|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Perot's Bay of Pigs
| Article
# : |
20690 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
9 / 1992 |
1,636 Words |
| Author
: |
Gary Bullert
Gary Bullert is professor of political science at Troy State
University and is the author of The Politics of John Dewey. |
An army of grass-roots volunteers was left twisting in the wind when Ross Perot jettisoned his undeclared presidential campaign. In falling to keep his promise to run a world-class campaign, Perot did exhibit some political dexterity. However, few of his ardent supporters could accept his claim that this was done "for the good of the country."
In the aftermath, Clinton and Bush raced to woo Perot and Perotistas. Fred Malek, Bush campaign manager, praised Perot as "a good man, a man of good intentions, and I think he's made a contribution." Just day earlier, Dan Quayle denounced Perot as a "temperamental tycoon who has contempt for the Constitution of the United States." While Clinton cleverly abstained from attacks on Perot, liberal Democrats quickly shifted from rhetoric about Perot's Hitlerian tendencies to how he had identified many real political problems. Who will capture the politically disaffected middle class?
Even during the revivalism of the Democratic Convention, a Times/CNN poll (July 19, 1992) revealed that 55 percent of the voters were still dissatisfied with the field of candidates. Anti-incumbent political alienation is rampant. The level of discontent with the direction of the country stands at 71 percent--twice the level of 1984 or 1988. Amid congressional check-kiting, economic recession, and unattractive candidates, Perot was poised opportunistically to mount an insurgent campaign. In its initial phase, his campaign gained legitimacy by energizing grass-roots support, nurturing a media image of an outsider who might just fix the system, and assembled a bipartisan team of veteran political operatives, led by Ed Rollins and Hamilton Jordan. Yet, 52 percent of Perot's support came from those who disliked the other candidates intensely (Newsweek, June 15, 1992). Most wanted to know more about Perot and his policies. Their support was liquefied, a holding pen that registered current discontent. Deeming the persona to be the product, Perot was unwilling ultimately to translate this "none of the above syndrome" into solid commitment. In an age of cynicism, such blind trust cannot withstand protracted media scrutiny.
The Perot candidacy did excite not simply fledging enthusiasts and political soldiers enthusiasts and political soldiers of fortune craving power, but sophisticated consultants like Ed Rollins. Why did Rollins risk his political life, fortune, and sacred honor on the prospect of the Perot victory? From January to June 1992, Perot received very favorable media coverage. Sixty-four percent of the stories were positive in comparison to 41 percent for Clinton and 23 percent for
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
