Perot a Definite Threat in Time of Weakened Parties

Should we take Ross Perot seriously? The answer is yes.

Perot’s political appetite is sure to have been whetted by a recent Texas poll showing him leading George Bush and Bill Clinton. Last week, he hired a press secretary and campaign manager. He resigned memberships in two white-only clubs. He insists negative press reports are inspired by GOP hit squads. These are the actions of a candidate.

True, Perot is often compared to John Anderson, who ran as an independent in 1980, and got only 6.6% of the vote--though spring polls showed him winning 25%. But Anderson’s appeal was to affluent liberals. Perot’s populist phenomenon is closer to Theodore Roosevelt, who split from the GOP at the turn of the century under the Bull Moose party banner.

There are many reasons Perot should be taken seriously. First, his message is powerful in a year when voters are in an anti-incumbent mood--75% think the country is on the wrong track, and approval ratings for Congress and the President are low.

If Perot were following a script, it would be from the 1970s hit “Network,” in which a TV anchorman builds a mass audience by urging viewers to take back control over their lives from corrupt institutions. He exhorts his viewers to open their windows and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore.” Of course, they do.

The Perot phenomenon is similar. When Perot appeared on the “Phil Donahue Show,” his 800-number was briefly shown. In a single 30-second period, 18,000 callers jammed his phone lines. Perot has received more than 2 million calls from people enlisting in his petition drive. As a benchmark, the 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign took nearly a year to attract some 700,000 volunteers.

The “Mad as Hell” phenomenon should not be dismissed. It has fueled Patrick J. Buchanan and Jerry Brown. Now comes a authentic outsider who has sidestepped the two-party system and launched the nation’s first mass-media, information-age candidacy.

Perot’s message should alarm both Democrats and Republicans. The fact is, neither party is strong today. Democratic disarray meant GOP gains in the ‘80s, but the gains weren’t consolidated. Instead of realignment, many voters simply lost their moorings. Non-voters, registered independents and ticket-splitters together now outnumber either Democratic or GOP straight-ticket voters.

The second reason Perot should be taken seriously adds up to $100 million. His declared campaign war chest is bigger than Bush’s or Clinton’s, equal almost to both combined. Of course, if he chooses, he can afford to spend more.

Perot doesn’t need a favorable media to replay his TV sound bites and photo opportunities. If he’s smart, he’ll devote most of his campaign spending to television ads, so his message gets across unadulterated. If the two parties freeze him out of debates, as happened to Anderson, Perot can buy a half-hour of network prime-time. Such a prime-time address, in 1964, on behalf of Barry M. Goldwater, launched Ronald Reagan’s political career.

A third factor may also benefit Perot. The Clinton camp and the Bush reelection team are gearing up to go negative on each other. The conventional winning strategy--to make the other an unappealing choice in a year when voters want change--may simply turn many voters off and boost Perot’s appeal.

Perot is unlikely to win. Yet, he might carry enough states to deny either Bush or Clinton the 270 electoral-college majority. That means the House of Representatives would decide the election. The winner would take office weakened and unusually beholden to Congress.

Campaign strategists for Bush and Clinton may hope intense media scrutiny will sour the public on Perot. Don’t bet on it. The media isn’t high on the credibility list with populists. Media attacks will make his supporters work harder. Perot can minimize damage by advertising early, to create a positive image before negative news accounts do damage.

The only sure antidote is for the parties to prove their relevance. There’s no better way to cut into Perot’s support than to give voters a reason to come back to the main parties and their candidates.