ROSS PEROT AND JESSE JACKSON have at least one thing in common: each of them could play havoc with the 1996 presidential race. Perot makes Republican candidates cringe when he threatens to "do whatever I have to do to get our goals accomplished in the most intelligent way." They fear a repeat of the damage Perot inflicted on George Bush in 1992. And Bill Clinton's advisers shiver when they hear Jackson musing that "a lot of people are interested in more ballot access as the Democrats and Republicans become indistinguishable." The Clintonites worry about an independent Jackson candidacy that could destroy the President's already fragile prospects for re-election.
Though radically different in ideology, Perot and Jackson both yearn to advance an ambitious agenda, even if that means playing the spoiler. Each is a failed presidential candidate with no realistic chance to win the White House, but each muses about running under the right circumstances. For Jackson, those include a weakened President who continues to disappoint his party's left wing. For Perot, the lure would be the G.O.P.'s failure to keep its promise of revolutionary reform.
Perot poses the more plausible threat to a two-party system besieged by voter cynicism. His personal fortune can easily finance his candidacy again. United We Stand America, his reform-minded pressure group, is inching toward becoming a new party. It could serve as a vehicle for him or a like-minded ally.
The electorate seems receptive to new choices. TIME-CNN polls have shown a consistent majority of voters-56% vs. 34% in last week's survey-favoring creation of a full-fledged new party. The level of support remains high, though regard for Perot has ebbed. Waning loyalty to the major parties, rather than enthusiasm for any one independent leader, whets the appetite for alternatives. "You're going to see a centrist, third-party challenge in '96, without question," says Lowell Weicker, a former Republican Senator who won Connecticut's governorship as an independent. Others speculate about a fourth party as well.
What Perot lacks at the moment is a clear rationale for a sequel. Last year he urged his followers to give the Republicans a shot at ruling Congress. Perotistas, who lean rightward anyway, voted for the G.O.P. by a ratio of 2 to 1. Now Republicans must be given an opportunity to satisfy Perot's following. "They basically have adopted our 1992 platform," Perot contended in a TIME interview. "Then the question is, Will they deliver? That's all that matters to us." With Perot doing the grading, Republicans may have little chance of passing the test.
In fact, Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," compared with Perot's manifesto, is timid in attacking the deficit and ignores other major items on Perot's priority list as well. Even legislators who have enjoyed explicit support from Perot have stiffed him on such critical issues as nafta, gatt and the Administration's effort to nourish Mexico's anemic currency. When Congress was considering gatt last November, Perot warned that if the trade agreement was approved, which it was, United We Stand would consider forming a new party. Local chapters all over the country-prodded by national headquarters in Dallas-have been staging debates among their members on the question of doing just that. These affairs usually turn into denunciations of the established parties.