NAFTA Fight Has Bruised Perot’s Image

The big vote was behind him Thursday, but Ross Perot was still on the stump making his case against the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Backlash against the pact,” he said, would make it “a watershed event in American politics.”

But how many people were listening?

Perot, who recently inspired fear among many politicians, appears to have emerged from his defeat in Wednesday’s House vote on the trade pact with diminished influence. Public opinion swung toward the agreement as he crusaded against it.

With his poll ratings going down, few analysts now give him a chance of becoming President, and some are wondering whether his influence is in permanent decline.

“This is a turning point for Perot,” said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman who worked for passage of the trade pact. “I think from here on out he’ll be considerably less important. People have begun to understand (that) they don’t have to be afraid of him.”

While no one is writing off Perot as a political force, many assert that his ability to lead on other issues has been compromised.

As recently as March, the former presidential candidate had approval ratings of close to two-thirds of voters. The Texas billionaire had seemingly unlimited financial resources and a corps of supporters that gave him 19% of the presidential vote in 1992.

But his broadsides on the trade pact apparently did not have the appeal of his 1992 attacks against Washington corruption and mismanagement. His approval ratings began to drift down, and by some measures dived 10% after a Nov. 9 television debate with Vice President Al Gore that many commentators said made him look peevish and ill-prepared.

“He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and Perot’s director of research during the 1992 campaign. “His message is still good but the messenger is too temperamental. In the end he will do his cause more damage than good.”

*

One sign of his changed status is the way many of his allies in the trade fight have edged away from him. Another is the way politicians have become suddenly emboldened to criticize him or--worse yet--poke fun.

During floor debate Wednesday, House Minority Leader Rep. Robert H. Michel (D-Ill.), called Perot, Patrick J. Buchanan and Ralph Nader the “Groucho, Chico and Harpo Marx” of the trade issue. “We’re not afraid of Ross Perot,” he said.

Public opinion has polarized on Perot, Luntz said. The hard core of his support “is as strong as ever--and bigger,” he said. “But the percentage of the population that thinks he’s nuts has reached a majority.”

Perot’s negative rating is now approaching 50%, and his approval rating has fallen to the low 30s, Luntz said.

Political analyst Kevin Phillips is among those who say they believe in Perot’s resilience. After all, when he withdrew from the 1992 presidential race, many commentators began writing his political obituary, only to see him jump back into the race with vigor.

“A lot of air has been let out of Perot’s balloon--but he carries a pump to fill it back up,” Phillips said.

Perot has vowed to exert his influence against the members of Congress who voted for the trade agreement. In this, analysts say they believe that he will have some effect, particularly against Republicans and freshman lawmakers, who are believed to be most vulnerable to such attacks.

Yet it is not easy to dislodge incumbents. Moreover, if Perot’s United We Stand, America, Inc. backs third-party candidates against a Democrat and a Republican--a strategy the group is still mulling--it risks splitting the vote and ensuring an incumbent victory.

“It’s easy to threaten incumbents but tricky to deliver on it,” Rep. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) said.

Perot has said he intends to weigh in on the health care issue and has hinted that he would oppose at least some features of President Clinton’s reform plan.

But some analysts see such an effort as risky. While many Americans worry about a government takeover of health care, they say, most view health care reform not as an issue of government misconduct, but as one where there is a need for some intervention to restrain costs and improve a patchwork system.

*

“As someone who strongly opposes the Clinton health plan, I’m worried at the idea of having Perot on our side,” said William Kristol, an aide to former Vice President Dan Quayle who is now with the Washington-based Project for a Republican Future.

Some analysts say they believe that Perot’s actions are not nearly as important as the fact that he is as a symbol of alienation. This view, held by Clinton pollster Stanley B. Greenberg, sees Perot as a sort of cork that bobs higher and lower with the tides of unhappiness in the nation.

Some argue that a prudent course for Perot is to stick to the core issues--government and campaign reform and deficit reduction--that put him on the map in the first place.