RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "Everyone laughed at Ross Perot. If the biggest third-party threat to the presidency since the Bull Moose Party hadn't existed, late-night comics would have invented him."

Ross Perot testifies on Capitol Hill before the House Small Business Committee on Mar 24th, 1993. Perot told the committee that the U.S. should proceed cautiously as it tries to reach a free trade agreement with Mexico. (photo: John Duricka/AP/Shutterstock)
Ross Perot testifies on Capitol Hill before the House Small Business Committee on Mar 24th, 1993. Perot told the committee that the U.S. should proceed cautiously as it tries to reach a free trade agreement with Mexico. (photo: John Duricka/AP/Shutterstock)

Ross Perot Had the Last Laugh

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

11 July 19

Ripped as a human punchline in his heyday, Ross Perot’s political career foretold violent change in America

veryone laughed at Ross Perot. If the biggest third-party threat to the presidency since the Bull Moose Party hadn’t existed, late-night comics would have invented him.

In the early nineties, when Perot took on Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush for the presidency and became a political phenom, Perot impersonations were the rage. Dana Carvey doing Perot doing Neil Diamond after Perot’s famed 1993 NAFTA debate with Vice President Al Gore was a hit (“You don’t bring me flowers… Yer not listenin’!”). Jim Carrey doing Perot doing Steve Martin was more risqué (“You every notice how there’s no blacks, Jews, or Puerto Ricans on The Jetsons? Future looks pretty bright, dudn’t it?”). I remember seeing standup acts in New York at the time and Perot was mandatory. He was America’s punchline.

Even after his passing from leukemia at 89, the rim-shot takes continued. The New York Times regurgitated the permanent insult for all short politicians — “elfin” — in its weirdly vicious story about Perot’s death:

And in 1992 he became one of the most unlikely candidates ever to run for president. He had never held public office, and he seemed all wrong, like a cartoon character sprung to life: an elfin 5 feet 6 inches and 144 pounds, with a 1950s crew cut; a squeaky, nasal country-boy twang; and ears that stuck out like Alfred E. Neuman’s on a Mad magazine cover…

Perot was an odd duck to be sure, and he had some troubling characteristics (including alleged overuse of surveillance against employees of his company, Electronic Data Systems). Detractors never figured out that it was precisely his eccentricity that won him support. Every joke lobbed at him added votes in an era when people were becoming distrustful of what Time called the professionalization of politics. Middle America saw Perot as an “antidote to politics-as-usual slickness.”

To Middle America, the glib, slick exterior of the two-party system (with its quadrennial stage-managed election façade) spoke to its alienation from the populace. This made the square-peg personality of Perot more accessible. You know who else has funny looks and goofy speech and would be easy fodder for comedians if they had to go on TV every day? Most people.

Voters understood on some level that Perot was being mocked less for being funny-looking than for having the temerity to run for president without going through party bureaucracies, donors, and the Washington media.

His half-hour campaign ads predicting future economic catastrophe were constantly ridiculed. Perot was a human George Foreman Grill! A joke! Who runs for president by infomercial?

But it should have been a huge red flag that up to 16 million people tuned in to these lectures from Perot. One of the first, “Balancing the Budget and Reforming Government,” showed him holding up a card that quoted Cicero:

History repeats itself.

The budget should be balanced.

The treasury should be refilled.

Public debt should be reduced.

The arrogance of public officials should be controlled.

These shows of a funny little Southerner in a suit talking by himself in front of pie charts for a half hour straight outdrew baseball games and primetime network entertainment programs. They won big ratings because of their hokey style and B-movie production values. This was the beginning of the collapse in trust in the news business and in traditional politicians, who were increasingly seen as having more style than substance.

Early in the 1992 campaign, Perot was leading the three-way race. At one point in June of that year, a Gallup Poll showed him with 39% support, with Bush at 31% and young Bill Clinton at 25%. A Time poll a few days later had him at 37%, with Bush and Clinton both at 24%. These were stunning numbers.

It can’t be an accident that a third-party candidate rose to prominence at precisely the moment when the two parties came together on economic issues, particularly trade.

Perot ran before it became historical fact that both parties supported NAFTA – Bill Clinton hedged a lot in that race, saying things like “on balance it does more good than harm” – but the Texan routinely hammered the theme that the two parties coddled financial interests above ordinary people. In one of the debates, he accused both Clinton and Bush of having “people representing foreign countries” working on their campaigns.

If Perot’s infomercial ratings were a harbinger of future anger toward the “fake news” media, the success of this campaign against NAFTA foretold the anti-globalism movement. Much as Perot in his business life capitalized on inefficiencies he’d spotted in corporate bureaucracies like that of IBM (where he’d worked as a salesman in his youth), he rose in public life because he was early to see cracks in our political foundation that later burst wide open.

Insofar as Perot was even remembered in recent years, it’s often said that he was a “precursor” to Donald Trump. Both were ostensible-billionaire non-politicians who campaigned against free trade and loosely fell under the rubric of populist/nationalist phenoms. Both men became political stars through gluttonous use of free media (Perot had Larry King, Trump had Mika and Joe). Also, Trump ended up running in 2000 for the nomination of Perot’s Reform Party, making the connection seem apparent.

It isn’t. Perot and Trump were elevated by the same winds of discontent, even if they were personally and politically dissimilar — Perot was neither a rake nor a con artist. Nothing remotely like to the accusations of personal corruption that surround Trump ever arose in connection with the fastidious Perot, a famed/infamous moral scold.

Perot was married to the same woman for 62 years and was said to be a loyal, if difficult employer (his company had a “moral code” that prohibited infidelity). Trump is the ultimate symbol of excess; Perot bragged about never owning more than three or four pairs of underpants at a time as a young person. Perot never spoke in favor of Trump. Apart from criticism of NAFTA, a protectionist bent, and a general disdain for the two parties, they didn’t have much in common.

Perot captured 19 percent of the vote in 1992, and probably would have had more, had he not temporarily dropped out of the general election race that year, citing a bizarre blackmail scheme. The Times reported that Perot was afraid a campaign of “Republican dirty tricks” would spread a story that his soon-to-be-married daughter was a lesbian, if he did not drop out. Like many other things about Perot, it was dramatic and odd — who knows what really happened?

Perot’s buzz cut and paperboy background spoke to nostalgia for a vanished past, but his political career was futuristic. His insight was that in the modern communications age, a politician could use technology to bypass traditional filters to power. Cable TV then, like social media now, allowed him to get around donors and parties and make a direct case.

When he failed, pundits laughed and dismissed his rise as a one-time weather event. It proved to be anything but, as Trump used the same tactics, if not exactly the same politics, to win the White House. Next time, we should probably do a little less laughing.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+34 # wvanwicklin 2019-07-11 14:15
Spot on, as usual, for Matt Taibbi.
+23 # jstick 2019-07-11 17:07
Ross was right -- that soft roaring sound we heard was the rush of American jobs leaving the country.
+24 # Jim Rocket 2019-07-11 17:10
I clearly remember one of the TV debates where the topic was military intervention. Perot said that he felt that the US was far to quick to send people's children off to die without good reason. He proposed a War Tax of, I think, $400 payable by anyone who was in favor of whatever military action it was. He wondered how gung-ho people would be if they had to put their money where their mouth was. Both Bush and Clinton seemed gob-smacked! You could see the wheels turning in both their heads as to how something that simple might throw the whole game off. That's one of the reasons "they" don't want any 3rd party candidates in the debates.
+9 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-12 06:30
Matt is always good. I appreciate his insights. The NYT is just snotty as usual. It can't stand what Perot represented.

Perot really was the origin of the populist revolt in American politics that has given us both Trump and his supporters as well as Sanders and his supporters. Both of these populist movements reacted against the establishments in the dominant political parties. They'd had enough of the Reagan-Bush insiders and the global capitalism they fronted for.

But Perot's message was filled with the same mistakes as Trump is pushing. Still, I think all in all his impact on US politics was a good thing. Someday we will see the establishments in both parties pushed out. At least I hope that.
+14 # wrknight 2019-07-12 09:23
"He proposed a War Tax of, I think, $400 payable by anyone who was in favor of whatever military action it was."

Instead of a $400 tax (now $1,000) we need to put anyone who advocates for war (or their children depending on age) in uniform as buck privates and and place them on the front lines of battle.

The problem we have now is that the worst of the chicken-hawks only stand to profit and otherwise have no skin in the game.
+5 # logical1 2019-07-13 03:28
The conspiracy was much worse than Perot's daughter being called a lesbian.
His daughter was getting married and they threatened to post nude pictures of her all over the internet if he did not quit. The pictures might be fake with her face and another body, but this appealed to his sense of family and the effect it would have on his daughter at a time that should be the most joyous of her life.
They found a weak spot and exploited it.
After this blew over, he saw that his family could weather the storm and decided to enter the Presidential race, but the steam had run out of his campaign and he made the mistake of hiring campaign managers from both the Republican and Democrat parties to bring it back. It only weakened the support of those who saw him as independent and the voice of change.
It is a shame that Perot's methods were used by a shameless, lying, name calling, unscrupulous, living off daddy's shirttails, billionaire to win a presidency, using a vitriolic, predjudiced base for support.
+3 # Ralph 2019-07-13 11:26
I think the biggest part of Perot's platform was the fact that he was able to rail against the destruction of our manufacturing base by the political powers of the time. It was an indisputable fact and the coup de grace came under Clinton. Something actually could have been done back then but by the time Trump came along, it clearly is too late. I was glad he was able to make the issue front and center and hoped it would influence policy moving forward. It didn't. I didn't find him funny because the issues he brought up were indeed terrifying and his analysis correct. That said, I pulled the lever for Clinton as I found there was too much other baggage with the man. I'm not certain I made the right choice.

Here we are in 2019 and Trump is president, elected on Perot-like promises of making the working class winners again. Like this unscrupulous grifter of a president ever had the intention of helping the working class. Oddly, the ruse worked and he garnered a significant number of votes from rubes who took him serious on that issue. Add that number to racist, misogynist and hateful people who were drawn to him and it put him over the top. The haters are going to come out for him no matter what. On the other hand, all of those rubes who were to be made winners, are still losers and may rethink their vote in 2020. Prospects look good, but we've seen the Democrats screw things up before.
+1 # trimegestus 2019-07-14 13:42
Another great essay by Taibbi.

I recall that Perot was leading in polls in the spring of 1992. I also recall that the major TV networks refused to allow the Perot campaign to buy TV ad time in the fall of 1992.

The threat of Republican "dirty tricks" might have motivated Perot's decision to suspend the campaign in early summer; but other more serious threats may have also been a factor.
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-15 06:06
Here is Kamala Harris with her own Ross Perot moment. She's saying that the whole Colin Kaepernick thing about "bend the knee" wasn't really about Kaepernick. It was the Russian Bots who did it. Incredible!! Watch her.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.