Bush Must Concede 3-Way Contest--and Talk Issues

Both the Bush and Clinton campaigns have officially acknowledged that a three-way contest for the presidency is a near certainty. In the space of 24 hours, Bush strategist Robert M. Teeter and Vice President Dan Quayle said they are gearing up for a contest with Ross Perot on the ballot.

It’s about time. They have been as slow in grasping the Perot challenge as they were in realizing that Saddam Hussein was a menace. So far, the Bush and Clinton campaigns have gone through several phases in dealing with Perot. The first was denial. The Bush campaign seemed oblivious, gleeful that Perot’s popularity was pushing Clinton out of the news and to the bottom of the polls in state after state.

The exuberance was short-lived. As Perot catapulted to first place in the polls, the reality took hold that Perot must be viewed as a serious contender.

This awakening led to a new phase--smear tactics. Opposition researchers have been pouring through press clippings, the Nixon Library archives and combing business records and military records to find any ammunition they can use to tarnish Perot’s populist appeal.

For about a month now, the goal has been to find negative information on Perot, give it to the media and let the press do the savaging. There were two tactical flaws to this. The public has a growing distaste for negative campaigns and doesn’t want the media to grind a candidate into pulp before that candidate has had an opportunity to communicate with the voters.

The second is that the media lack credibility, especially with populists. When the press attacks Perot, his supporters become even more determined to see his outsider candidacy prevail.

Now we’ve entered a new phase. GOP insiders, ranging from House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.) to White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, have started a fear-mongering campaign. They call Perot authoritarian and dictatorial. The polls tell them that people want change and are willing to risk electing an independent like Perot to get it. Their goal now is to make that change too risky.

You could call this a “last man standing” strategy. The Bush campaign is betting that if Perot can be made to seem too risky a choice, voters will come back to the President because of Clinton’s character flaws. The Clinton campaign would also welcome Perot appearing dangerous, in hopes that voters who want change but become disaffected with Perot will go over to Clinton instead of the status-quo Bush presidency. Both sides see stopping Perot as the key to their own triumph. This is a recipe for collusion between the Clinton and Bush camps in trying to damage Perot.

But what can they do? They’ve sifted all the dirt they can find and came up virtually empty-handed. With nothing to disqualify him in his past, that leaves character issues.

What we’re in for are more attacks on Perot’s personality and temperament. Words like “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” are only the beginning.

The insiders, however, still don’t understand Perot. They have mistaken his popularity for a kind of strongman appeal found in Latin American countries--as though they think he’s Juan Peron, not Ross Perot.

Perot’s appeal is that he mirrors what the public feels. He reflects their anger and disillusionment with a government that seems paralyzed in the face of intractable problems. He embodies their optimism that America can solve its problems. Even his fortune fits the Horatio Alger, making his life an American dream come true.

Attack his character, and all you do is attack the values and hopes his supporters have vested in him. His folksy appeal will negate claims that he’s authoritarian. His faith in democratic town-hall meetings will give the lie to dictatorial tendencies. Having the insiders gang up on him will only make the voters more determined to take back the country.

What Clinton and Bush need to do now is simple. It’s a prescription many pundits have given in recent years: Get engaged on the issues. Give the public a frank dialogue about the future of the country. Tell the voters how the gridlock in government will be broken.

In short, get reconciled to a serious three-way contest where the issues won’t be evaded or avoided under a murky cloud of negative politics. Give us the choice between three alternative futures, and let the best man win.