Perot’s Supporters Disdain the Gloom of ‘Expert’ Critics

The experts are weighing in with arguments that Ross Perot’s election would be a grave mistake, but Perot stubbornly refuses to fulfill their smug predictions and descend like a Roman candle.

I ran the experts’ case by a focus group of voters who are my informal sounding board as I study this election. Here are the professionals’ doubts, followed by the voter responses.

We don’t know where he stands on the issues. We know where he stands on the big issues. The man has a well-known history of action--much better than a bunch of alleged “positions” on relatively small matters. Anyway, we don’t vote only on the issues. We vote for someone to lead.

He won’t talk to the media. That’s bad? Bush talks and says nothing. Clinton says something, but it’s different every day. The media is mad because they can’t lay a glove on Perot. They see themselves as almighty, a kind of tribune of the people. Who are they kidding?

He’s inconsistent: no taxes--except for education. You’ve got a point. Still, the other guys are just liars. Remember “read my lips?” Or “I didn’t inhale.” Anyway, I wouldn’t mind more taxes if it really did go to education.

He’s a fascist--a Peron, not Perot. Our government is too divided for anyone to come in and be a dictator. What he’d do is kick ass, and if it’s the right ass, hooray. The only time in the last 30 years we felt good about the government was when Reagan came in and acted like a leader.

He couldn’t govern, since no group in Congress owes him support. We’ve just had 12 years of gridlock, where nothing got done. No one in Congress would automatically support him, but many would fear being carried out by the wave bringing him in. Anyway, if Bush wins we’d still have gridlock; if Clinton wins and the Democrats are let loose, we’d have worse.

He doesn’t know enough about government to govern. He didn’t make his billions being a dummy. It’s not nuclear physics and there are tons of smart people, new people ready to work for him. Anyway, our last amateur President, Ike, did well compared with the pros like Johnson, Nixon and Bush.

There’s already a good candidate for change. You must be dreaming. Bill Clinton--Yale, Oxford, governor for five terms, candidate of the federal bureaucracy--is against the status quo?

We shouldn’t reject the parties; they make democracy work. It sure isn’t working well. Anyway, the parties will still be around. The shock will do them good.

He’s just buying the election. At least it’s his own money. The others aren’t buying, they’re bought.

He’s really an insider, not the outsider that he claims to be. Relative to the others, he’s an outsider. And if he knows how to work the system to his advantage, he will be able to govern, won’t he? The problem is inside the Beltway, where they feel so comfortable. The solution is outside the Beltway, where real life goes on.

There may be many good reasons not to vote for Ross Perot. Still, those mounting the charge against him appear to voters not as disinterested observers but as partisans of the two political camps whose long series of failures have spawned this serious threat to entrenched elites. Perot’s popularity is simply the function of his opponents’ lack of credibility.