• Share:

This guest author post is by Christopher J. Devine and Karine Prémont, editors of Second in Command: Reevaluating the Role of Vice Presidents and Running Mates in Modern American Politics. The book is available in hardcover, paperback, and open access.

Presidential leadership defines much of American history. On this 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, if you were to ask Americans to reflect on its key events or landmark achievements, you might hear about Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase—or James Monroe’s famous Monroe Doctrine—or Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. In the twentieth century: Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to overcome the Great Depression and win World War II, John Kennedy’s management of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Ronald Reagan’s quest to end the Cold War. As for examples of presidential leadership in the twenty-first century? Well, that might depend on whom you ask.

But what about vice presidents? Where do they fit into American history—and what difference do they make today?

Judging by recent events, one might conclude that the VP matters a great deal. The current vice president, JD Vance, has played a leading role in US negotiations to end the war in Iran, while also heading a high-profile anti-fraud task force. At the same time, Vance has been engaged in a full-scale media blitz, to promote his new book as well as the policies of the Trump Administration—and, quite possibly, his 2028 presidential candidacy. As vice president, he is widely assumed to be Trump’s heir apparent. Indeed, Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024, shortly after President Joe Biden bowed out of the race. During the presidential campaign, Harris touted her accomplishments as VP while Vance blamed her for the perceived failures of the Biden Administration. They at least seemed to agree on the importance of the vice presidency.

Yet one would be hard-pressed to cite examples of vice-presidential leadership that shaped the course of American history—or even to name a handful of VPs (excluding those who later became president). There is good reason for this.

First, consider the constitutional power of the American vice presidency. Frankly, there isn’t much to it. VPs are charged with presiding over the US Senate, and breaking ties in that body. The former happens rarely in recent decades. The latter occurred more frequently than ever under Vice President Harris, but only because the Senate happened to be quite evenly divided during her tenure. VPs also preside over the certification of electoral votes following a presidential election—but only in a ministerial role, as Mike Pence correctly (but controversially) interpreted the Constitution on January 6, 2021. Finally, and most notably, the vice president takes over the presidency in case of the current occupant’s removal, resignation, death, or (temporary) incapacitation. While nine vice presidents have become president via death or resignation, this has not happened in over 50 years. Come election time, it only makes sense that voters will focus much more on the top of the presidential ticket—recognizing that the person elected president will be much more powerful, once in office, than the vice president.

Second, the role of the vice president—as well as the vice-presidential candidate—is a subordinate one. Their job is not to lead the nation, or a party ticket, but to support the leadership efforts of the president or presidential candidate. It is the president, after all, who heads the executive branch—making decisions ranging from judicial and cabinet appointments to signing or vetoing legislation and ensuring that the nation’s laws are “faithfully executed.” The Constitution, furthermore, designates the president as “Commander in Chief.” Vice presidents and vice-presidential candidates serve a different, but still very important, role. They are, as the title of our new book indicates, “Second in Command.”

The fact is, vice presidents and running mates are essential to understanding modern American politics. They do not, of course, make the executive decisions or lead the presidential campaigns that define our times. But, as the distinguished contributors to our book demonstrate, being “second in command” provides opportunities to influence leadership decisions and the course of American history.

Vice presidents, while exercising little direct power, have numerous opportunities to influence government policy and performance within the executive branch. For example, vice presidents-elects usually participate in the appointment of the administration’s key advisors and the heads of various agencies during the transition period—and may even be entrusted with coordinating this pivotal moment, as Heath Brown demonstrates. VPs have also become, at least since Walter Mondale, presidents’ trusted advisors on foreign policy. Many have been chosen precisely because of their expertise in this area, such as George H. W. Bush, Al Gore, or Joe Biden, and, as explained in the chapter by Richard Yon et al., can influence their administration’s decisions (as Dick Cheney did in relation to the Iraq War, for example). VPs have also been consequential in their role as liaisons to Congress, a role in which they can exercise discreet yet effective leadership, as Christophe Cloutier-Roy points out. Without Vice President Biden, for example, it is difficult to imagine Congress passing the ambitious budgetary measures proposed by Barack Obama to counter the effects of the 2008 financial and economic crisis. But while vice presidents largely operate out of the spotlight and are dependent on the quality of their relationship with the president (as Karine Prémont describes), their gaffes and mistakes are usually very public. Indeed, Americans’ views of the vice presidency have been skewed by exposure to innumerable jokes and caricatures about the office’s occupants in the media and especially on late-night comedy talk shows, as illustrated in Jody C Baumgartner’s chapter. This contrast likely explains why experts on American politics are often reluctant to use the word “greatness” to assess the work of VPs, as Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin Vaughn find in their recent survey. This is all the more true given that VPs often struggle to make a name for themselves and bear the brunt of their administration’s failures without being able to take credit for its successes—a major obstacle, especially when they themselves wish to run for president. However, history (or at least Roy E. Brownell’s insightful analysis of it) shows that when the stakes are high, some vice presidents are quite capable of standing up to the commander-in-chief—from Thomas Jefferson to John Nance Garner to Mike Pence.

Vice-presidential candidates also play an important role in presidential campaigns. While the choice of a running mate is unlikely to decide an election, it does provide crucial information to voters about the presidential candidate making that decision—for example, about his or her professional judgment or political ideology. Kamala Harris’s selection in 2020 also gained Joe Biden support among Black and women voters, according to Christopher J. Devine and Kyle C. Kopko’s analysis. While these effects were quite small, they might have helped Biden win key swing states in a very close election. Harris attracted a great deal of media coverage in 2020. However, as Stacy Ulbig’s research shows, Harris (as well as her Republican opponent, Mike Pence) had relatively little influence on voters in general, and political independents in particular. Indeed, vice-presidential candidates’ electoral influence seems to be waning in recent years. At the same time, their traditional role as the “attack dog”—as documented by Charles J. Holden—has become less distinctive in an era of increasing political polarization, as presidential candidates including Donald Trump have come to embrace partisan combat. But, beyond its electoral implications, the choice of a running mate also has important symbolic value. As Whitney L. Court demonstrates, vice-presidential selections have become more demographically diverse in recent years. The inclusion of several women on recent presidential tickets, for example, highlights the complex gender dynamics at play as politicians and voters negotiate differing conceptions of presidential leadership (as Lindsey Meeks explains). For all these reasons, understanding the role of the vice-presidential candidate is critical to understanding the presidential campaigns that help to define American history.

American institutions have changed a great deal over the past 250 years. The vice presidency, in particular, has been transformed over the past 50 years. While the constitutional duties of that office have remained fixed over time, informal changes that began in the early twentieth century and accelerated during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1977-1981) have, for the most part, increased the vice president’s influence over the administration of American government. This, in turn, has increased the importance of selecting the next vice president.

As Americans pivot from reflecting on the nation’s past to anticipating its future, and the 2028 election in particular, they would do well to consider not only the importance of presidential leadership but also the performance of those individuals who provide critical support when it comes to attaining and responsibly exercising executive power. Many government officials provide such support, but only one is elected by the nation as a whole, alongside the president, and cannot be fired by him or her: the vice president. VPs are, therefore, uniquely positioned to exercise influence, if not power, within presidential administrations—and, in doing so, to help shape the course of American history.