Perot Factor: Disaffection Made Simple

The Ross Perot phenomenon rolls on. The unannounced but very active independent presidential candidate could only have been buoyed by this week’s fresh evidence of his popular appeal. Had he been on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in California, a Los Angeles Times exit poll found, Perot would have bested Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton 43% to 29%. Had he been running as a Republican, he would have trounced President Bush 52% to 38%. Surveys taken in Ohio indicate similarly impressive bipartisan support for Perot. The political disaffection from which he draws his strength clearly transcends traditional party affiliations.

The billionaire from Texas has now qualified as a presidential candidate in 11 states; when all the signatures are gathered it’s expected that in November his name will appear on all 50 ballots. On Wednesday Perot edged his candidacy further along by hiring two experienced operatives, Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan’s onetime campaign manager, and Hamilton Jordan, Jimmy Carter’s White House chief of staff, to manage what could be a $100-million run for the White House.

This clearly will be a campaign in which the candidate--an odd mixture of charming directness and cornball cliches--is less important than the perception of what his candidacy represents. Rather it’s what Perot seems to stand for that resonates with an impressive portion of the electorate. And what he seems to stand for is a kind of pristine anti-politics that promises dramatic change from the usual habits of governance--all without, at least so far, deigning to provide nuts-and-bolts ideas about how he would effect change and just what sacrifices would be required. This silence is troubling; it will become all the more so the longer it is maintained.

Perot, who is inclined to grow petulant when questions are too insistently asked about his past behavior or current thinking, has indicated that he plans to campaign mainly from the insularity of television studios, where he can exercise a large degree of control over both the agenda and the microphones. Other successful runs for the presidency have been made using similar techniques--the say-little, front-porch campaigns of William McKinley and Warren G. Harding come to mind. But the world is a vastly more complicated place than it was at the end of the last century or in 1920.

Will voters continue to tolerate a candidate who insists on playing only by the rules he has set and within the arena he has chosen? Or will they demand, as they should, that one who offers himself as a problem-solving leader make himself available to answer the tough questions that an open political system--that democracy itself--requires?