The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

IF ROSS PEROT IS ELECTED PRESIDENT, IT WILL NOT BE the first time people buy something they don't need. A slick salesman's perfected pitch often trumps good judgment, and if a peddler lives who rivals Perot, he exists only in fiction. To an electorate eager for one thing above all others -- leadership of clear purpose, candidly proclaimed -- Perot seems a welcome breath of fresh air. With the penetrating clarity common to the slightly deranged, and with an air of bustling purposiveness, Perot has about him a kind of gravitas that appears to transmute political banalities into profound insights. Hear his practiced homilies during the presidential debates, watch his chart-filled infomercials, and Perot's classic American optimism is instantly recognizable. Everything will be fine, he says, if we roll up our sleeves and get under the hood to fix the car.

Perot's specialty is clothing demagoguery with a semblance -- sometimes even a facsimile -- of wit and down-to-earth common sense. His call to "shared sacrifice" resonates with the nation's history ("The only thing we have to fear is fear itself") and lends a certain credibility to his painful prescriptions. Much of what he proposes is philosophically charming, but the sacrifice he posits would be borne unequally, and his numbers are as questionable as those of his rivals. His pie charts and bar graphs convey heft, but when studied carefully, the bottom line relies on so many dubious and unspecific assumptions (how, exactly, are health-care costs to be contained?) that his repeated assertion is effectively refuted: it is not "just that simple."

Yet if the polls can be trusted (and even if they cannot, the rising worries of Bill Clinton and George Bush speak volumes), Perot has the potential to disrupt next week's election. Many Americans, it seems, are ready to squander their franchise -- which, of course, is not exactly the way Perot sees it: "You are throwing your vote away unless you vote your conscience." While indisputably attractive, these underdog's words fail on close inspection.

Consider first Perot's personality and temperament. It does not require a degree in psychology to recognize a world-class paranoid. Perot starts with a firm conviction of his own superior gifts and high destiny. Then, if his actual situation falls short, he looks for scapegoats. In Perot's mind, nothing that has ever retarded his many causes has been his fault. Whether it is a band of shortsighted General Motors directors, government officials callously abandoning soldiers in Southeast Asia or journalists scrutinizing his background, Perot routinely views himself as the helpless victim of dark conspiracies. Is the collective memory so short that we cannot recall July, when, at a high point, Perot inexplicably closed his campaign with the brutality of a plant manager pink-slipping loyal workers at Christmas? Have we forgotten that without warning Perot stranded the millions who had poured their time and money into his effort, those whom he had repeatedly promised to "serve" selflessly if only they would follow his lead? Can anyone seriously believe "the people" called him back when the evidence proves that Perot himself staged and bankrolled the "grass-roots" cry for his return?

Aside from his entering, quitting and then re-entering, the only public decision by which to judge Perot's judgment has been the selection of his running mate, James Stockdale. Leading the nation is serious business, but one swipes at Stockdale only gingerly because he is such a sympathetic figure. Thus it is perhaps best to conjure the national nightmare a Stockdale presidency might induce by adopting the observation of a political satirist: a Stockdale succession, says Mark Russell, is probably the only catastrophe that could cause the nation to pine for Dan Quayle.

Still, many voters are angry and frustrated. They want to protest the process that has served up Bush and Clinton. They want to send a message. Some want merely to telegraph their disgust. Others want Clinton and Bush to take the deficit more seriously -- which, thanks to Perot, they are already doing. If it were possible, we would all gather in a giant electronic town hall and divvy up the vote: so much for whomever the majority wants to win, with a ^ healthy percentage for Perot just to keep the victor honest. But the Electoral College complicates life. A voter who hates Bush above everything and casts his ballot for Perot may end up helping the President carry the voter's state, just as a Clinton despiser who goes for Perot may end up aiding the Arkansas Governor.

What to do? If you seriously favor Perot for President, vote for him. If not, watch the polls carefully and shy away from casting a protest ballot if there seems any reasonable chance that the outcome could be distorted by too many others venting their anger. Remember that in a democratic republic, a citizen discharges his duty not by making a vindictive gesture but by voting as if the outcome depended entirely on his vote alone. It's just that simple.