(2 of 3)
4. Issues matter. Perot spent much of his time blasting his rivals for avoiding the issues, but never fully described his own proposals. In most cases, he insisted that Washington was already littered with good plans; it was just a matter of picking the best ones. When pressed on such matters as health-care reform, he became hopelessly vague. "Only the people, the owners of this country, can make America strong again," he said, ignoring the need for skillful political leadership. Perot's one truly specific proposal, a deficit-reduction plan, did call for new taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and some Social Security benefits and Medicare programs. But by thus limiting himself, he became the kind of one-issue candidate Americans have traditionally rejected. Moreover, he didn't explain how he would get his belt- tightening package past Congress, except to promise to build support for it in electronic "town meetings" -- the Massachusetts Bay Colony comes to the media age.
5. Running mates count. Retired vice admiral and former Vietnam POW James Stockdale is a bona fide hero and scholar. What he is not is someone who should be a heartbeat away from the presidency. After his hapless performance in the vice-presidential debate, Stockdale was barely heard from again. That was a blessing. A vice-presidential candidate ought to have at least a nodding acquaintance with the issues voters care about. By choosing Stockdale, Perot did what George Bush couldn't do: make voters forget their qualms about Dan Quayle.
Despite his shortcomings as a candidate, Perot could take some satisfaction from his first plunge into electoral politics. He demonstrated that Americans are hungry for leadership rooted in common sense and plain speaking. He was on the mark when he said, "If anyone wants to know who's to blame for the $4 trillion debt, just go look in the mirror." Voters did not recoil from such lines. On the contrary, Perot's experience suggests that Clinton and Bush missed an opportunity to use similar outspokenness in order to develop a mandate for bullet-biting reform.
Some experts are writing Perot off as a future political force. Political scientist Nelson Polsby of the University of California, Berkeley, says the Perot campaign was nothing more than "an ego trip by a very superficial person." Another political scientist, Earl Black of the University of South Carolina, agrees. "Perot," says Black, "was just an extremely wealthy individual with high visibility who was using his personality and charisma to fuel this movement."
There is strong evidence, however, that Americans remain frustrated by what they see as the failure of the two-party system to attend to their needs. Democratic political consultant Greg Schneiders, a former aide to Jimmy Carter, predicts that "the high level of unrest and unhappiness, which Perot capitalized on, won't go away. The right candidate in the right year could come along and perhaps tap into that, even to the point of getting himself elected." But it would take someone, Schneiders adds, "with all of Perot's strengths and none of his weaknesses."