The man to watch in this presidential campaign is H. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire. It`s obvious that he`s serious about trying to do something to change the country. More important, he`s got the money to make the race on his own.
Worried professional politicians understand the power of money in elections. They spend most of their time groveling and posturing to lure it out of the pockets of Americans. They know the green stuff wins.
A key reason why Republicans have dominated national elections in the last 30 years is their superior capacity to raise money to finance the increasingly expensive costs of modern campaigning.
Perot is what you call a one-man special interest, a giant political action committee in his own right. He figures he`s as good as any politician he might support. So why not support himself?
With little sacrifice to his economic security, he could finance his entire campaign. In fact, he has indicated he intends to do just that. He`s asking for some small contributions, $5 a pop, to make his supporters feel they are participating.
He probably would have to put no more than 5 percent of his fortune on the line to run a creditable campaign, considering that he`s reported to be worth more than $2 billion. According to U.S. News and World Report, he has told friends he`s willing to put up $100 million of his own money to run.
Most of the pros view him as little more than an aberration in an aberrant political year. They point out that he is part of no party structure, has no real organization, is not well known nationally, espouses some eccentric views that are bound to get him in trouble, and will have a hard time getting on the ballot in all 50 states, a prerequisite for his campaign. Perhaps all this is so, but money can wash away a lot of handicaps. Poor Paul Tsongas dropped out of the race for lack of funds, believing that if he could have stayed in a little longer to get better known by the people, he would have prevailed. The Democratic race is littered with underfinanced dropouts-Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin and Doug Wilder.
You can buy attention in this country. And, with a man of Perot`s background, you will find that much more of it is gratis. Well-financed people get much more than their 15 minutes of fame. They are in the spotlight almost daily because of a round-the-clock hunger for news. Just look at the attention given to Pat Buchanan.
Maybe there`s a blunter way to put this. Can a rich man buy the presidency, bypassing an existing political structure that has taken two centuries to build? Our instincts are to say no, it`s impossible. These instincts say: The American people know and understand the structure. Though they often despise it, they probably won`t be willing to put their faith in some brand-new third party built entirely on a personal fortune, a tough economic message, and an engaging personality.
But if there`s one thing we`ve all learned this year, it`s don`t trust your instincts. The American people, it seems, have crossed some kind of psychological Rubicon in which they`re willing to entertain new political figures and new ideas. They`re not so wedded to parties as they were 20 years ago. In fact, they pretty much hate politics.
Three years of economic stagnation, including a punishing recession, have caused them to face the prospect of an austere future. A modest recovery won`t erase this hard undercurrent of distress. It will be around for Bill Clinton and Perot to tap.
If Perot gets over the signature hump, he will be a force to be reckoned with. He`s got the zeal of a reformer and a strong anti-Washington message that will sell well with disaffected voters in this year of discontent. He`d take a radical approach to reducing the federal budget deficit, and he`d be an active interventionist in the economy.
He understands the economy and the job creation process better than the other candidates. And, unlike many men of wealth, he is not some hidebound right-winger on social issues.
But ultimately the haunting question comes back: What gives him the slightest chance of a shot at the presidency? Pure and simple, $2 billion. One can be an entertaining speaker, possess some good economic ideas and be politically correct, but go nowhere in political life because of the demands of money.
By contrast, take a man like Clinton. He prepared almost from Day One to be president. He`s been involved in politics all his life, schmoozing, networking and raising money bit by bit. He has paid his dues in the system and taken some hard knocks. Perot has not. Only lately has he turned his eye toward politics.
More Top Picks Best Sewing Tables
Let`s just suppose, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, that Perot pulls off a miracle in this odd political year and is elected. The idea of a purchased presidency is, indeed, disturbing, even by such a benevolent, well- intentioned buyer as Perot.
But if his fortune doesn`t win for him, it could also turn him into a spoiler-a role made possible only by his wealth. His candidacy definitely could determine who wins the White House this year.
Perot`s emergence provides further evidence of the desperate need for campaign financing reform to reduce the overpowering influence of money in modern presidential elections. The power of ideas long ago took a back seat.