That’s what they thought. But, keep in mind, if there’s a tie in the House or Senate, guess who casts the deciding vote? The VP.
Not the president. The veep.
The whole thing is set up to make passing new laws difficult. Intentionally.
We’ve made it easier and easier over the years. And in the process, we’ve broken our nation. We turned a nation built on bottom up power, where the majority of power is held by the individual into a top down power where our government has the majority of the power.
That’s still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It’s a very low possibility.
The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.
It also makes political change much less stable and more prone to the seesaw affect, as people are no longer voting for a person, but for their party, lest the “others” win.
Imagine if GW’s VP had been Gore. Imagine if Clinton’s had been A Republican…
It would have totally changed the political landscape.
Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn’t part of policy meetings. Instead it’s a nameless faceless advisor.
There’s maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.
You’re missing the entire point. It’s not about their governmental powers, it’s about their party affiliation, and the ability to shape a public narrative.
What actual governmental power did any of the VPs in our history have?
None. But they still had an effect on policy simply by being in the public spotlight.
Can you imagine if the VICE PRESIDENT came out and started saying the president is wrong?
It removes an echo chamber. Or at least makes it harder. Quit thinking in terms of what can the government position do, and start thinking in terms of how can politicians influence the rest of the government.
They had an effect because they were invited to the party. A VP of an opposing party wouldn’t be in the room. Instead of VP Cheney orgastrating a war it would be Chief of Policy or secretary of presidential affairs Cheney doing that.
The VP being a prominent figurehead of workgroups or policies only exists because the president allows it. A non aligned VP wouldn’t be any more impactful than a current opposition party leader.
A president doesn’t have to share everything with a VP, famously Truman was never informed about the Manhattan project until he became president. That would likely be the norm in a case where president and VP were opposed.
That’s what they thought. But, keep in mind, if there’s a tie in the House or Senate, guess who casts the deciding vote? The VP.
Not the president. The veep.
The whole thing is set up to make passing new laws difficult. Intentionally.
We’ve made it easier and easier over the years. And in the process, we’ve broken our nation. We turned a nation built on bottom up power, where the majority of power is held by the individual into a top down power where our government has the majority of the power.
That’s still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It’s a very low possibility.
The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.
It also makes political change much less stable and more prone to the seesaw affect, as people are no longer voting for a person, but for their party, lest the “others” win.
Imagine if GW’s VP had been Gore. Imagine if Clinton’s had been A Republican…
It would have totally changed the political landscape.
Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn’t part of policy meetings. Instead it’s a nameless faceless advisor.
There’s maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.
You’re missing the entire point. It’s not about their governmental powers, it’s about their party affiliation, and the ability to shape a public narrative.
What actual governmental power did any of the VPs in our history have?
None. But they still had an effect on policy simply by being in the public spotlight.
Can you imagine if the VICE PRESIDENT came out and started saying the president is wrong?
It removes an echo chamber. Or at least makes it harder. Quit thinking in terms of what can the government position do, and start thinking in terms of how can politicians influence the rest of the government.
They had an effect because they were invited to the party. A VP of an opposing party wouldn’t be in the room. Instead of VP Cheney orgastrating a war it would be Chief of Policy or secretary of presidential affairs Cheney doing that.
The VP being a prominent figurehead of workgroups or policies only exists because the president allows it. A non aligned VP wouldn’t be any more impactful than a current opposition party leader.
A president doesn’t have to share everything with a VP, famously Truman was never informed about the Manhattan project until he became president. That would likely be the norm in a case where president and VP were opposed.