Sunday, July 06, 2008

Romney as VP?

For the record, I think Mitt Romney would make a pretty good middle-of-the-road technocratic president, especially if events allowed him to focus primarily on domestic issues. Despite my respect for Romney's abilities, I am very disturbed by this talk that he is being considered as McCain's running mate because of his presumed ability to raise money and possibly even finance a good chunk of the campaign himself.

This is not absolutely unprecedented in American politics. Indeed, by my quick reckoning, there were at least three previous men nominated for vice president almost solely because of their ability and willingness to underwrite campaign costs: Charles W. Fairbanks for the Republicans in 1904 and 1916, Henry Davis for the Democrats in 1904, and Garrett Hobart for the Republicans in 1896.

You'll notice that these men belong to one particular historical period, and there is a good reason for this.

Through most of the 19th century, the parties financed themselves primarily by "taxing" the wages paid to party loyalists appointed to government jobs. (See Michael Schudson, The Good Citizen, for a fascinating and lively discussion of 19th century party organization and finance.) The civil service reforms that began in 1882 squeezed this source of funding, at exactly the same time as the rise of more centralized national party organizations began dramatically to increase the cost of campaigning.

The pluto-vice-president represented a creative response to the problem. Men like Fairbanks, Davis, and Hobart could write big checks themselves - and extract even bigger checks from their friends.

Plainly, however, the pluto-vice-president represented an inadequate solution to the problem. Resentment of the political power of the super-wealthy was intensifying in early 20th century America - and the pluto-vice-presidential nominee risked becoming a provocation and a target. Anyway, such figures were becoming unnecessary. The increasing sophistication of the parties' financial apparatus soon enabled them to raise more money from more people without incurring such overwhelming obligations to one single person.

It's startling to hear that the GOP may now be considering reverting to this century-old practice. Certainly every Republican should be grateful to Romney for his hard work on behalf of John McCain. And Lord knows the party needs the money. But to reward fundraising with a spot on the ticket would sabotage John McCain's image and message as an independent reform voice. And it expose Republicans to accusations of auctioning the party off to big money in the very year that Democrats are outraising us two and three to one.

07/06 01:17 AM