Roy S. Johnson: Which VP is More Qualified to Lead? Let's Be Real

Last week, amidst the uproar over President Joe Biden's underwhelming debate performance, I suggested that the 81-year-old step down and let Vice President Kamala Harris take over the Oval Office. The Democratic Party could rally around her, making her the incumbent in the upcoming election.

However, Biden doesn’t seem to be considering this. So, Democrats should stop lamenting and instead focus on crafting a compelling message that will energize voters who support their policies, convincing them to choose Biden over his opponent.

My idea of President Harris drew a variety of responses. Some agreed, others did not. Many who disagreed argued that Harris was not qualified to be president. Here are some notable critiques:

“…not much of a hope…” – Phillip

“…no one will take her seriously.” – Tom

“If you think for a nanosecond that she would be America’s best ‘hope’, then you, sir, are a fool. — Gary

“Selecting a President is about selecting the best person for the job, not meeting a quota…”—Greg (Actually, selecting a VP has always been about choosing someone who can deliver a particular constituency. i.e., a state, women, young voters, etc. So Black women are a ‘quota’, not a constituency?)

“You clearly like to play the DEI and identity politics game…” – Pete (See above.)

“…funny stuff today about that goofy Harris. Only thing that non-[B]lack can do is make a word salad.”— Mike (Okay, that’s an insipid one.)

“…You are so full of crap.”— Alex (my fav)

The 78-year-old Republican presidential nominee must believe the 39-year-old Vance is capable and qualified to be President of the United States.

Cool. It’s his choice. By all indications after the first days of the Republican National Convention, the party is cool with it, too.

Here’s the thing: Is Vance qualified to be president? More qualified than Harris?

The U.S. Constitution states only three qualifications for the office: The President must be at least 35 years old, a natural-born citizen, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 24 years. So, check, check, and check on both Harris (she’s 59) and Vance.

Every other “qualification” anyone (including me) touts is purely their own. One measurement is public service, not just elected public service, but service—something that demonstrates a commitment to a cause larger than one’s own self-interest, and empathy for those outside one's own class and kind.

Call this the Harris v. Vance Tale of the Tape:

Years of elected public service: Harris 22, Vance 1.5.

Since being elected as San Francisco District Attorney in 2002 (a position she held until 2011), Harris has served as state Attorney General (2011-2017), U.S. Senator (2017-2021), and Vice President for the last three years.

An attorney and venture capitalist, Vance had never run for public office until entering the U.S. Senate race. He was sworn in on January 3, 2023.

Qualified? Thanks for clearing that up for us, Republicans.

As well as this: No matter how much Republicans try to distance themselves from their reversal of Roe v Wade – of a woman’s right to choose – the selection of Vance undermines any efforts to mitigate their stance on women's rights.

While he claims to be “100 percent pro-life,” Vance's exact stance seems to be a moving target.

Vance’s presence also reinforces the Republican stance on migrants, especially those who are undocumented. Like Trump, he opposes “every attempt to grant amnesty” to anyone who crossed the border without documentation—regardless of the horrors they fled or their contributions as productive citizens. Thanks for the clarity.

Numerous other Vance stances make it clear he’s Donald Trump’s policy offspring (both believe the American dollar should be weaker)—for better hair or worse.