For a Vice President, It’s Hard to Succeed
George H.W. Bush was the only one elected since Martin Van Buren. There are lessons for Kamala Harris.
July 24, 2024
Kamala Harris probably hasn’t had time to reflect on the election of 1988—the last time a vice president succeeded directly to the presidency by election (and the first time since Martin Van Buren in 1836). George H.W. Bush’s campaign offers lessons for today, even if the circumstances are different.
When I joined the Bush campaign to oversee policy and speeches in July 1988, some polls had the vice president 17 points behind his opponent. Bush had to step out from under President Ronald Reagan’s considerable shadow. As understudy, Bush’s task was to capitalize on the benefits of Reagan’s legacy while distinguishing himself as a new leader. And Bush had to define his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.
With his convention speech, Bush reintroduced himself to the American public. His speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, listened closely to the vice president so his public statements hewed to how he expressed himself privately. In her drafts she tried to avoid the pronoun “I,” knowing he had long ago internalized his mother’s instruction not to brag. The speech began with Bush’s personal story. He then explained what his mission would be as president.
People need to know why a candidate wants to be president and why the No. 2 should advance to the top job. Ms. Harris must answer those questions while telling her story. She can highlight that the Democratic Party has recognized the yearning for generational change. She should also take a stand on political culture: Bush ripped Mr. Dukakis for vetoing a 1977 bill that would have required Massachusetts teachers to lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Harris should likewise corner Mr. Trump on whether he’ll accept the results of a free and fair election—a vital principle of democracy. She should also look for ways to distance herself from woke politics while treating her electoral base respectfully.
Selecting a running mate is the first independent decision a presidential candidate can make. Bush chose Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana. Mr. Quayle was young and brought congressional experience and contacts to the ticket. Ms. Harris’s pick should highlight her centrism and desire to draw Americans closer together. A governor from another part of the country would bring executive skill and supportive perspectives.
Ms. Harris has to be careful not simply to follow President Biden’s campaign handbook of stressing the danger of a Trump presidency. She needs to show policy substance—and that she’s up to the job—while drawing contrasts with both Mr. Trump’s views and frequently unmoored behavior.
Pollster Bob Teeter designed such an approach for Bush in 1988. Mr. Dukakis was running on his competence while skating over substance. In September and October, Bush devoted time to a series of policy themes, giving positive and contrast speeches and using visuals that reinforced his message. By November, Bush had succeeded in presenting his own serious agenda and underscoring Mr. Dukakis’s weaknesses.
Ms. Harris has at least seven opportunities to pursue a similar approach. She has already spoken energetically on abortion. She can punch at Mr. Trump’s judicial appointees, who provided the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ms. Harris’s position will be that Democrats stand for safe care and a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. She would also be wise to show respect for other views on life, treating abortion as a sad circumstance while encouraging adoption.
Second, Ms. Harris needs to counter a vulnerability: illegal immigration. Bush turned environmentalism to his advantage with an event in Boston Harbor and an agenda on clean air, safe beaches and wetlands. Ms. Harris should acknowledge the administration’s failures, while pressing the specifics of the bipartisan Senate bill spearheaded by Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) that Mr. Trump torpedoed. Then she should blast Mr. Trump’s promise of mass deportation as a humanitarian and economic disaster—and one more example of his ineffective posturing, like his expensive, failed wall.
Third, Ms. Harris should face inflation frustrations head on. Inflation and interest rates are coming down. But Mr. Trump’s high tariffs, hostility to beneficial immigration, calls for a weak dollar and attacks on the Federal Reserve would reignite inflation. Ms. Harris should signal how she will help Americans compete and use trade positively through digital accords, the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the extension of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact.
Fourth, Ms. Harris should explain the strategic stakes in Ukraine to sharpen the contrast between her and Mr. Trump—who is infatuated with Vladimir Putin—and to highlight the danger of J.D. Vance’s retreat to isolationism. By pressing Europe harder on transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, Ms. Harris could show that she recognizes the need for alliance partners to do more.
Fifth, every presidential candidate must demonstrate an understanding of the centrality of national defense. Every China hawk had better ante up for a larger defense budget. Yet Ms. Harris should add that neither Mr. Trump nor Joe Biden modernized the Defense Department effectively. She must make clear that America can’t afford to fall behind.
Sixth, Ms. Harris should own the future. Unlike her 78-year-old opponent, she should welcome the potential of artificial intelligence to improve productivity, medicine, education and America’s innovative advantage. Ms. Harris can emphasize, contrary to the Republican platform, that the U.S. and close partners can lead on AI while keeping critical infrastructure safe, protecting against bioweapons and cyberattacks.
Finally, I hope, perhaps forlornly, that Ms. Harris will acknowledge that a budget deficit of 7% of gross domestic product and federal debt near the postwar high of 104% of GDP put the U.S. at risk. The interest expense now approximates defense and Medicare spending. In addition to her tax plans, Ms. Harris should state she will seek spending restraint and at least a re-examination of Mr. Biden’s profligate industrial policies.
Vice President Bush erased his initial 17-point deficit and won by 8, carrying 40 states with 426 electoral votes. Vice President Harris has time to win if she runs her own campaign, not Mr. Biden’s.
Mr. Zoellick served as White House deputy chief of staff (1992-93), U.S. trade representative (2001-05), deputy U.S. secretary of state (2005-06) and World Bank president (2007-12). He is author of “America in the World.”