WILL THE FAT LADY EVER SING? : Not Until the Words Match the Music

There are no more rules. The primaries provided no resolution, an independent candidate who’s supposed to have no chance is the man to beat and the media doesn’t count. In this unconventional year, what political observers know for certain is that they don’t know much. The one thing to be sure of: Don’t believe anyone who claims to know how this is going to end. The fat lady is a long way from singing. It would be great fun, if so much weren’t riding on the outcome.

Primaries are supposed to test the candidates. They’re supposed to allow voters to narrow the field. And the winner should be stronger than when it started--when he was just one of the dwarfs. Forget about that rule. The winner of this year’s primary season is a man who didn’t run, and hasn’t even announced yet.

And Ross Perot hardly suffers for his late entry. After all, Bill Clinton didn’t spend the winter and spring discussing issues. Americans know more about a few claimed moments in his personal life than about his positions on issues--even though they say they care more about the latter than the former. At best, the primaries raised questions.

Still, the Perot example doesn’t set a healthy precedent for U.S. politics. The old rules may be bad, but this is not the answer. The party processes are messy and flawed, and leave out some states, like California--but at least they involve voters, and offer a version of democracy, as opposed to a billionaire opening his checkbook and nominating himself. Whoever Perot turns out to be, the process by which he has come on the scene should give us at least as much pause as the process that produced and scarred its “victors,” George Bush and Clinton.

The second rule to throw out is that this is basically a two-party system, and independent candidates can, at most, be spoilers. Conventional wisdom said Perot would have faded by now. He hasn’t. However he does in November, it’s clear that he’s a serious candidate--and not only because he’s the richest man ever to run for the White House.

For all his attacks on politics, Perot may be the shrewdest politician of the lot. He’s tapped right into the frustrations Americans feel about politics and politicians. He seems to view Washington with the same disgust most of us do. And he doesn’t sound like a politician--he speaks in plain English and sounds like he’s telling the truth.

Perot isn’t arguing for change; he is change. Perot carries less baggage than Democrat Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. or Republican Patrick J. Buchanan. The forces propelling all these campaigns were in many ways the same--the anger of voters, the disgust with politics-as-usual. But because Perot’s appeal cuts across ideological lines, at least right now, they’re pushing him the farthest.

In today’s topsy-turvy world, it probably helps Perot not to have a party. He doesn’t need to negotiate a platform, mollify the extremists or return a congressman’s call. He can hold his own convention, and just invite friends. As long as he follows Noah’s rule by hiring in twos, Republican and Democrat, he can get all the help he needs to run. Too bad he can’t pick two vice presidents.

And then there is the rule that says the press matters. Polls show that Americans are angry at how much power the media has. But the truth seems to be that they have a lot less than we think. Three decades ago, John F. Kennedy charmed the political press in this country. Today, it would hardly be worth the effort.

Talk radio has become the voice of America. Increasingly, it is how politics is done in 1992. The critical dichotomy in talk radio is less left vs. right than insider vs. outsider--it’s everyman’s, and woman’s, chance to talk back to the people in power. If Perot didn’t exist, talk radio might have invented him.

It’s hardly a coincidence that Perot launched his candidacy on Larry King’s call-in television show, not some political event covered by the evening news. This year, TV hosts like King and Phil and Oprah will be much more important to all the candidates than reporters, and prime- time counts for more than news time. “48 hours” and “20/20” get more attention than the news. Clinton, in an effort to reach voters directly, plays the sax on Arsenio. Paddy Chayefsky’s “Network” has nothing on this heightened reality. Where is Johnny when we need him?

And Perot, because of his money, has the best of it. This year, 30-second ads, particularly the positive ones, may prove a waste of money. They look political, half-hour specials do not--and Perot can afford to buy more of them than either of his opponents. Moreover, while being rich enough to buy your way into living rooms every night might be a political liability in some quarters, for many voters in this angry electorate, it is the only guarantee of independence: Perot can’t be bought.

But can he be beat? Many of the same people who used to believe in the old rules about press and politics are now saying it’s going to be President Perot. Don’t believe it. Perot might win, but so might Clinton--or Bush for that matter.

Right now, Perot is a safe choice for all the angry people, particularly the ones who don’t like Bush and Clinton. Much of Perot’s poll standing is a reflection of voters’ dislike of his opponents. So before Bush and Clinton can bring themselves up, they may have to bring Perot down. If Perot is no longer a safe haven--if he starts to look scary--they will get a second look.

Assaults on unknown quantities are, of course, a Bush specialty. And Bush is the devil we know. Bush’s election day fantasy has you walking into the polling booth, muttering to yourself that you never thought it would come to this--and then punching the hole next to his name.

Clinton doesn’t need to convince the public that we need a change. The majority want it. The challenge is to persuade them that he, not Perot, will best bring about that change, and that he can be trusted to do it.

Character has proven a problem for Clinton--though it is not insurmountable. Perot is going to have trouble living up to the inflated expectations of voters who have pasted all their dreams on him. Clinton can hardly fail to exceed the expectations of those who’ve only seen him in caricature.

The anger fueling the Perot candidacy is not some abstract concern for the political process but the real cries of people paying the price for government’s failure. They are people who voted for Bush and believe he deserted them, who used to think the country was on the right track and now are certain it is not.

The challenge for Clinton is to persuade these people that their lives will be better if he is President; to tell them exactly what he will do to address the problems rightfully making them angry. It’s not talk about leadership, or fancy slogans, but real answers, delivered straight.

More people care more about what the Cabinet will do than about whether homosexuals and adulterers will be part of it. It’s fine to cement your base, but Clinton needs to expand the Democrats’ to steal some of Perot’s thunder. He must draw a clear contrast between Perot’s vague principles and his own specific answers, between the skills and personality you need to run a business and what it takes to run a government.

Even his detractors acknowledge that Clinton has spent a decade thinking about education and health care and job creation; that he does have something to say. It’s all well and good to play instruments, but Clinton needs to find his own voice again, to get back to his strength which is substance. If he does that, and Bush goes on the attack, who knows what songs we’ll be hearing from the fat lady?