Imagine it is Monday, March 2, 2009. Over one month has passed since the US Presidential inauguration and the new President is settled into the routine of the office. Cabinet members have been installed, briefings have been given and things are rolling along OK.
Then word is comes to the White House of a major crisis. The scenarios I came up with are:
Suitcase nuke in Dallas. WH receives video from Al Queda claiming responsibility
8.5 earthquake in San Francisco killing thousands immediately
Confirmation from satellite images that China is invading Taiwan
A massive cyber attack on the New York Stock Exchange, Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Nasdaq that is preventing all trading and appears to be erasing records
Confirmation from the Centers for Disease Control that the avian flu has mutated to an airborne version with 50% mortality and there are 25 known fatalities already.
No, I am not saying all of these happen at once (this isn’t a Tom Clancy novel)! In each of these scenarios, though, which of the current batch of candidates would best handle the situation? In case you have forgotten or didn’t pick up a program in the lobby, the roster of available choices includes:
Democrats
• Biden
• Clinton
• Dodd
• Edwards
• Kucinich
• Obama
• Richardson
and for fun:
• Gore
• Kerry
Republicans
• Dalton
• Giuliani
• Huckabee
• McCain
• Paul
• Romney
and for fun:
• Gingrich
So, who are the leaders that can take us through our times of crisis? Why do you think they would be best suited for that particular situation?
I don’t know the independent/third party candidates well enough to know who would be a logical choice, but if you know someone, include them and tell why.
Impossible to be sure, of course, but Giuliani would probably react as he did on 9/11 - that is to say, rather better than could reasonably be expected.
Kerry has already admitted that he froze for forty minutes on 9/11, so he might again.
I think Giuliani would probably handle a terror situation well. Either he or McCain would probably be best for a military situation.
In the case of the earthquake or disease scenario I don’t know who would handle a domestic disaster best and be decisive enough. Have any of them been tested with a natural disaster?
The cyber attack should be fixed by Gore because he invented the Internet! Kidding. I don’t know who would be the best bet. If the economy was threatened and confidence was shaky, who would restore our confidence in our financial markets, keep things working and not get too intrusive after things had settled?
For #3, my vote would be for Richardson. In reality, he has a highly impressive amount of international diplomacy experience, possibly (though I can’t say for certain) more than any of the other Dem. candidates.
Giant earthquake – I’ll take one of the former governors, preferably one who’s been through a few floods or tornadoes. Heck, I’d even take Jeb Bush.
China invades Taiwan – Biden, Gore, Richardson or McCain. At least they have some experience with foreign affairs and diplomacy. So does Clinton, but not as much.
Suitcase nuke – Giuliani.
Cyberspace attack or avian flu – Obama. There’s not much a President could do except hope the smart guys can figure it out, and try to inspire the public. No one does inspiration like Obama.
Suitcase nuke in Dallas. WH receives video from Al Queda claiming responsibility
Rudy or McCain. Police work or War, coin flip.
8.5 earthquake in San Francisco killing thousands immediately
Rudy, he would be able to cut through the red tape and just get things going.
Confirmation from satellite images that China is invading Taiwan
War = McCain
A massive cyber attack on the New York Stock Exchange, Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Nasdaq that is preventing all trading and appears to be erasing records
Gore really does understand tech more than the others. Despite the joke, he might be a good choice.
Confirmation from the Centers for Disease Control that the avian flu has mutated to an airborne version with 50% mortality and there are 25 known fatalities already.
Rudy handled the West Nile Virus scare pretty well and with determination. So Rudy.
Thank you everyone who has given their views. I like kunilou’s thought about Obama and instilling confidence. I had never really looked at it that way. And I know I was ribbing on Gore but if he is really one of the more tech-savvy candidates then I guess he would be best suited for a cyber attack.
When I was trying to come up with disaster scenarios I tried to find both international and domestic issues that would put leadership ability into the spotlight. International stuff is easy (wars, terrorism, natural disaster) but it’s hard to think of a domestic crisis that is immediate and devastating outside of a financial collapse or an epidemic. Maybe if something happened comparable to the PATCO strike?
I know that a lot of people vote for a candidate based on what they say they will do and their vision for the future, but I am concerned about the deeds. Giuliani was seen by some as divisive and authoritarian during his time as mayor but he impressed a lot of people with his leadership ability after 9/11. He was able to shine. GWB didn’t take the reins during Hurricane Katrina and appeared ineffectual. I realize that there are multiple factors to the success or failure of a leader but I think that when the chips are down you want a take charge kind of person to step forward and give people confidence.
They’d all do equally well in the initial handling of the crisis. They’d all be escorted into the situation room, where the Joint Chiefs and other experts brief them and present alternatives. They’d then order them to do something. Really, their performance is more dependent on the state of the military and/or FEMA than their personal skills.
I agree that their staff and the advice they present is critical but the President is the one the country will turn to. When ABC breaks in with the President coming to us from the Oval Office, you want to feel confident in the person speaking to you. In the following days the country will be taking their cues from the President.
GWB came to Ground Zero on September 14, 2001. It’s not like he was going to dig through the rubble or carry stretchers but his appearance gave people a focal point and reassurance. He was so uninvolved with NOLA during and after Hurricane Katrina that people felt like he didn’t give a damn, whether he did or didn’t.
Politics is about appearances. Just ask Howard Dean. It’s also about having the right person in for the situation. If we are attacked or there is a serious threat to our country’s security I want a tough, kick-ass person running the show. Nader might be a good choice for an environmental candidate but I’d be scared shitless if he was supposed to lead our country against China. Hell, I’d be scared if he was supposed to lead us against Tahiti.
Maybe we need co-presidents from each party: one to handle security issues and be the “cowboy” who won’t take crap from other countries and the other to handle domestic matters. They’d butt heads (or be buttheads, whatever) but would have to find a way to compromise in order to effectively deal with the country and the world. I don’t know. That’s just my pair of pennies.
I don’t know who would be the best bet. If the economy was threatened and confidence was shaky, who would restore our confidence in our financial markets, keep things working and not get too intrusive after things had settled?