There’s something that’s been bothering me since Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee. One of the key arguments against her — one that has come up repeatedly, including in both the presidential and vice presidential debates — is: Since she’s the current vice president, why hasn’t she already done everything she’s currently promising?
I’m perplexed by this argument. Last time I checked, the vice president’s job was two-fold: as the “Senate president,” act as the tie-breaker vote in the Senate as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution and, as the president’s right-hand woman, to support the president’s agenda. (And, of course, step in if the president becomes incapacitated or dies. But that’s not exactly a daily job for the role.)
That first duty — presiding over the Senate — has kept Harris more than busy. The Senate has been closely divided, and most votes have been along party lines. The occasional absence or abstention has left the Senate tied many times, requiring Harris to cast a tie-breaking vote. In fact, Harris has cast the most tie-breaking votes of any vice president in history: 33 in just one term. For perspective, John Calhoun cast 31 tie-breakers across two terms, and John Adams cast 29, also across two terms.
Basically, babysitting the Senate has been Harris’ full-time job for the past four years. Otherwise, the “deliberative” chamber would have gotten even less done than it has.
(Which is also to say that she hasn’t had much time for anything else, a lá the border. Not that it was actually her job to single-handedly “fix” the border, as her opponents keep implying. Rather, she was asked to look into the root causes of immigration out of Central America, which is much more in line with modern vice presidents’ role in foreign affairs and diplomacy.)
Then there’s that second duty: to support the president’s agenda. I can’t recall any vice president that was a major driver of an administration’s policy or wielded enough power within the executive branch to direct any policies that weren’t already part of the president’s existing agenda.
Until the 1950s, vice presidents almost exclusively served in a legislative capacity, as president of the Senate. It was Jimmy Carter who brought the vice president deeper into the executive fold, and Walter Mondale was the first vice president to have an office in the West Wing of the White House. And while vice presidents since then have spearheaded specific efforts as part of the overall administration (such as Al Gore taking the lead on climate change), they have always operated as an extension of the president — not a free agent who could set their own agenda and policy goals.
Yes, Harris has been part of the Biden administration and it’s fair that she should have to answer questions about its policies, successes and failures. And she faces the tough challenge of walking that tightrope between not denigrating President Joe Biden, while also making clear what she will do differently.
That’s what irks me about this argument that Harris should have already done all the things she’s promising to do as president. She does not have, and has never had, that kind of authority as vice president, and to say otherwise is nothing but a straw man fallacy. They are attacking her for something she did not, and could not, do instead of engaging with her campaign on its merits. And that is a disservice to voters across America.
J. Nelson - Writer 