the Senate for precisely that reason.

For much of American history, having a Southerner on the ticket was often crucial to presidential victory, especially for Democratic candidates.  I don't think that holds true anymore (although Clinton and Gore were both Southerners, if you count Arkansas and East Tennessee as "the South").  The consistency of Southern states is such that vice-presidential candidates can be from further afield; if anything, it seems prudent to have a Midwesterner on the ticket.

Regardless, Sessions would be a good pick for the anti-globalist and immigration reform sides of Trump's campaign.  He would also provide some of the senatorial dignity that Trump lacks.  Alternatively, Sessions's rhetoric against globalization and immigration could be too much for some voters.  The GOP is already going to be slammed (I think unfairly) as "nativist" and "xenophobic," so maybe that doesn't matter, but perhaps an ounce of prevention could save a pound of troubles later.

- Wild Card - Lieutenant General Michael Flynn - As I predicted in my last post, Trump has thrown out a wild card.  Apparently, he's heavily considering bringing on a retired general, even against the advice of his advisors (either a sign of his "let Trump be Trump" media savvy, or a bad move on his part; we'll see).  One name he's floated is that of retired Lt. General Michael Flynn.  Flynn is a registered Democrat who the Obama Administration forced into retirement due to his (accurate) characterization of the threat of radical Islamism.  There's plenty there for Republicans to like.

Generals seem to do really well as presidential candidates, but have a spottier record when running for veep.  Consider, for example, Ross Perot's running mate, Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, who's enigmatic utterances and strange campaign demands proved to be almost as big a liability to Perot's run as his own withdrawal and re-entrance in 1992.

Still, we can't judge the success or prudence of a military figure based on one example.  Trump could certainly benefit from having a general on the ticket, which could lend credence to his "speak loudly and carry a big stick, but don't use it too often" brand of foreign policy.  Trump is clearly positioning himself as the candidate of law and order, and he hopes to be the pro-military candidate, too.

***

These are my (admittedly unstructured) reflections.  I do not think this list is exhaustive, and I suspect it's almost a form of misdirection.  I would not be surprised if Trump pulled out a candidate that none of us suspect, al a John McCain with Sarah Palin in 2008 (though hopefully not quite so disastrous).

If this list is the One True List, I'd personally be very interested to see a Trump-Gingrich ticket.  The dynamism of such a ticket--Trump as the ever-jabbing pugilist, Gingrich as the precision bomber--would surely keep the Clinton campaign on its heels.  It would also lend Trump some credibility, but with a guy who's also just a little bit crazy himself.

Regardless, the next two weeks of VP speculation should be fun.

Now:  who will Hillary Clinton pick to be her running mate?

Preview: The Vice Presidency and Trump's Potential Running Mate

Normally, I prefer to write about "big picture" topics--what is popular sovereignty?  Why is America exceptional?  What are the core American values upon which our nation is founded?--because they tend to possess timeless qualities.  I also teach a philosophy course from time to time, and I believe that ideas--as the great Richard Weaver put it--have consequences.  Ideas shape and affect us, I would argue, far more than individuals or even large institutions.  It's a bold claim, I concede, but it makes sense when you consider individuals, institutions, and even nation-states and empires are motivated not just by rational Realpolitik, but also by ideas and values.

More practically, focusing on these broader, evergreen topics generally shields me from the pitfall of making bold predictions that turn out horribly wrong (although my post-Brexit predictions post has already been proven so:  it appears Boris Johnson will not be running for leadership of the Conservative Party, much to my chagrin).

That being said, on Monday I'm going to give a quick run-down of some of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's potential vice-presidential picks, then share my own thoughts.

But first, a word about the vice-presidency (here comes the "big picture" stuff):  the vice presidency is one of the most enigmatic offices in our constitutional system.  Constitutionally (and historically), the vice president doesn't do much.  His sole constitutional duty (other than monitoring the space-time continuum) is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, which he does in his capacity as the President of the that chamber.  In fact, prior to the passage of the XII Amendment in 1804, the vice president was simply the candidate who won second place in the Electoral College (imagine an Obama Administration with Mitt Romney as VP).  It almost seems like the office was an afterthought (it wasn't--someone's got to take the president's place if he dies--but the second-place-becomes-veep rule did not anticipate the emergence of the two-party system).

John Adams famously hated the vice presidency (it probably didn't help that Senators derisively called him "His Rotundity"), primarily because it was boring.  He was the first to realize the vice presidency is the "consolation prize" of politics, and for most of American history it was where political careers went to die.  Only in the second half of the twentieth century did it become the stepping stone to the presidency that it is today (that stepping stone used to be Secretary of State, and it may prove to be so again).  Indeed, Theodore Roosevelt's Old Guard Republican rivals in 1900 hoped he would become President McKinley's new VP because it would get the troublesome progressive out of real power!  No one dreamed that McKinley would die from an assassin's bullet only a few months into his second term.

John Adams:  He ain't heavy--he's my Founding Father.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams)

(Note:  the famous Jay's Treaty scene from the HBO mini-series John Adams, in which Adams cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to ratify the controversial treaty, was completely fabricated.  Treaties require a 2/3rds vote to become the law of the land, not a simple majority.  Therefore, it would be constitutionally and numerically impossible for a vice president to ever cast a tie-breaking vote on a treaty; indeed, he would have no right to vote at all.  The writers for the show just wanted to create some high political drama, showing Adams making a tough, unpopular choice for the good of the country.  They did so to the detriment of history and constitutional literacy, and unnecessarily--there were plenty of real instances from Adams's life that demonstrated his nobility and selflessness.)

As the power of the presidency expanded throughout the twentieth century, however, vice presidents began to assume more active roles, primarily as a sort of substitute diplomat or pinch-hitting cabinet member for the president.  Richard Nixon, for example, worked as a sort of diplomatic envoy to Southeast Asia during President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.  Now vice presidents routinely travel the country and the world, giving speeches and making appearances on behalf of their respective presidents.

"John Adams famously hated the vice presidency... because it was boring."

For all that, the office is rarely of huge significance in any electoral sense, but it can matter.  Candidates often pick their running mates to shore up real or perceived deficiencies in their own campaigns.  To wit:

- Then-Senator Barack Obama (like John F. Kennedy), for example, chose seasoned Senator Joe Biden (as Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson) to address concerns that he lacked the depth and experience to run the country.

- Ronald Reagan chose his primary opponent, George H.W. Bush, as a sign of reconciliation and to hold together the Republican coalition of 1980.

- Even Abraham Lincoln engaged in this game:  his first VP, Hannibal Hamlin, was picked because he was ferociously anti-slavery; his second VP, Andrew Johnson--a pro-slavery, pro-Union Democrat--was chosen to appease the so-called "Peace Democrats" in the North.

***

So, what about Trump's potential picks?  I would caution that we should take his so-called "short list" with a grain of salt.  I suspect that, in true Trump fashion, he's engaging in a great deal of misdirection, and will announce a surprise candidate at the Republican National Convention.  However, I have no real evidence to support this contention--that's why it's a "suspicion," not a theory--so I'll ask that we take him at his word.

For the purposes of Monday's post, then, let's consider his five potential choices (I realize there are others to whom Trump has alluded, but I'm sticking with the ones I've read about most frequently):

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence

Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

I'll go through these candidates one by one (and make additions or subtractions based on any developments over the weekend) and give my shoot-from-the-hip analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, and secret desires (well, maybe not that last one).

Tune in Monday!