Politics

Biden Isn't Quite Obama's Cheney

Biden Isn't Quite Obama's Cheney
Getty Images

Strictly in terms of the November election, it's fair to liken Joe Biden to Dick Cheney, who was tapped to serve as George W. Bush's running mate in 2000 in an effort to reassure voters who were made uneasy by Bush's thin national security résumé.

The ploy worked for Bush: Cheney, a stern former defense secretary who had overseen the first Gulf War, was celebrated by the media for his "gravitas" -- and he went on to score an unexpected victory in his vice presidential debate with Joe Lieberman. In the same way, Barack Obama hopes that the presence of Biden, a gray-haired 35-year veteran of the Senate who's on a first-name basis with numerous world leaders, will make it easier for voters to pull the lever for a presidential candidate who was a member of the Illinois state legislature less than four years ago.

But the rush to name Biden as "the new Cheney" is somewhat inaccurate, both in terms of the role Biden figures to play in an Obama White House and -- at least potentially -- in terms of Biden's own interest in ultimately seeking to claim the top job on his own.

Cheney, of course, has easily been the most powerful vice president in history, a man who has played a deep and often decisive role in devising and implementing policy and in filling some of the most influential posts in the administration. To assume that Biden will enjoy similar authority in an Obama administration misses a crucial difference: Biden's (potential) boss will enter office with a deeper knowledge of and interest in foreign policy than Cheney's did and will be engaged on the subject from the moment he's sworn in. Bush, by contrast, famously failed a pop quiz on world leaders as a candidate and entered office intent on not bothering himself with the details of world affairs. The crafty Cheney seized this vacuum, but even if Biden envisions such a role for himself, the same vacuum just won't exist.

That extends to other areas of policy-making as well. For instance, Cheney entered the vice presidency nursing a decades-long grudge against the legislative branch for what he saw as its creeping encroachment of the executive branch's authority. So he systematically set out, always behind the scenes, to restore and expand power to the White House. Again, a disinterested Bush, who had never shown any signs of engagement in separation-of-powers issues, served as Cheney's chief abettor. Obama, by contrast, would come to the presidency with a background in constitutional law and has his own well-established views on the subject.

Fundamentally, there's every reason to believe that Obama would be a vastly more engaged president than Bush. This doesn't necessarily mean he'd be more effective, but there'd simply be no room for Biden to carve out his own fiefdom and to issue edicts with impunity. (This doesn't mean Biden would be powerless or a mere figurehead -- only that he'd be part of a team, offering his own expertise and views but not running his own show.)

Of course, this is assuming that Biden would even want to model his vice presidency on Cheney's. There are some basic but crucial differences between the two men. For one, Cheney has an almost nonexistent appetite for the public side of politics. He was surprisingly effective in his 2000 and 2004 VP debates, but his speeches and television appearances are rare -- and he usually makes no effort to project warmth and to win the crowd over personally. For him, the 2000 campaign was an ordeal to be endured in order to gain unsupervised control over much of the White House. And once in office, he pursued his agenda as quietly as possible. You get the sense that even if there hadn't been a 9/11, Cheney still would have spent much of his first term in that notorious "undisclosed location."

Biden is the exact opposite. To be sure, he'd love to be vice president, but the chance to campaign on the national stage is, for him, a reward in itself. The man feeds off crowds and has a Clinton-ish appetite for rope lines. As vice president, there's every reason to believe he'd play an enthusiastic role in selling the administration's policies through interviews and speeches.

And then there's the question of long-term political aspirations. Cheney briefly toyed with a presidential campaign after his days as defense secretary, but wisely abandoned the idea in 1995. When Bush picked him in 2000, he was only 59 years old, so it would have been logical for him to serve two terms and then run on his own.

But he wasn't interested in that, perhaps calculating that he'd have more power working in the shadows as Bush's VP than as the president. Plus, there were health issues. Cheney had had three heart attacks when Bush tapped him, and he suffered a fourth before being sworn in in 2001. So from an early point, Cheney decided not to use the vice presidency, as almost all of his predecessors had, to lay the foundation for a future campaign. Instead, he focused on accumulating and exercising power within the administration.

There's some conventional wisdom that Biden, should he and Obama be elected this fall, will also swear off a future campaign - simply because he has no choice. He's 65 now (and will be 66 on Inauguration Day), the thinking goes, so 2016 will just be out of the question. But don't be so sure. In just the last 24 years, Republicans have nominated presidential candidates three times who were older than 70 - Ronald Reagan in 1984 (73 years old), Bob Dole in 1996 (72) and John McCain (72) this year. (And George H. W. Bush was, at 68 years old, hardly a spring chicken in 1992.) So why should anyone assume that Biden, who would be 73 in a 2016 campaign, is automatically disqualified from seeking to succeed a President Obama? After all, he doesn't have the health problems that Cheney does, he clearly has presidential aspirations, and few politicians enjoy campaigning as much as he does.

Dick Cheney was an undeniable asset for George W. Bush in the general election of 2000. And he's been an undeniable drag as vice president. Biden has the potential to be the same campaign-season asset to Obama, but his White House role would be much different.

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

A New DEMOCRATIC PARTY (not verified) says:

...

We can only hope that Exit Polling is conducted in the November Election --- we will see what percentage of Hillary's Whining Supporters actually do vote for McCain. After all of their whining and crying and protesting --- the overwhelming majority WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Hillary's Supporters are traditional Democrats; the OLD DEMOCRATS. Processionary caterpillers who follow one another right over a cliff.

OBAMA IS CREATING A NEW DEMOCRTAIC PARTY --- free of the selfish special interest groups who have dominated party politics for far too long. Goodbye to the whining white women; goodbye to the charlatans like Jackson & Sharpton; goodbye to the far-left loonie extremists.
A NEW DAY HAS ARRIVED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOEL GOODMAN (not verified) says:

Where's the "change" that McBama promises?
Biden is the deepest part of the status quo and Washington establishment.
McBama is just another lying piece of trash like the rest of his dumocrap pals.

Linda McCall (not verified) says:

In choosing Joe Biden, Barack Obama is definitely choosing change. Biden is straight talking, smart, sensible, and decent which represents big time change from the last eight years. Obama is all of this too but also a superstar whereas Biden is more of the average guy. Together they can form a well balanced ticket and deserve the support of all Americans seeking change.

Slider (not verified) says:

This article dances around in entertaining fashion without ever bumping into the elephant in the room. There is no basis for comparison between the "Cheney model" and Biden. The vice president is supposed to be able to take over and become the executive. Cheney arrived with massive and successful executive experience in both the private sector and the executive branch.....in addition to his experience in Congress. Neither Obama nor Biden have any executive experience....unless you count the five years as Annenberg Project chairman that Obama doesn't want us to talk about. Back to the point: all Biden has ever been is a senator. He's never been an executive. That, and not all the psychobable about the internal Obama/Biden dynamic, is the main issue.

As for the howler that Obama is better informed on foreign policy than Bush, it is not necessary to grade Bush in order to note that every time Obama reaches for an historical perspective he screws up the chrononlogy, the facts, and the salient point. It's quite clear that he has not read history. Neither has not availed himself of the opportunity to read the owners manuals of the presidency (biographies of the 43 men who have held the office). His grasp of foreign policy, therefore, is predicated on how the world exists in his mind, not how it did and does exist in reality.

Would you hire a refrigerator repairman who had A.) never seen the inside of a refrigerator, and B.) never read the manual?

He seems like a nice guy, and he's certainly done a lovely job of introspection and reflection in his two autobiographies. My suggestion after his blowout loss in November is to take 2 years to read the last 400 years of Western and Asian history, and then write another book. I'd love to see how he synthesizes his current worldview with his new discoveries of old facts. And then, if he still thinks he measures up, he can try for the nomination again.

Impressed (not verified) says:

I must say after reading Slider's comments above, I am very impressed. Rarely have I read someone's comments on Obama that were logical and made perfect sense regarding his lack of experience. I agree, he does seem like a great person and someone of quality, but does that make a good president? As a man in my 30's, I am now trying to learn about the world since it wasn't really taught to us in school correctly. I agree totally that Obama does not have the knowledge to lead especially in this world climate we have now. On the other hand, all the "experts" on foreign affairs kind of sat by and watched the world change in the last 10-15 years without adapting to it as well. Unless you call putting ourselves in dept to China and sending all tech jobs to India adapting. Cheers Slider!

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.