Dear Editor,
There has been considerable discussion about Vice President Harris’s accomplishments, or perceived lack thereof, during her 3.5 years in office. It’s important to offer context regarding the role and expectations of any vice president.
Constitutionally, the vice president’s duties are limited primarily to presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes. Beyond this, the president determines the scope of the vice president’s responsibilities.
Each administration defines this differently, with the level of responsibility largely dictated by the president’s needs and preferences. This dynamic often occurs behind the scenes, so public perception does not always accurately reflect the true extent of the VP’s contributions.
Historically, some vice presidents have been given substantial authority (e.g., Dick Cheney under George W. Bush), while others have played more ceremonial roles.
Regardless of their involvement, vice presidents do not possess independent executive power. Their ability to shape policy comes solely through delegated authority from the president. Think back to Pence, Gore, and Quayle - as vice president, are they known for any significant impacts on healthcare, the economy, or foreign policy?
In the case of Vice President Harris, criticisms around her perceived lack of accomplishments or shifts in position need to be considered within this context.
She is, ultimately, part of an administration where the president, not she, sets the agenda.
Now that she is the Democratic nominee for president, we are beginning to see her distinct vision and direction emerge - one that differs from and significantly improves upon that of President Biden.
Ace Jones, Greensboro