JD Vance, vice president to Donald Trump, can be credited with maneuvering Trump’s legislative propositions through tight corners. He has managed to make a significant impact by leveraging his position to cast vital tiebreaking votes in the Senate. His involvement is evident from the commencement of Trump’s second term, with a total of seven tiebreaking votes under his belt, all towards Trump administration’s causes.
The recent scenario was no different, where Vance came to Trump’s rescue, dissolving two crucial ties related to the procedural votes for the rescissions package. This was necessary due to the defection by three Republican senators: Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. They chose to stand with the Democrats and two ostensible independents, causing the bill to be threatened.
Interestingly, Trump has never shied away from expressing his admiration for Vance. In a particular gushing praise, the President lauded Vance’s ‘fantastic’ performance during the vice presidential debate in the prior election season, asserting it ‘reconfirmed’ Vance as the right choice for a running mate.
One example when Vance inevitably influenced a major policy decision was the Senate passage of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’. This pivotal bill, an icon of Trump’s second term, proposed budgetary increments for border security and defense, protracted the Trump 2017 tax cuts, launched an unusual tax cut for tips, and instigated a federal school choice benefit, among other provisions.
Before the aforementioned bill could clear the Senate, two critical amendments to the legislation were proposed. Diving into the foray, Vance stepped forward to cast the tie-breaking votes yet again, setting the ground for the Act’s final passage.
Vance demonstrated his commitment to the Trump ethos on global tariffs too. He protected Trump’s controversial plans by using his tie-breaking vote to thwart a resolution that attempted to undermine Trump’s global tariffs strategy.
Vance’s involvement went beyond voting matters, reflecting in the administration’s personnel decisions too. Embodying the principle ‘personnel is policy’, he cast a tie-breaking vote for the appointment of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Hegseth since then became a cornerstone of the administration, leading a notably successful military recruitment initiative.
Vance, with all his contributions, has redefined the role of the vice president, making it more significant than ever. This is a substantial shift from the perspective of former Vice President John Nance Garner, who allegedly remarked that the position was ‘not worth a bucket of warm spit’ during his tenure under Franklin Roosevelt between 1933 to 1941.
The vice presidency has morphed into a formidable position due to the rise of cutthroat electoral politics. This can be traced back to Kamala Harris, Vance’s immediate predecessor, whose contribution waned in comparison. Unfortunately, Harris could cast more tie-breaking votes, 33 to be exact, than any vice president before her, which strikes as rather extraordinary considering her single term in office.
The fact that Kamala Harris served only one term and yet surpassed John C. Calhoun, who had landed the second highest amount of tiebreaking votes, 31, in nearly two full terms, from two centuries ago, is a questionable achievement. It hints towards a lack of consensus within the democratic caucus more than any astute leadership skills.
The comparative inadequacy of Harris’ tenure becomes even more apparent when matched against the performance of Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence. Pence managed to cast 13 tiebreaking votes during his service from 2017 to 2020, demonstrating a more cohesive political unit under Trump’s presidency.
In conclusion, JD Vance seems to exemplify the newfound prominence and power of the vice presidency. By effectively ushering in and supporting Trump’s policy initiatives, he legitimizes the stance that the Vice President’s office is no longer a ceremonial role, but rather a decisive force pushing the thrust and direction of the administration’s agenda.
Unlike his predecessor Kamala Harris whose contributions were more an indicator of rifts within the Democratic ranks, Vance’s contributions have been directed towards the solidification and implementation of policy agendas, indicating a strong and unified Republican front.
One also cannot overlook the transformation of the vice president’s role under Trump’s leadership. While the stark difference in the number of tie-breaking votes cast by Harris and Vance could be attributed to the differences in political climate, it undeniably showcases the stability and unanimity under Trump’s presidency.
Ultimately, the capacity of the vice president to shape the narrative and drive policy decisions is more pronounced today than ever. Judging by the yardstick of JD Vance’s contributions, one might argue that, in the age of polarized politics, the vice presidential position offers more than just symbolic value. It’s an instrumental tool in the administration’s arsenal for steering its legislative agendas.