Are We Headed for a Great Political Crack-Up?

The 1990s may be the decade of the Great Political Crack-Up. In the next few years, the two-party monopoly of U.S. politics could come to an end. Who will end it? Here’s the surprise: two forces that appear to be losing strength now--Ross Perot and Jesse Jackson. If they succeed, it will not be because they are so strong. It will be because the Democrats and the Republicans are so weak.

1994 opens with a deceptive calm on the surface of American politics. The Democrats are happy because the economy is improving and Bill Clinton’s job approval ratings are rising. The Republicans are happy because they won every big race last year--two senators, two governors and mayors of the nation’s two largest cities.

The only political figure who may not be too happy is Perot. Having lost the fight over the North American Free Trade Agreement, Perot’s clout is in doubt. So is his popularity. After Perot showed his mean streak in the debate with Vice President Al Gore, his favorability ratings plummeted. But he has $3.5 billion to console himself with.

Just beneath the surface, however, the waters are roiling. Clinton’s first-year job ratings averaged below 50%. That’s the worst any newly elected President has done since World War II. Incumbents are running scared. They’re not sure whether it was Democrats or incumbents who did badly last year. In every major race, the Democrats were the incumbent party, and the incumbent party lost.

Meanwhile, Perot’s organization continues to build. The anti-NAFTA crusade gave United We Stand America new strength among blue-collar workers and union members. Perot still commands the loyalty of a hard core of supporters. In one national poll taken just after the NAFTA debate in November, Perot’s favorability ratings dropped to 35%, down almost 25 points since the beginning of 1993. But when people were asked how they would vote if they had to choose among Perot, Clinton and a Republican, Perot’s vote stood at 23%. That’s slightly better than he did in 1992.

In other words, Perot seems to be holding on to his base. What the Dallas billionaire is losing in breadth of support, he may be gaining in intensity--a sizable bloc of voters who will do his bidding.

And what will he bid them do? He gave a not-so-subtle hint during the NAFTA debate with Gore. In fact, it sounded more like a threat. “The whole House of Representatives is running in 1994, and a third of the Senate,” he said ominously, “We’ve got a little song we sing: ‘We’ll remember in November/When we step into that little booth.’ ”

Perot wants to demonstrate that United We Stand America has clout. They have spent all year building up membership lists. Totals have not been revealed, but organizers probably want to have a big press conference soon, announcing that they have signed up at least 5,000 members in every congressional district. That means more than 2 million nationwide. Five-thousand voters in each district taking orders from Perot would mean real clout in congressional elections.

Frank Luntz, the GOP pollster who worked for Perot in 1992 and is now a critic, predicts that, a week before this year’s midterm election, Perot will buy TV time. He will urge American voters to take back control of Congress by voting against all incumbents. That should make Democrats nervous. This year, like last, most incumbents will be Democrats.

So for the time being, a lot of Republicans think Perot is their ally. After all, he opposed Clinton on the budget and NAFTA last year, and he says he’s going to oppose Clinton on health care this year. But some GOP leaders have been warning Republicans not to get too close to Perot. Maybe Perot will help Republicans in 1994. But he is not their friend. He could hurt them, badly, in 1996.

When Perot runs as an Independent, he splits the anti-incumbent vote. In 1992, he split the anti-Bush vote. Perot didn’t deny George Bush victory. He denied Clinton a majority. If Perot runs as an Independent again in 1996, he will split the anti-Clinton vote and make it harder for the Republicans to win.

Look at what happened in that poll when people were asked how they would vote in a three-way split. The results were Clinton 36%, the Republican 29% and Perot 23%. A Perot candidacy in 1996 would help reelect Clinton. And Perot doesn’t want to do that.

But other rumblings can be heard just beneath the surface of American politics. They come from Jackson and the Democratic Party left. It is no secret that there is no love lost between Jackson and Clinton. Clinton used to chair the Democratic Leadership Council, a organization formed in part to counter Jackson’s influence in the Democratic Party.

Moreover, Clinton did not kowtow to Jackson as Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis did. Instead, Clinton scored points off Jackson, in the Sistah Souljah affair. Jackson says black voters delivered for Clinton--but Clinton has not delivered for blacks. Black leaders wanted an economic stimulus bill. It failed. They opposed NAFTA. It passed. The left is worried that Clinton will settle for a watered-down health-care bill. They are also worried he will get welfare reform.

Listen to what Jackson had to say about Clinton last month: “What we have now is the Bush program we thought we’d defeated. Our quarterback has joined the other team.”

But what can Jackson do? He hinted at what he can do during an interview in October. Asked if he would rule out challenging Clinton in 1996, Jackson said, “I would never rule it out. Nor will I rule out being limited any more just to the Democratic Party option.”

In fact, Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition has opened offices in New York and is reported to be examining the possibility of forming a new political party there. Why New York? Because supporters of Mayor David N. Dinkins were enraged when most white Democrats voted for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani in November. The Rainbow Coalition is examining election laws in other states as well.

But wouldn’t it be suicidal for the left to run its own candidate? Let’s say the two most vociferous anti-NAFTA activists on the left, Jackson and consumer activist Ralph Nader, formed an independent ticket in 1996. They would split the Democratic vote, hurt Clinton and help elect the Republican. Exactly the way Perot would split the anti-Clinton vote and help reelect Clinton.

It would be suicidal for either Jackson or Perot to run as the only independent. But it would be smart for both to run as independents. Jackson would split the Democratic vote. Perot would split the GOP. Then what would happen?

The answer is: anything. In a four-way race, it is conceivable that Jackson could carry some Southern states on a solid black vote, with the white vote split among Clinton, Perot and the Republican. Similarly, Perot could carry some liberal states where Clinton is weak, Jackson is strong and conservative Republicans have a limited base.

Each independent candidacy is self-defeating without the other. The only way Perot or Jackson could get elected President is if both parties split. Perot needs Jackson to run and split the Democratic vote. Jackson needs Perot to run and split the GOP vote. The Rainbow Coalition needs money to become a national force. Guess what Perot has a lot of?

What we have here is a mutuality of interests. Ever hear that politics makes strange bedfellows?

Only once in U.S. history has a third party ever succeeded at the national level. That was in 1860, when both major parties split. Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the newly formed Republican Party, got elected with less than 40% of the vote in a four-way race. Of course, Lincoln’s election led to a civil war.

Know what? This could get exciting.