Send the Veep!
Throwback Thursday
Next week, VP Vance is going on his first international trip as vice president. He’ll be going to Europe and speaking at the AI Action Summit and the Munich Security Conference. Harris also attended the Munich Security conference on Biden’s behalf. So for today’s Throwback Thursday, I’m sharing one of my first posts on Veepology, about the newly elected VP Biden’s world travels. It was originally posted on July 24, 2009.
But first…
There’s a bit of other VP news, here and around the world.
First, CNN reports that Vance has been a key player in getting Trump’s most controversial nominees confirmed by the Senate. Down the Hall touched on this last week in our first look at the Vance Vice Presidency and his success shepherding Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense. So far it looks like Vance is doing well securing the confirmations of RFK Jr. to HHS, Tulsi Gabbard to Director of National Intelligence, and Kash Patel to the FBI. What’s interesting here is that Vance is not a master of the Senate as some of his predecessors (most notably Walter Mondale) were. Vance does not have the long-standing relationships that enable cajoling former colleagues or gathering intelligence on what is politically possible—although he is clearly exercising his powers of persuasion. Rather, at least according to CNN, the Senators really really need Vance to help them understand Trump. Reading between the lines, one interpretation is that the Senators are afraid of the president, of being primaried or crossing him and becoming recipients of direct threats of violence.1 It highlights the extent to which the GOP has been suborned by Trump. (I was worried about Trump calling a mob nine years ago—I am very sad to have been right.)
Second, the House of Representatives of the Philippines has impeached Vice President Sara Duterte. For DTH analysis of the President-VP feud in Manilla, see here. Politics in the Philippines is a family affair. President Marcos and VP Duterte (both offsprings of former presidents) made an alliance to ensure their election. But they and their clans have fallen out. The Senate is unlikely to convict VP Duterte, but if they do she ineligible to be president.
Also, I haven’t quite finished my main article for the week, but hopefully tomorrow. I try to get it out on Tuesday. I’m also wondering if I should add an update with shorter pieces (like you see above.) Hey readers, let me know what you think!
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming on vice presidential travel. Besides the public aspects, it can be an important forcing mechanism. When Mondale went to China in 1978 to cement the new relationship started under Nixon, forced a number of initiatives that had been lingering with various agencies to be approved so he could deliver them to Beijing. Vance may bring bold new announcements to either the AI Summit or the Munich Security Conference—both of which touch on administration priorities (making sure the U.S. leads on AI and ending the conflict in Ukraine.)
Stay tuned, and in the meantime, here’s some background reading for context.
Vice President Biden has been taking on a higher profile role in the administration’s foreign policy. He has been travelling around the former Soviet Union, reassuring Ukraine and Georgia – just after the President tried to reset relations with Russia. Just before the Lebanese elections he gave a major speech in Beirut to Lebanon’s parliament. The elections were a setback for Hezbollah, and thus a success for the administration. A few seasoned Middle East experts argued that Biden’s appearance affected the election’s outcome. While other analysts disagreed that Biden had an impact—the mere fact that the debate took place indicates that the appearance was an attempt by the administration to exercise influence.
And of course there was the well-publicized trip to Iraq.
The policy questions are interesting, but this blog is about process and, in particular, what is the Vice President for?
Showing the Flag
There’s an aphorism, “Ninety percent of life is just showing up.” Sending the VP is showing up in style, he (or she) is the diplomatic equivalent of sending a battleship to show the flag. A vice presidential visit is a good way to send the message both to leaders and to publics that the president cares about a given situation. The national security advisor may be an effective messenger to national leaders, but the NSA does not make the news or get parades. An NSA or regional Asst. Secretary of State can visit without much publicity, but a Vice President’s visit is a big deal. At least some components of whatever message needs to be delivered will become public.
This was Biden’s mission in Beirut. He showed the flag, let the people of Lebanon know that their election mattered to the United States and possibly gave the anti-Hezbollah forces a bit more spring in their step. This is a solid and appropriate role that has been played by numerous vice presidents – not only abroad but also domestically. Consider Al Gore’s debating Ross Perot on NAFTA – the president would have looked ridiculous lowering himself by debating Perot. Sending Gore allowed the administration to make its case, without debasing itself (they managed that a bit later.)
But a general doesn’t use his biggest gun on every target. First, the vice president has limited time – he cannot be in two places at once. There are situations that call for quiet and discretion, where the Assistant Secretary of State or even a specific back-channel envoy is more appropriate. (Vice President’s have been back-channels, but usually in the context of highly public events – such as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.)
Another arena in which the President needs to show the flag is within the bureaucracy. The U.S. government is a set of massive organizations each of which have a unique set of complex internal procedures and constituencies. Presidents have to choose very carefully what they hope to change and what kinds of outputs they hope to achieve. On crucial issues they in effect need to “show the flag.” Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy: The Politics of Organizational Reform, by I.M. Destler (who – full disclosure – has the misfortune of being my advisor), was written in 1972 and described difficulties that Presidents and the State Department had been having since the end of World War II. Now, over thirty-five years later, much of what Prof. Destler wrote is remarkably current. In his conclusions, Destler advises that Presidents
…a bureaucratic political strategy which seeks to build centers of strength responsive to the President at as many levels and places within the bureaucracy as possible.
Fancy speak, for cadres up and down the bureaucratic ranks who can “show the flag,” that is remind people what the President wants to see done. It should be understood, that most of the denizens of massive bureaucracies are not opposed to the President, whoever it is. But managers in government agencies don’t usually hear much from the President and are much more likely to regularly hear from other constituencies such as congress, the media, interest groups, other agencies and in the case of foreign affairs, other countries.
This is an interesting question – inside the bureaucracy, where is the VP best positioned to show the flag? Bush I played an inter-agency coordinating role on several national security issues (NSC’s Crisis Management Group, Counterterrorism Commission, and the South Florida Task Force.) He was generally given high marks for this work. Cheney on the other hand appeared to act as the President’s enforcer – say in the recent CIA brouhaha. When this is done, enforcement may be tough to keep quiet.
These are just preliminary thoughts.
I’m absolutely NOT saying that Vance is personally threatening anyone. I’m sure he’s charming, nice, and considerate. I’m saying that this darkness underpins Trump’s relations with the Senate (and other Republican office-holders) and enables Vance’s influence.