This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Aug. 24, 2012 - Vice-presidential selection invariably involves multiple considerations. Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s choice of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was no exception. The Ryan choice can most likely be explained as the product of a combination of factors, some of which are common to most presidential candidates, some of which are common to Republican candidates, and some of which reflect Romney’s particular needs given the context of this election.
Like all presidential candidates facing a likely competitive race, Romney needed to choose a running mate who would be a plausible president. In modern times, it is simply bad politics to choose a running mate who is not ready to perform on a national stage. A variety of factors including the growth of the vice presidency, the identification of the vice-presidential choice with the presidential candidate, and the constant scrutiny of national candidates in an information age makes it imprudent to choose a running mate who appears insubstantial.
That’s a lesson most recent presidential candidates have appreciated. Sen. John McCain ignored that truth in 2008, perhaps because he became convinced that he faced a steep uphill race, when he chose Gov. Sarah Palin, perhaps the most unqualified major party vice-presidential candidate in more than a century.
Whether Rep. Ryan is deemed presidential remains to be seen; but his credentials, which include seven terms in the House of Representatives, chairmanship of a major House committee, and past mention as a prospective presidential candidate in 2012 are points in his favor. Those credits made him a more plausible choice than relative newcomers to high office such as Sens. Marco Rubio or Kelly Ayotte or Govs. Rob McDonnell or Chris Christie.
Like all modern Republican presidential candidates, Romney needed to placate the increasingly right-wing Republican constituency. During the last half-century, the Republican right has gained a virtual stranglehold over the vice-presidential selection. Every Republican presidential candidate except two (Richard M. Nixon in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980) has either chosen a right-wing darling or given the right an effective veto regarding the vice-presidential choice among options presented to it.
The problem has been particularly acute for nominees like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, McCain and Romney who, for various reasons, had aroused misgivings among the right. Such nominees face pressure to continually prove themselves to the Republican base by tacking right.
The right wing bias was also reflected in George W. Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney, an able public servant with broad governmental experience but with an ideologically extreme voting record. Bush chose Cheney over former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, a more pragmatic conservative who surely would have counseled Bush to place greater priority on bipartisanship and consulting with Congress than did Cheney.
The Ryan selection reflected Romney’s need to placate the right in order to maximize its campaign involvement. The right-wing dominance was likely a factor in Romney’s decision to pass over Ohio’s highly regarded Sen. Rob Portman, probably the most qualified of Romney’s alternatives, but one who engendered less enthusiasm from the Republican base.
Romney’s decision also reflected two unique political needs in the political context he faces in 2012. Ryan’s Midwestern roots certainly did not guarantee his selection but they probably made it more likely. As our country and our politics have become more polarized, presidential campaigns increasingly focus on a smaller set of states, a tendency the misconceived Electoral College system fosters.
Many of the states generally listed as tossups or as leaning either to President Barack Obama or Gov. Romney are in the Midwest. It is perhaps no coincidence that three of those who apparently received most serious consideration — Ryan, Portman and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota — are from that region. Romney no doubt hopes that Ryan can help bring Wisconsin to his column and enhance his chances in a number of other potential battleground states.
Further, the selection of Ryan grew out of Romney’s need to inject some energy and excitement into a flagging campaign. Romney emerged from a contentious primary battle, which extended into the spring against a weak field that lacked any other plausible nominee. The ensuing months allowed him to solidify his standing as the Republican standard bearer but did not produce much sense of excitement regarding his candidacy, a relatively novel predicament for a non-incumbent.
Romney apparently thought that Ryan, as a fresh face on the national scene and as the first national candidate from Generation X, would add an infusion of energy and excitement to his campaign, much as Bush hoped nearly a quarter century earlier in selecting Sen. Dan Quayle as the first baby boomer on a national ticket.
These calculations have produced a ticket that is anomalous in some respects. The choice is unusual in that neither candidate has a national security credential, and it’s risky in identifying Romney so closely with the controversial Ryan plan and the unpopular House of Representatives. It’s too early to judge the wisdom of Romney’s calculations. The campaign will provide that assessment.
Joel K. Goldstein, the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law at Saint Louis University School of Law, is writing a political biography of Edmund S. Muskie.