Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/061592/06159933.000

Text File | 1992-09-22 | 6KB | 111 lines

                                                                                U.S. POLITICS, Page 34

THE POLITICAL INTEREST

Ross Perot as Old Hickory


By Michael Kramer


    Ross Perot enjoys comparisons with Harry Truman and
Franklin Roosevelt. He sees himself as a can-do guy in a
can't-do era -- as a feisty straight-talker like Truman, as a
bold experimenter like F.D.R., whose plan for rescuing
capitalism ("Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it and
try another; but above all try something") is echoed in Perot's
call for "action, action, action." Perot may never be ranked
with Truman and Roosevelt -- and of course he would have to win
first -- but he already personifies an enduring strain in
American life, a pervasive antipathy for insiders. It is this
ideological hostility that prompted the Populist and Progressive
movements and the rise of George Wallace, Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan. But the sentiments that fuel the surge for Perot
("Take our country back") are perhaps best understood as a 20th
century manifestation of Jacksonian Democracy, the
anti-Establishment revolt that captured the country's
imagination in the 1820s, the very first voter rejection of the
Washington Beltway.

    Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824, but the
election was decided in the House of Representatives, where the
Founding Fathers' aristocratic clique cut a deal that denied him
the White House. When he finally triumphed four years later,
the Washington "dynasty" lost its power to direct the
presidency to one of its own. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams were the
forerunners of today's professional politicians. They made their
careers in national affairs and apprenticed for the top spot by
serving in successive Cabinets. Even then, today's complaint was
fashionable. The ruling elite saw office as an end in itself,
wrote the educator Horace Mann. For those men, he said, the
question was "Where can I be -- not what can I be." Jackson
shared the public's disdain for this complacency and championed
the frontiersman's ideal, the equicompetence of most men to most
tasks. Like Perot, Jackson had wide support in all sections of
the country (which sets both men apart from most third-party
candidates, who have essentially represented various extremes).

    As Americans have always admired whatever is new, the
single constant in politics has been the desire for change.
Today that yearning is heightened. Never before have so many
believed the country is on the wrong track (more than 80% in
recent polls); never before have so many felt so estranged from
their leaders. As recently as 1964, only 29% said the government
was run for the benefit of a few big interests. Today that
figure is 80%. For these reasons, and because so many view
George Bush and Bill Clinton as "just" politicians, Perot could
actually win in November. The anecdotal evidence supports the
surveys. People see Perot as a personification of the American
Dream (from newsboy to billionaire) and want to believe in him
as a political savior. They are eager to perceive him as having
the character and temperament to be President. So far, he has
performed like the supersalesman he is. The grass-roots,
empowering feel of his effort ("If you sign it, he will run")
survives his having hired some political pros; few believe Perot
can be controlled by anyone.

    Still, any number of obstacles could cause Perot to fade
like a cheap suit. Right now he is seen as sincere (which calls
to mind George Burns' famous crack, "Sincerity is everything:
if you can fake that, you've got it made"). But Perot's
feistiness could come to be seen as meanness, his buccaneerism
as recklessness. Already some of his (few) articulated positions
have been exposed as two-faced; on taxes, for example, he has
alternately said over the years that he favors raising them and
that he never would. He has played the system to great
advantage, and his coziness with insiders could tarnish his
outsider appeal. He has promised specific solutions, but he
clearly believes they are unnecessary -- because prescription
implies promise, and "everyone knows" that political promises
are hollow. In this anti-intellectual stance the Jacksonian
Democrat whom Perot resembles is Davy Crockett. Almost
everything about Crockett is myth. (Is it uninteresting that
Perot once said, "I'm not a living legend. I'm just a myth"?)
Like Perot, Crockett regularly exalted common sense above what
he called "law learning." He also accepted demagoguery and
deception as required for political success, and he served
several terms in Congress during the Jackson Administration. "I
was cunning as a little red fox," Crockett wrote in his
autobiography, "and wouldn't risk my tail in a `committal trap.'
" Too much noncommitment from Perot, though, could render him
implausible as a President.

    Were that the ultimate judgment, voters would probably
turn first to Clinton. Of the rationales Bush has offered for
his re-election, his claim to be a change agent is laughable.
But Clinton won't get his sought-after second look if Perot's
savvy continues, and perhaps not even if Perot falters. The
historians' favorite metaphor for Jacksonianism is the signs one
still sees in the center of small towns. The arrows point to
many different destinations and have but one thing in common:
they all point to somewhere else. Which is what Perot
represents. Since he is the "none of the above" candidate so
many seek, wherever Perot intends to go, his starry-eyed
supporters are convinced it will be away from the status quo.
In the end, that may be enough.