Why the Vice Presidential Debate Matters

The joke stuck, an enduring commentary about why the second person in command in the United States does not matter. Since John Adams was the first person to hold the office, Garner’s observation has been shared by a long list of people who have ascended to the position. The insult has extended into televised vice presidential debates, which we have been having since 1976, and one of which is coming up on Tuesday night as Sen. JD Vance squares off against Gov. Tim Walz. The conventional wisdom goes that while the upcoming debate might make or break one of their careers, it will not be very important to the election.

But the recurring jokes—which include an acclaimed comedy series revolving around the office, Veep, starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus—are misleading. Throughout the 20th century, the office of the vice presidency grew significantly in importance. Though not the person sitting behind the Resolute desk, under skillful hands, vice presidents have wielded considerable influence and the scope of the office has steadily grown.

When Vance and Walz square off on Tuesday, Americans should evaluate both men not just for what they mean to the presidential campaign—but for what kind of role they will play as governing partners.

The Constitution outlines two major responsibilities for vice presidents. Article 2, Section 1 states that “in Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.” This provision has come into play several times in American history with great consequence.

In 1865, Vice President Andrew Johnson succeeded President Abraham Lincoln following his assassination. Johnson proved to be an opponent of the robust Reconstruction policies that congressional Republicans pushed to assist freed Black people in the South. Then, in 1901, elevated after President William McKinley was killed, Theodore Roosevelt would remake the role of the presidency in American life, undertaking major policy initiatives such as the construction of the Panama Canal. And in November 1963, the assassination of John F. Kennedy resulted in the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, whose Great Society would transform domestic policy and whose war in Vietnam became a disastrous foreign policy quagmire.

The second constitutional provision, Article 1, Section 3, establishes that “the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Several vice presidents have executed this important function, including Vice President Kamala Harris, who has cast 33 tie-breaking votes—the most that anyone in her position has taken.

Politically, vice presidents have been seen during elections as assets to achieve regional balance. Since the ratification of the 12th Amendment (1804), which outlined a process whereby presidents and vice presidents were to be separately nominated and elected, the candidates at the top of the ticket have turned to their running mates to bring over voters from other parts of the country. This was the virtue that Franklin Roosevelt, a New Yorker, looked to from Garner, and also that Kennedy sought from Johnson during a period when Democrats were deeply divided between their northern and southern wings.

Beyond their official remit, over the course of the 20th century, vice presidents became more important in governance. Besides the role of serving as a bridge to Capitol Hill, presidents gradually increased their weight in the executive branch. Change was already evident with Vice President Calvin Coolidge, whom President Warren Harding invited to participate in cabinet meetings. Garner’s successor in 1941, Henry Wallace, chaired Roosevelt’s Economic Defense Board and the Supply Priorities and Allocation Board, two bodies that were deeply relevant to the World War II production effort.

Following the end of WWII, and during the onset of the Cold War, presidents steadily counted on vice presidents to do more. President Harry Truman invited his vice president, Alben Barkley, to help navigate through some of the challenges of the nuclear age as well as domestic challenges in the post-New Deal period. Vice President Richard Nixon presided over several high-level cabinet and National Security Council meetings under Dwight Eisenhower and also took numerous trips overseas, meeting with foreign leaders in 54 countries. Most famously, in July 1959, Vice President Nixon squared off against Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev in the unscripted “kitchen debate” about which political and economic system brought the most benefit to working families.

Although continually frustrated, subsequent vice presidents, including Johnson, found more opportunities in their role than they expected. With a new office in the Executive Office Building, just a few steps away from the White House, Johnson squeezed everything that he could from the position. As the chair of Kennedy’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, he grappled with some of the difficult questions on race relations, laying groundwork for what he would do as president in 1964 and 1965. Under President Gerald Ford, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller headed the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States, established in response to media revelations that the agency had abused its power. The commission issued a report confirming several kinds of wrongdoing and became part of the broader mid-1970s conversation about reforming intelligence institutions.

The next big moment of change occurred with Walter Mondale. Yes, that Walter Mondale, the phlegmatic Minnesotan who had been the state’s senator from 1964 to 1976 before joining President Jimmy Carter’s administration in 1977. Carter, who ran as an outsider and had weak ties to national politics, chose Mondale as a long-time liberal legislator who could assist him in understanding how Washington worked. The Georgian integrated Mondale into his inner circle. He “executivized” the vice presidency, as Carter biographer Jonathan Alter argued. When Carter issued an executive order that incorporated the vice president into the military chain of command, top national security advisors took note.

Mondale, who secured an office in the West Wing, watched as his staff grew, and he became a regular participant in meetings on domestic and international policy. Carter granted Mondale access to intelligence briefings and invited him to foreign policy breakfasts. During a conversation with Johnson’s former vice president, Hubert Humphrey, Carter noted in his diary that this other Minnesotan understood that he enjoyed “nothing like the responsibility I’ve given to Fritz and the closeness with which Fritz and I have worked.”

Under President Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush—former head of the CIA and ambassador to the United Nations—played a formidable role in deliberations over foreign policy, from Central America to the Soviet Union. Bush kept Mondale’s prime office space and benefited from the fact that Reagan’s chief of staff, James Baker, was one of his oldest friends and allies. Bush chaired the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, a prominent position within an administration that was determined to cut down the size of government.

While Bush’s vice president, Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle, experienced a diminished role, Tennessee Sen. Al Gore emerged as a crucial partner to President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. Gore took on number of crucial issues in the 1990s. Shortly after his inauguration, Clinton tasked Gore with heading the National Performance Review, a body that the president considered to be a high priority as it set out ways to make government more efficient and cheaper. Gore also was deeply involved with regulations related to the internet.

Even Americans who didn’t follow politics closely knew of the influence that Vice President Dick Cheney had on energy and counterterrorism policy during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001-2009). From the moment he accepted Bush’s invitation to serve in the role—after having headed the task force to find the Texas governor a running mate—Cheney, according to a top staffer Dan Bartlett, made clear that “I’m not going to be the guy going to funerals. I want to be a real partner in helping you make decisions with regard to domestic and foreign policy.”

Washington Post journalist Barton Gellman published Angler, an insightful book that unpacked how strategic Cheney, derided by critics as the “prince of darkness,” was in pushing for lower-level appointments within the Defense Department; this was so that the advice bubbling up to him over policy decisions after 9/11 matched what he wanted to do. Cheney was a major proponent of launching the controversial war in Iraq, helping paper over the fact that evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program was shoddy at best, and he emerged as a prime advocate for the more aggressive techniques used against detainees accused of being terrorists.

More recently, President Barack Obama spoke often about how his vice president, Joe Biden, was essential in helping him figure out a wide range of issues including Afghanistan, where he was one of the most vocal members of the administration questioning the decision to increase troop presence there.

Although it was difficult for Vice President Mike Pence to be independent from President Donald Trump, he helped maintain support with right-wing conservatives on Capitol Hill, often found himself cleaning up relationships with foreign leaders after uncomfortable conversations with Trump and, most important, in one single moment, Pence helped to protect American democracy. When Trump pressed him to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Pence refused—even as the mob that gathered outside of the Capitol, with mock gallows set up, chanted that it wanted to hang him.

During her time in office, Harris has tackled a number of pivotal issues. While Republicans have blasted her as the “border czar” who failed to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants in the early years of Biden’s presidency, the truth is that has Harris proven quite effective working on a number of difficult issues, including figuring out how to assist Ukraine in its efforts to defeat Russia, and has been the point person on the fight for reproductive rights, an issue that has garnered strong support for Democrats since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

In other words, history shows that vice presidents matter a great deal, not just as assets in a presidential campaign or possible replacements to the person they work for, but as prominent policymakers in their own right.

As Americans watch the debate on Tuesday, they should remember how much the job has mattered, and not just in times of crisis. They should carefully evaluate who would be a better governing official: what values they will defend; what their demeanor will be in difficult moments; how they will reason their way through difficult decisions. For when the nation doesn’t take potential vice presidents seriously, we do so at our own risk.