8/10/00 6:20 p.m.
The Canticle of Lieberman (And Cheney, Too)
Biography, not geography.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

onsidering that among the most popular cable shows nowadays are A&E's Biography and VH-1's Behind the Music, perhaps the development should come as no surprise.

Al Gore's selection of Joe Lieberman demonstrates two things — just as George W. Bush's pick of Dick Cheney did two weeks ago (aside from the fact that the VP debate might actually be worth watching): For one, that America is, more than ever, one nation. Secondly, a vice president is an extension and expansion of who the presidential candidate is. In other words, the running mate is now part of the message — just as the national conventions are. Traditional considerations — such as bringing a particular state, or ideological "balance" — are now less important in selecting a vice-presidential running mate. Instead, the question now revolves around what the selection says about the selector.

For years, nominees chose running mates based on geography or ideology. The most dynamic example of this is Kennedy's selection of Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1960. Kennedy was the Northeastern liberal who needed to sell himself to the more conservative South. As Gore and Lieberman now remind us to death, Kennedy was also Catholic — and had to overcome that prejudice in the country. LBJ from Texas helped bring cover in a number of ways. Often forgotten is that, in 1976, challenger Ronald Reagan tried a preemptive strike against President Ford by announcing his would-be running mate, Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker, heading into the convention. That was one of the last national conventions where the outcome was still in doubt, as Reagan staged a furious rally through the late primaries. Interestingly, the Schweiker move satisfied the prerequisites of both the geographic and ideological reasons for picking a running mate. Schweiker was liberal, while Reagan was conservative. Schweiker was from a large Industrial Belt state, making him a good complement to Reagan's support in the West and South.

Reagan's move — hoping to ply some of Ford's delegates away, didn't work. But consider: If Bush had followed Reagan's example and selected a running mate that mixed ideological and geographical balance — he would have ended up with Tom Ridge. Instead, in picking Dick Cheney, Bush got someone he was comfortable with, but also a party "elder statesman," whose leadership in the Gulf War had helped render him immune to the ideological fire of the Democrats. Avoiding the dreaded "G" word, it's still true that Cheney sends the signal that Bush is serious — not just about winning the election, but about having a first-rate team with which to govern. Thus, Cheney's pedigree enhances Bush's own reputation. Not an explicit electoral add-on, but in a culture of meaning and personality, it's an essential ingredient.

Lieberman accomplishes something similar for Gore. While one can say that Lieberman adds a bit of ideological balance to the ticket, it's a bit unusual in that regard. In fact, the differences between Gore and Lieberman are so stark that they spent half of Wednesday trying to explain them away to the media. The flip side of this is that, as a number of conservative media types — including Robert Novak — point out, Lieberman's voting record is not quite as conservative as some might be led to think.

But, ultimately, that's irrelevant. George Bush Sr. once called supply-side theory "voodoo economics," and was slightly more pro-choice than he was by the time he ran for president in 1988. Differences can be minimized. However, Lieberman was selected because — beyond his Jewishness, which the Democrats are promoting to an embarrassing level — of his moral bearing. Lieberman is important, certainly, because he slammed Clinton when no other Democrat had stepped out front to do so. But, more importantly, Lieberman is the rare Democrat or liberal who speaks openly about morality and religion in public life. When most liberals seem to want to consign most talk of God or faith to the farthest reaches of society, Lieberman seems to recognize the importance of having them front and center. He also is not fearful of condemning the entertainment industry's callous ways of depicting life and sexuality.

That said, this pick is designed to say more about Al Gore than about Joe Lieberman. Yes, the cynical observer could charge that Gore is using the "Jewish card," which, again, was a signal almost sent by the announcement ceremony, with all the talk of "history" and the like. But, in Lieberman, Gore has a "back-to-the-future" running mate. Lieberman reminds people that Tipper Gore was the original '80s culture warrior, attacking Prince. Lieberman reminds people that he, like Al Gore, voted in favor of the Gulf War (though Gore was far more histrionic in making his decision). And, of course, Lieberman stands as the person on the ticket willing to rebuke the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For the baby-boomer candidate, style and words mean much more than substance. This is not meant to diminish any of the specific or relative merits of either Dick Cheney or Joe Lieberman. It is just to say that even more than in the past, the veep pick is about who the presidential candidate is — or might be. Have a stature gap? Go for the former congressman, secretary of defense, and successful businessman. Have an ethical gap? Go for the "conscience of the Senate" and moderate culture warrior (Orthodox Jew, too? So much the better!!). The vice-presidential candidate as political adornment.