Paul Ryan: He’s a good bookend to Romney and appeals to the Tea-Party right

For much of U.S. history the vice presidency was more reviled than revered. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's VP, John Nance Garner, said that the position was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (a quote long sanitized by substituting "spit" for "piss" but even the euphemism made its point). Thomas Marshall, Woodrow Wilson's Veep, reportedly remarked "Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected vice president of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again."

Indeed, the U.S. vice presidency is a constitutional afterthought. The only assigned role for the vice president is to preside over the Senate and cast a vote in case of a tie. The VP also officially announces the results of the Electoral College voting for president and VP. Thus, it qualifies as an insurance policy, a Prince Harry-style "spare" should the "heir" falter.

Such a limited role led to obvious frustration for the incumbent. Nor did it always endear him to the president, all too aware of being only "one heartbeat" ahead of his VP. And all too often the vice president acceded to the presidency: by assassination (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy) or more mundanely by natural death (Taylor, William Henry Harrison, Harding, and FDR). That such has not happened since 1964 does not make it any less a political concern, given assassination attempts against Presidents Truman, Ford, and Reagan and serious illnesses afflicting Eisenhower and Reagan.

Hence the question: "What does a presidential nominee seek in his potential vice president?" A combination of political/personal compatibility (Clinton-Gore); A supplement to a real or perceived weakness in the presidential candidate's resume (Obama-Biden; Bush-Cheney); Hope the VP nominee will carry a key state (Kennedy-Johnson); The ability bind up party wounds following a bruising primary campaign (Reagan-Bush); and/or a "Hail Mary," break-the-mold choice (Mondale choosing Ferraro in 1984; McCain picking Palin in 2008).

[ David Kilgour: Ryan is an economically radical, risky choice ]

So why has Romney picked Paul Ryan? In some respects, it defies political logic. To win, the Republicans must take Florida and Ohio (no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio). Florida has a dynamic young senator, Marco Rubio, who could deflect charges Republicans are anti-Hispanic/immigrant. Ohio Senator Rob Portman has strong trade and budget credentials and considerable political success in the state. In contrast, Ryan is a Representative from Wisconsin, a state frequently conceded to Democrats.

Ryan, however, has two particular strengths: his "legend" and his financial policy prescriptions.

The legend is compelling. He is an up-by-his-bootstraps personal success story. His father died when Ryan was 16-years-old; he worked his way through college and practiced retail level politics in his district. Elected to Congress, he bunked in his office; he now lives on the same street where he lived as a child. He is a good bookend to the super-privileged Romney. He is boy-next-door and not scary.

Ryan is most renowned, however, for his proposed federal budgets as chairman of the House Budget Committee. Thrice the House passed his budgets; thrice they died in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Although evolving over the years, they are characterized by cutting federal spending (except defense), restructuring Medicare, and reducing taxes. The approach makes Ryan a galvanizing hero of the Republican Tea-Party right.

Ryan's approach starkly contrasts with Democratic policy of essentially unchecked social spending and increasing taxes on "the rich."

Each approach has been described as "magical thinking" with inter alia Republicans nonspecific on reductions and Democrats disingenuous regarding tax increases. Both parties pray (silently) for massive economic growth to end deficits.

The VP candidates debate on 11 October. The juxtaposition of bloviating Biden and rigorous Ryan should provide dynamic exchanges.

David T. Jones is a retired State Department Senior Foreign Service Career Officer and a frequent contributor to American Diplomacy. During a career that spanned over 30 years, he concentrated on politico-military issues, serving for the Army Chief of Staff. He is co-author of Uneasy Neighbor(u)rs, a study of American-Canadian bilateral concerns and has published several hundred articles, columns, and reviews on U.S. - Canadian bilateral issues and general foreign policy.