On Vice-Presidential Experience

John McCain has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum for his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Most of the criticism has focused on the question of whether Palin, a first-term Alaska governor, has amassed sufficient "experience" in her career to be vice president. This question has in turn spawned renewed debate over the nature and extent of Barack Obama experience. While the entire debate is clearly steeped in partisan bias, it is nevertheless an interesting topic to consider from a civics perspective. I have a number of thoughts on the subject, starting with the issue of Palin's qualifications for the vice presidency.

First, it should be obvious that the requisite qualifications for the vice presidency are much less stringent than those for the top job. Vice presidents have no Constitutional responsibilities other than presiding over the Senate and occasionally casting a tie-breaking vote there. While recent presidents have sought to enlarge the roles of their vice presidents by putting them in charge of particular projects, there is no assurance this trend will continue.

To put it in purely practical terms, virtually any motivated elected official from the level of state legislator on up to governor or U.S. senator could adequately perform the job of vice president. It simply isn't that demanding. All that's really required is the ability to articulate the views of the administration. Of course, if the vice president can also serve as a capable advisor to the president or take charge of certain legislative, diplomatic, or political initiatives, so much the better. However, it is entirely up to the president to decide whether, and to what extent, the vice president should take on these additional responsibilities.

I would add that, from the standpoint of both good politics and civic responsibility, a vice president should be seen as someone who is "in the loop." Harry Truman was infamously out of the loop when FDR died, although I'm not aware that this actually created any problems beyond his own sense of discomfort.

Of course, as the Truman example reminds us, the reason we have a vice president in the first place is to assume the Oval Office in the event of the death or resignation of the president. Being next in line, however, doesn't imply that the veep needs the same level of experience as the president. There are three reasons for this.

First, the vice president is highly unlikely to succeed to the presidency. We've had eight presidents die in office, four by assassination. The assassinations all occurred long ago, under circumstances in which the security being provided to the president was at best negligent and at worst non-existent. Presidents are much, much safer from assassination today than they were in previous eras. In fact, the last time a president was assassinated was 45 years ago.

Presidents are also at lower risk of dying in office of natural causes than they were in previous times, due to medical advancements and the fact that it would be much harder for a modern-day president to conceal a life-threatening condition than it was in 1945, when FDR became the last president to die in office of natural causes.

I'm not suggesting that presidents are immortal or cloaked with an invisible force field. I'm simply observing that the likelihood of a modern president healthy enough to be elected in the first place dying in office is very small.

The second reason the vice presidency requires less experience is that, in the event of succession, the veep will be inheriting a fully-staffed administration which presumably is already operating in a manner consistent with the new president's desired policies. Since part of the accepted criteria for v.p. selection is ideological compatibility, there should be no pressing need for the vice president, upon assuming the Oval Office, to make wide-scale, dramatic changes in the make-up or direction of the administration. Moreover, since they would be assuming the presidency mid-term, it's entirely possible that the new president's administration will be of short duration.

The third reason the vice presidency demands less experience relates to the circumstances under which succession occurs. Whenever a president dies (or, in the case of Richard Nixon, resigns), the new president invariably enjoys the universal support of Congress and the people, at least during the first few weeks or months of the new administration.

I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but based on her record in Alaska and her obvious poise and intelligence, there is no question in my mind she is capable of serving as vice president and, if necessary, taking over the reins of a McCain administration in the unlikely event of Big Mac's sudden death or resignation.

UPDATE 09/02/2008: There now seems to be a full-fledged feeding frenzy going on in the lefty blogosphere over Sarah Palin's supposed lack of experience, her pregnant daughter, her decision as mayor to accept federal earmarks, her alleged membership in the Alaska Independence Party, and the McCain campaign's alleged failure to vet the Palin pick. One site (TalkLeft) is actually taking action on when Palin will quit the ticket, as if her decision to do so is somehow inevitable.

It occurs to me that, in pounding away at Palin's supposed lack of qualifications, these people are unwittingly helping to demonstrate that she has what it takes. If Palin can survive the deluge of attacks the left is trying to pour on, and perhaps even fight back a little, the country will see what a tough broad she can be. They're doing her a favor!