Biden’s VP, Redux

For brief descriptions of and links to recent posts, click here. For an inverse-chronological list with links to all posts after January 23, 2017, click here. For a subject-matter index to posts before that date, click here.

In my last post on this topic, I let my admiration for Stacey Abrams carry me away. I admire her for: (1) an uncanny ability (like Elizabeth Warren’s) to explain problems and plans in simple language, without once using loaded or ideological words; (2) her diplomacy and skill in convincing others, in a mostly Republican state; (3) her working under everyone’s radar without grandstanding or publicity; (4) her getting right to work on voter suppression after losing the Georgia governorship to Brian Kemp, because that appears to be how he won; and (5) her continuing that work rather than running for an open seat for US Senator, probably because she saw how little good Democratic Senators have been able to do for how long. As far as I can see, Abrams is a goal-focused “rubber meets the road” leader par excellence.

But the piece I wrote then was more advocacy than analysis, as several commentators observed. Of course my views don’t matter; only Joe Biden’s do. So now I’m going to switch from advocacy to analysis, trying to understand his point of view. Here goes.

I remain convinced that Biden’s choice will be a Black woman. There are four reasons. First, Biden and his operatives know that the South is changing demographically and politically. Flip the South, or even a few key states, and you have a whole new nation. That change alone could give the Dems a lock on the presidency for the foreseeable future, with or without the Upper Midwest. That’s why GOP pols in the South are trying so hard to suppress votes.

Second, this is a “base” or “get out the vote” election. Black voters constitute huge and hugely loyal Democratic minorities in the South, and a significant and also loyal minority elsewhere. Give Black people solid hope, as Obama’s candidacy did, and we will see record-breaking turnout.

Third, Biden owes his late-life career and his candidacy to two Black men, Obama and James Clyburn of South Carolina. There is no way that he, a loyal and decent man, is going to neglect that moral obligation, even if Clyburn recently (and shrewdly, from a political perspective) gave him permission to pick a white VP.

Finally, there is no better way for Biden, even before the election, to skewer the vile notion of white supremacy. He won’t be taking much of an electoral risk: not all Republicans are racists, but all racists now are loyal Republicans, for Trump has given them a comfortable home. I think Biden yearns to make a bold statement that Black lives do matter and that Black people can lead, just as Obama did him.

So which Black woman will it be? To cut to the chase, I think it boils down to two. I can’t decide between them because the reasons for the two are quite different.

For personal rapport, which Biden has said he seeks, I would pick Karen Bass. Like Obama, Bass got her start in politics as a community organizer. Like Biden, she comes from a no-nonsense working-class background. Like Biden, she has a reputation for working successfully across the aisle. Like Biden, she’s a good listener; she has a reputation for putting constituents first and putting them, not herself, on display to illustrate what needs fixing. Like Biden (and Abrams), Bass doesn’t seek the spotlight but keeps a low profile and lets the issues and constituents lead. Finally, as someone who fought Biden (quite civilly) on draconian minimum-sentencing laws, Bass could give Biden cover for what now appears, in retrospect, to have been a big mistake, especially to Black people and progressives.

But here’s the clincher: like Biden, Bass has experienced a tragic personal loss. Both share the very same kind of devastating tragedy: the sudden and untimely loss of a child. (Actually, Biden lost two, at different stages of his life.) That kind of loss, like FDR’s crippling polio, builds genuine empathy for others’ misfortune.

It would be hard to match that as a basis for personal rapport. That’s why, I think, as the “horse race” comes near to its finish, Bass has emerged as a real contender, despite that facts that she has kept a low profile and that her state, California, is not one that Biden needs help to win.

Susan Rice offers Biden something entirely different. Biden was good at foreign policy. Among other things, he pushed for (and won) an anti-terrorism policy, rather than an anti-insurgency policy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s our basis for getting out of both conflicts—the notion that, with the Islamic State on the run, terrorism is in remission. If we opted to quell every insurgency, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, we would be there forever. Even Trump is trying, in his usual crude and inept way, to make a deal with the Taliban and get out.

But I don’t think Biden took up the foreign-policy portfolio by choice. I think Obama assigned it to him. Now, I think, he wants his own Joe Biden: a vice-president who can let him put foreign policy mostly on autopilot so he can devote himself to fixing this country. That’s what I think he really wants to do—save the workers to whom he relates so well from neglect, un- or underemployment, poor or no health insurance, despair and opioids—just as Obama devoted himself to saving the nation from the Crash of 2008 and reforming health insurance.

Susan Rice is a brilliant woman, tough as nails, with superb credentials and lots of experience. She could do for Biden precisely what Biden did for Obama.

But Rice could also do the same job as Secretary of State, leaving Biden to choose Bass (or someone else) as VP if he wished. Thus, Biden could have his cake and eat it, too. So the choice may boil down to whom Biden wants nearer at hand: the Vice President usually works in the West Wing. I might see Bass as the likeliest choice, but in this toss-up between heart and mind/duty I can only guess at Biden’s preference. It may come down to personal chemistry; and, of course, it could be someone else.

As for Kamala Harris, I think she’s a mismatch with Biden. I don’t think that her having slammed him repeatedly (and sometimes effectively!) during the debates would stop him from picking her if he wanted an “attack dog” for VP. If Biden wants a running mate who can trade punches with Trump, Harris would be a good choice.

But I think that’s the last thing Biden wants. He’s already done quite well in the polls by keeping a low profile and playing the antidote to Trump, not trying to fight fire with fire. He’s differentiated himself by being who he is.

I think Biden wants something like a co-president, to work with him in governing, as he did with Obama. That approach would let him prepare his running mate to take over the top spot quickly if need be.

All of the contenders for Biden’s VP, without exception, would need to serve an apprenticeship to get ready for the top job. None of them even comes close to his 42 years of relevant experience. Just as working closely with him will allow his VP to grow into the top job, so it will allow Biden to shape his own successor, for example, if he decides to serve only one term. That has got to be top of mind for him as he weighs his choices.

Biden doesn’t believe in governing on a stage—far less by Tweet. He seems to understand that presidents should “go public” only after a major triumph, a tragedy, or when public support requires explaining recent developments. Remember when a presidential announcement used to be something special?

Good leaders hold their tongues because the consequences of events and their own actions are often unknown or unknowable, especially when reporters first stick microphones in their faces. Waiting to comment until events have unfolded is often a necessity: just think about mandatory-minimum sentencing. Trump’s inability to delay gratification—his penchant for grabbing credit and laying blame long before the dust has settled—is one of many things that make him an abysmal leader.

That, I think, is part of why Biden had such good rapport with “no-drama Obama.” At least that’s how he’s been running his campaign so far.

Karen Bass and Stacey Abrams meet these requirements. Maybe Susan Rice does, too, despite her slip in reporting the Benghazi tragedy. Others, about whose governing style I haven’t read, may also. In my judgment, Senator Harris does not; she’s too quick to go public.

For better or for worse, Biden is an old-school pol. (I think for better.) He believes in quiet problem solving, hard work, consultation and compromise, not (like Trump) in politics as entertainment. I expect him to pick a running mate who shares those values in her soul and has a track record to prove it.

Footnote: I’ll give just two examples of Rice’s toughness. While our Ambassador to the UN, Rice called out as genocide the systematic raping of women and massacring of whole villages in Darfur. Few were paying attention at the time, but it was no doubt due in part to Rice’s efforts that Omar Al-Bashir, the author of that genocide, now sits in the dock of the International Criminal Court, charged with crimes against humanity. Later, during madman Gaddafi’s last days as dictator of Libya, Rice was part of the State Department team, with Secretary Clinton and Samantha Power, that secured emergency UN authorization for the use of force just in time to prevent Gaddafi’s army from massacring tribal rivals in Benghazi whom they had surrounded. This just-in-time rescue of a whole ethnic group predated the murders of our Ambassador and three others in Benghazi, which Rice was later found to have reported inaccurately.

Permalink to this post