Trump's Upcoming Pick for Vice President

 So, apparently Donald Trump now has a list of eight potential candidates for the Vice President slot -- Marco Rubio, JD Vance, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, Elise Stefanik, Byron Donalds, and Ben Carson.

It could be worse.  Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, and Joe Arpaio are all mercifully absent.  Presumably Trump fears they would cost him votes.

Look, I know it is customary to analyze the potential picks from the candidate's viewpoint and list their pros and cons as potential vote getters.  But I am not going to do that.  The Vice President might have some influence on Trump and might take over if he passes his sell-by date while in office.  So, for the sake of the country, how do I evaluate them?

My somewhat unorthodox approach is that I prefer a knave to a fool. In other words, when candidates say something completely nutty, I would rather have one who knows it is a lie told to fool the gullible rubes than one who actually believes it.  Certainly, many people I respect disagree with me on this point.  And I recognize that the one who is knowingly lying is more morally culpable than the one who truly believes.  But it is also true that the deliberate liar is reality-based on the whole and can be rational when it is in his/her interest.  And the true believer will often cross lines that the liar would not.

Consider the 2022 election.  While the vast majority of Republicans who lost conceded defeat, there were two notable exceptions -- Kari Lake and Solomon Pena.  Lake knew perfectly well that she lost, but put on a show of challenging the results, made speeches denouncing the election as rigged, and sued to overturn the results.  At the same time, she knew perfectly well that the result would fail and did not make a serious attempt to overturn the results.  She was simply being performative.  Pena, by contrast, genuinely believed those stories, made complaints to a wide range of election officials and, when they did not take him seriously, started shooting at their houses.  It seems a safe assumption that Lake would never go so far.

Lou Dobbs also comes to mind.  There is a reason he was the only Fox host fired over the 2020 election.  The others knew perfectly well that they were recounting lies and could stop when the directive came down.  Dobbs believed and had to be fired.  Likewise, Newsmax hoped to outflank Fox on the right, but found it did not have deep enough pockets to withstand the sort of libel verdicts Fox could absorb.  As a result, it had to cancel Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani, and others who refused to shut up because they truly believed.

So, with that in mind, what would be my order of priority among the Big Eight?

Knaves but not a fools.

Doug Burgum

1.  Doug Burgum.  Two-term governor of North Dakota and businessman.  Burgum seems to be a basically, sane, normal, decent person whose politics I don't like.  He clearly knows he is lying and makes only the minimum effort necessary.  If he ever did come to power, I think he could be trusted to govern in a rational manner, even if I did not care for it.  The big question is whether the governor of a state with a population under 780,000 is qualified to be President.  To which I can only answer, that Burgum is almost certainly better qualified than Trump.

Tim Scott

2.  Tim Scott.  South Carolina Senator since 2013, formerly House of Representatives, South Carolina legislature and Charleston City Council, served on the Banking and Finance Committees, author of Trump's proposed police reform bill, voted to certify Biden as President.  He appears to be both qualified and rational, and basically normal and decent.  He is also absolutely shameless in the lies he is willing to tell to get the slot.  Like Burgum, Scott really doesn't seem to care that everyone knows he is lying. So why do I prefer Burgum?  Mostly because of his role a a governor.  A governor really has to deal in reality or he/she will not be successful.  We could use more governors running for President for that very reason.

Tom Cotton

3.  Tom Cotton.  Arkansas Senator, one of the Big Three most conservative along with Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, but he broke with them to agree to certify Biden as President, apparently after hearing the take recording of Trump's conversation with Brad Raffensperger.  Also a Russia hawk who voted for aid to Ukraine, definitely reality based, and tough enough to maybe have some sway with Trump and keep him at least somewhat grounded in reality.  So why do I prefer Burgum or Scott, neither of whom shows that kind of toughness?  Well, unlike Burgum and Scott, Cotton does not come across as basically decent.  His enthusiasm for waterboarding and eagerness to declare martial law during the 2020 riots suggest that Cotton is an authoritarian himself, albeit, a more reality-based authoritarian than Trump.  However, I am open to persuasion that Cotton might be preferable to Scott because he is tougher and better able to keep Trump grounded.

Marco Rubio

4. Marco Rubio.  Florida Senator, part of the Tea Party class, contender for President in 2016, voted to certify Biden.  It won't be Rubio for a simple reason.  The Constitution does not exactly say that the President and Vice President must be from different states, but it does require electors to vote for a ticket that includes at least one person from a different state.  This means that if Rubio joined Trump on the ticket, Florida's electors would be disqualified.  In a close election, that just might cost Trump victory, so I think we can rule out Rubio.  Nonetheless, if he were to move to another state, that would be a sort of ultimate act of self-abasement.  Rubio ran as a hawk in 2016, but voted against aid to Ukraine.  In short, he has abandoned his principles beyond what is absolutely necessary for the slot.  Somehow that just strikes me as particularly distasteful, although I am open to persuasion either way whether he might be preferable to Tom Cotton.

Elise Stefanik

5. Elise Stefanik.  House of Representatives from Upstate New York since 2014.  Originally ran as a moderate, elevated to chair of the House Republican Conference mostly so a woman could take Liz Cheney's place when Liz Cheney refused to acknowledge Trump as winner of the 2020 election.  Stefanik has since sought to advance herself by abject deference to Trump.  So what makes her any worse than Burgum, Scott,  Cotton, or Rubio?  Look, I prefer a knave to a fool, but I prefer a lesser knave.  The others at least have some sort of distinction other than shameless opportunism, but Stefanik has built her entire career on that.

Purely a fool.

Ben Carson

6. Ben Carson neurosurgeon, served as Donald Trump's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, noted for bizarre beliefs like that the pyramids were really granaries and not tombs.  Kevin Drum described Carson's previous claim to fame as a neurosurgeon and crackpot and described him as being crazy but not scary.*  To be clear, just because Carson is a fool does not mean he is lacking in intelligence.  He is a literal brain surgeon, after all.  Nonetheless, we have had 46 Presidents of varying quality, and not one was ever qualified to perform brain surgery.  Conclusion:  Being a President and doing brain surgery are two separate and unrelated skill sets and having one by no means ensures the others.  Also, Carson is nutty enough to maybe actually believe about the stolen election.  But he seems like a decent enough guy other than that.

Knaves and fools.

Byron Donalds

7. Byron Donalds.  Elected to the House in 2020, almost certainly not qualified to be President.  But unlike Burgum, who appears to be reality based and willing to listen to sensible advice, Donalds appears to have made a career out of being as outrageous and obnoxious and possible.  This includes saying things like that Black people were better off under segregation and other such bomb throwing.  Unlike Scott, Cotton, or Rubio, Donalds voted not to certify Biden's election, which should itself be disqualifying. Does he actually believe the outrageous things he says?  I am inclined to think that Donalds resembles Trump in being a master of doublethink, about to believe or not believe whatever is most expedient at the time.  And to Donalds, expedient means outrageous.  Differs from the others in that he does not appear to have any interest whatever in governing and solely want to provoke.  Fortunately, Donalds has the same incurable defect as Rubio.  He is from Florida.

8. J.D. Vance.  Ohio Senator, elected 2022.  Combines all the worst traits of a knave and a fool.  Once harshly critical of Trump, now supports him down the line.  And it is hard to tell, but Vance appears to be a true believer who supports Trumpism with all the zeal of a convert.  He is definitely opposed to aid to Ukraine and believes that the working class is not served by the current international order.  (How does the working class benefit from more countries invading their neighbors?).  Vance knows perfectly well that the 2020 election was not stolen and does not seriously argue that it was, but does seriously argue that voters going to the polls and casting their votes for President should be a empty formality and that Congress should be allowed to throw out the election at will. In short, a Trumpist true believer who just might have the intelligence and competence to pull it off.  

And naturally, current signs point to Vance.

_____________________________________________
*He questionably characterized Steve Bannon as scary but not crazy and gave Michael Flynn the dubious distinction of being the only member of Trump's original Cabinet to be both crazy and scary.