What Happen to the Ross Perot Phenomenon?
In 1992, a wealthy man named Ross Perot spoke his mind and within a short period had captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He laid out a challenge to the citizens of all 50 states, saying that if the citizens did what was necessary to put his name on all state ballots, he would spend enough money to run a world class presidential campaign.
To his surprise, citizens took up the challenge. In mid-July Mr. Perot was well on his way to qualifying as an independent presidential candidate on all 50 state ballots. Without warning he shocked his volunteers by suspending his campaign. The volunteers would not accept the suspension. They kept gathering signatures and organizing for the campaign. In October, Mr. Perot returned to the field, resuming his candidacy, and in November received millions of votes equaling 19% of the national total. In some states his votes totaled more than 25% of the votes cast. He won no states and because of the winner-take-all rules, he did not win one Electoral College vote.
Despite the loss, Perot supporters were energized and ready to continue the battle for a properly organized government. The volunteers talked about starting a third party. Instead, in January 1993, Mr. Perot founded United We Stand America (UWSA). This was an interim organization designed to create the necessary infrastructure for a viable third party. Perot's supporters remembered the chaos that occurred in 1992 when in a short period thousands of people wanted to volunteer. UWSA was that interim step necessary to create political contacts throughout each state. When the Reform Party was developed for the 1996 campaign, there were, throughout all states, political contact points ready to plug volunteers into a variety of important activities.
In 1996, the Reform Party did not experience the same overwhelming support as had been experienced during the 1992 campaign. Commentators explained this in several ways. The first explanation was that Ross Perot was a phenomenon of 1992 political and economic conditions. They said that those conditions had changed and the nation did not feel the need for a third party. Another reason given was disappointment with Ross Perot's July 1992, suspension. It is said that many people felt betrayed by the lame excuse offered for the suspension. Some have speculated that Ross Perot thought he may actually win the Presidency in 1992 and changed his strategy. Therefore, since he really did not want to be President in 1992, why "throw away your vote" by voting Reform in 1996. Yet, there were enough Reform Party votes cast in 1996 to ensure the party a spot on many state ballots in 1998 as an established party. If they receive enough state votes in 1998, the party will automatically have their presidential candidate on the state ballots in 2000.
One unspoken reason for reduced support in 1996 may have been press reports of internal dissent within the Perot reform movement. The story goes like this, during the 1992 campaign there was a myth created that the volunteers were promoting Perot's candidacy. Yet, within the movement there were dissidents arguing that "Dallas" was controlling everything. "Dallas" would not provide lists of people who called the 800 number to volunteer. "Dallas" was not well organized. "Dallas" was not providing the money necessary to operate effective local campaigns. The press loved the controversy, promoting it with repeated stories. After the election and before the Reform Party was launched press accounts of the complaints continued. There were reports that dissident volunteers quit and others split off from the main movement, establishing control over their own reform movement. When the Reform Party was established it was again reported that small groups of dissidents were seeking to control state and local organizations.
Ross Perot has removed himself from day-to-day operation of the party. "Dallas" has been reduced to a 'virtual' office. The word has gone out that the party must organize itself in each state. That means competing with the Democrats and Republicans for voters, slates of local candidates, and, of course, money.
The party is looking for an identity beyond the Ross Perot persona. They must learn to articulate a set of principles which the voters will recognize as a realistic alternative to reelecting either a Democrat or Republican. They must speak in simple language, explaining why a district would be better off electing a Reform candidate. They must use word pictures that are clearly understandable to show how life will be better if the Reform Party controlled the legislature or the city council. Without that identity, without those word pictures, the public will shrug off the Reform Party as just another group of political fanatics seeking to play at politics.
Is the Reform Party organizing for the purpose of electing candidates and then operating the levers of power or is the party a protest to the current state of politics found in the two major parties?
Party theorists believe they are not very far from having some effective control at the national level. In the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich has an eleven vote majority. These theorists believe that if they could win one or two dozen of the correct House seats, they would be in position to negotiate who will be the next Speaker of the House. That would mean that the Reform Party would be in a position to have an effect on the Congressional calendar and to help set national legislative priorities.
These are heady thoughts for a group of non-political professionals and former housewives. They hope to be taken seriously once they control the swing votes in Congress. The idea that their party could have such influence on the national agenda has not been missed by some political insiders. They worry that the Reform Party could have an influence on American politics far out of proportion to their actual political support. They point to Israel as an example of a government where a couple of small religious parties could bring down the government by removing their support. Of course, that is a poor example since Israel has a parliamentary form of government and America does not. American governments do not fall, they become grid-locked.
The Reform Party is still a growing movement. Like the Republican Party of the 1850s, the Reform Party hopes to become one of the two major parties. They do not seek to gridlock America. They seek to put political power back into the hands of the "common folks." They are working hard to attract new affiliations with both independent voters and disaffected Democrats and Republicans. They are growing fast in the nation's inner cities. The Black Caucus is beginning to show an interest as the Democrats lose their hold on the black vote. They are working hard to address issues important to working people, Hispanics, entrepreneurs, young people, pensioners, union members, etc. Every group is a target of this aggressive new political force.
Democrats and Republicans had better stay flexible. There is a new party in town hoping to earn your vote.
Lee A. Presser
Feb 1998
