Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, I have been frequently asked this question: What would your father (Pittsburgh native, former Republican governor and U.S. attorney general Dick Thornburgh) think about the state of the country, about the state of the Republican Party and about Donald Trump? These questions intensified after his death on Dec. 31, 2020, and particularly after the sickening desecration of our democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, just a week later.
As we approach the November election, I have no doubt. My father would join me and my mother, Ginny Thornburgh, in supporting Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
My father taught me a great deal about the responsibilities and opportunities of public leadership, lessons I have put to use in my own 40-year career as a civic leader and advocate for political and governmental reform. I can say unequivocally that if he were alive today, my father would be standing on the melting iceberg of the Republican Party that rejects Trump’s malignant narcissism and disdain for the rule of law.
My dad served as President George H.W. Bush’s point person on the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He would find Trump’s recent attack on Harris as “mentally impaired” particularly offensive. I know my mother, who dedicated her life to advancing the rights and opportunities of children and adults with disabilities, is equally appalled.
What makes me so confident of my father’s intentions? Outside of his love for family, and his faith in God, nothing was more important to my dad than the chances his life afforded him to serve others. His public service was guided by an enormous respect for the rule of law, for personal and professional integrity and responsibility, and for an overriding belief that, properly conceived and implemented, government could improve people’s lives. Donald Trump respects none of those.
History remembers my dad for his steady leadership during the 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) crisis, when, 72 days into his tenure as governor, — on a day when he thought his biggest challenge was to pass a state budget on time — he was confronted with the most serious nuclear accident in our nation’s history. His response was masterful: He demanded to know the facts and communicated them clearly and calmly to the people of Pennsylvania. After TMI, he understood more acutely that a leader must “expect the unexpected,” and that a carefully crafted policy agenda could get shoved aside in an instant. He knew that, in the freefall of crises and unexpected challenges, character comes to the fore. It is Trump’s very character that should be in question this election.
But if he would have no use for Trump, how would he feel about Harris? I know that as a former prosecutor, my dad admired prosecutors whom he considered “work horses” — those who did their homework, prepared and argued their case effectively — and not “show horses” who performed only for the cameras. I can still see him, as U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh in the 1970s, at the very desk on which I’m writing this, outlining a case he was set to try. His highest compliment for a person who respected the facts, was committed to the public good and understood the importance of accountability, integrity and personal responsibility was to call them a “serious person.” I have no doubt he would see Harris as a “serious person” and Trump as dangerously unserious.
Pennsylvanians have another choice before them today, as serious a political choice as we may ever have to make. For me, for my mother and I know for my late father, the choice is clear: Kamala Harris for president.
