If a National Tragedy Happens, Who Do You Want in the White House?

On Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. met with the largest terror attack on its soil. That day and the weeks immediately afterward, President George W. Bush exhibited extraordinary leadership. I’m not going to debate Afghanistan or Iraq here; I just want to highlight the way he provided calm, unifying leadership right after 9/11.

We didn’t know how Bush would handle this crisis. He had been untested the first seven months of his first term, and during the 2000 election, his opponents tried to portray him as an irresponsible party boy.

That election pitted Bush, the governor of Texas, against Al Gore, the sitting vice president, a former senator, and part of a long legacy in Tennessee and national politics. When Bush won, the left was apoplectic, but 9/11 tested Bush’s mettle. Bush passed the test.

It’s interesting that Tuesday night’s debate came the day before the anniversary of 9/11. Albert Mohler pointed out on his Wednesday podcast that the anniversary and the previous night’s debate should make us wonder who among the current crop of candidates would be the better president should a tragedy like 9/11 happen on his or her watch.

“Who would you want as President of the United States if such an attack were to happen, say in the next four years?” Mohler asked. “Who would you want to be holding that responsibility? Who would you want to be commander-in-chief of the armed services? Who would you want to be analyzing the situation? Who would you want to be acting in response to that kind of attack?”

Debate Recap: The Trump/Harris Debate We've All Been Waiting For

Mohler’s conclusion is brutal for Kamala Harris:

And in thinking this through, I simply want to say that the disastrous withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan during the Biden administration in which Kamala Harris has served as vice president, I think it serves as an indication of the kind of disaster that can sometimes just happen. But then again, it didn’t just happen. It was a matter of presidential decision-making and a matter of presidential responsibility. Joe Biden’s never going to have to face the American voters with a reelection question now, with the Afghanistan scandal, and America’s tragic withdrawal left as an open question. One of the continuing questions, however, is whether his vice president is going to escape moral responsibility for the decision. By the way, the Biden administration has responded that it was former President Donald Trump who, as president, came up with the plan.

But you know what? There are two different dimensions to this. One is the decision to withdraw, and the second question is how to withdraw. The Biden administration should not be able to escape the verdict of history in understanding the necessity of answering both of those questions, nor should the vice president.

We know that Donald Trump is brash and often speaks in ways that make us wince, but we also know that he can be solemn when the occasion calls for it. We know that he governed in his first term with a sensible foreign policy that didn’t embolden our enemies.

On the other side, we know that Harris has a propensity for awkwardness. We can also believe that her foreign policy would be a continuation not just of Biden’s disastrous foreign policy but also of Barack Obama’s. And we can’t afford that.

Who would you want in the White House if (heaven forbid) something like 9/11 were to happen in the next four years? I think the answer is a no-brainer.