In the history of the Watergate scandal of 1972 – arguably the most egregious instance of government corruption in the nation’s history – one of the consistent narratives involves the cold political calculation reached by embattled President Richard Nixon that he was shielded from impeachment because Congress was horrified at the prospect of a President Spiro Agnew.

Nixon is said to have characterized his vice president as “my insurance policy,” telling close associates and his White House staff that for Congress the political risk of elevating Agnew to the presidency was greater than the risk of opposing impeachment proceedings.

Nixon’s insurance policy was cancelled when Agnew resigned from office in October of 1973 after pleading no contest to income tax evasion charges. Facing certain impeachment, Nixon resigned less than a year later.

Substitute President Biden for Nixon and Vice President Kamala Harris for Agnew and the parallels are similar.

Obviously, Biden is not threatened by impeachment nor is there any evidence that he shares Nixon’s “insurance policy” belief, but the growing concern over his misstatements and verbal blunders has re-ignited speculation over whether his cognitive abilities have declined to a dangerous point, casting doubt on his serving his full first term or seeking re-election in 2024.

Departing office prematurely would turn the office over to Vice President Harris, who would lay claim to the Democratic nomination in 2024, an outcome that keeps Democrats awake at night.

In recent weeks, Biden’s communications staff and Cabinet members were propelled into frantic damage control mode to clarify or rescind his comments and reassure allies that his pronouncements did not represent changes in American policy.

From his remarks that the United States would respond “in kind” if Russia deployed chemical weapons in their invasion of Ukraine, or his suggestion that Russian President Vladimir Putin should be toppled from power – an argument for a policy of regime change – Biden’s responses to the war in Ukraine have been a rhetorical minefield.

While Harris shattered the glass ceiling of race and gender, her tenure as vice president has been a rocky one. Her public speeches and responses to media questions have often been disjointed ramblings. She frequently appears unprepared and unsure of herself, lapsing into nervous laughter at inopportune moments.

Her public approval polling numbers have fallen below even those of Biden’s and she is not associated with any major initiatives or administration successes.

Early in the administration, she was tasked with dealing with the immigration crisis at the southern border and with shepherding voting rights legislation through the Congress – contentious issues that defied solutions and were guaranteed to reflect poorly on her.

Her relationship with the president’s staff has been described as testy, and her involvement in developing major policy initiatives as insignificant.

Granted, the vice presidency is a subordinate position and its occupant must tread lightly to avoid upstaging the president.

In the event the Republican Party, as anticipated, sweeps the midterm elections and regains control of the House and potentially the Senate, the Biden legislative agenda is dead in the water come January 2023.

With a punishing rate of inflation driving the cost of living to unprecedented levels, voters are expected to unleash their anger on the president and his party. If a gallon of gas continues to cost more than a pound of ground beef, a grassroots rebellion is inevitable.

In the absence of a Biden candidacy, the Democratic Party leadership will confront an extraordinarily difficult choice – coalesce behind a candidate or acknowledge that Vice President Harris holds a legitimate claim on the nomination despite their belief she is not presidential material.

The roster of Republicans eager to make a serious run at what they perceive to be a wounded administration without accomplishments or deep national support will be a lengthy one.

The political environment clearly favors Republicans and a Harris presidency or candidacy enhances the prospect of a White House they occupy and a Congress they control.

Biden is certainly not Nixon and Harris is just as surely not Agnew. And, while the analogy may not be perfect, the landscape is familiar.

–

Copyright 2022 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.