Ross Perot: What a Bygone Character of American Politics Can Teach Us About Today
Edited by Morgan Pustilnik, Jordan Collinson, Owen Andrews, and Sarah Ahmad
In 1992, the American political landscape was quite different. The era of Ronald Reagan neared its end, and American foreign policy became much less of a major focus among the public with the recent collapse of the Soviet Union. President George H.W. Bush had been quite popular throughout most of his term; after very easily securing victory in 1988, he led the country through the end of the Cold War and was able to show American might with an easy victory in the Persian Gulf War. With Bush’s approval rating reaching near 90% in 1991, the Democratic Party was initially struggling to find a worthy contestant to challenge the popular Bush, and a contentious primary saw the relatively unknown former Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton, take the nomination.
Clinton and Bush had a fairly similar policy proposal list, especially with their approval of the proposed “North American Free Trade Agreement” (NAFTA). They did, however, paint much of the race as a difference in social outlook, such as policy issues like abortion, or using personal attacks such as Clinton’s dodging of the draft for the Vietnam War. Even though there was far more overlap in policy at the time, many Americans were uninterested and upset with the personal attacks that the campaign seemed to bring. When a minor recession hit in the spring of 1992, tanking Bush’s initial popularity, an outsider decided to put his hat into the ring: Texas billionaire Ross Perot.
Perot had a unique political approach. One of his major signifiers was the usage of 30-minute infomercials on network television, where he discussed his policy proposals in detail to the American public. He was almost exclusively economics-oriented, which was understandable given his status as the head of one of the largest telecommunication companies in the world at the time, Perot Systems. He was, however, in stark opposition to the policies of the Reagan era that saw large tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthiest Americans, followed by large increases in military spending. Perot supported an increase in capital gains taxes, as well as a focus on balancing the budget to pay off the national debt. Perot especially believed that NAFTA would lead to the loss of manufacturing jobs to major competitor Mexico and would be a long-term burden to areas such as the Rust Belt that had become incredibly dependent on those sectors. Despite dropping out of the race in the late summer for a few months, Perot re-entered and was able to pull in nearly 19% of the popular vote in the election, the best performance of a third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
While Perot’s run was not fully successful, his impact continued to be felt. For instance, President Clinton oriented his budget to be more focused on debt reduction and went on to run a budget surplus in the later years of his run. Additionally, Perot’s Reform Party, which he founded in 1995, saw some moderate success for a time, famously with the election of former WWE star Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota in 1998. Perot did attempt a second run for the presidency in 1996 as a Reform candidate, but he performed much worse than his first run, gathering just over 8% of the popular vote. The mechanics of the two-party establishment made it increasingly difficult for Perot to succeed, such as the adjustment of the presidential debate rules to prevent Perot from participating. However, the most significant figure that Perot was able to influence was someone who was able to achieve what Perot couldn’t: Donald Trump.
In the 1990s, Trump was not nearly as high-profile in the political world. He was an eccentric New York billionaire who had limited influence on the American cultural landscape. Trump, however, was inspired by Perot. He latched onto his protectionist rhetoric and was especially impressed with his outsider, grassroots approach. Trump even initially planned to run for president in 2000 as a member of Perot’s Reform Party but ultimately dropped out of the race. What Trump eventually learned from Perot was that outsiders could only change the political landscape from within one of the two major parties, not from outside them. Trump, for the most part, was correct in that assumption. By using similar tactics to Perot in his 2016 run, such as a self-funded campaign, anti-NAFTA rhetoric, and a less traditional approach, Trump brought outsider politics inside the American political system.
There is, however, a popular perspective among the American public that either a new party needs to arise or that the major parties themselves need a realignment. Gallup’s recent study saw that over 60% of Americans believe a third party is needed, with just 30% believing that the two parties are doing an adequate job. With all of this taken into consideration, can someone recapture the angle that Perot was successful with and find more success? Probably not. Perot was a billionaire, which was very important to his ability to run a self-funded outsider campaign. While being a billionaire held some mild controversy in the 1990s, they have since become a much more unpopular group as a whole in American culture. Furthermore, the Democratic and Republican parties have access to vast amounts of funding, especially after the Citizens United case allowed for nearly unlimited money in American politics, giving an outsider candidate incredibly slim chances of not being systematically shut out by the major parties.
Ross Perot was certainly enigmatic. He was a billionaire who actively supported taxing the rich; he was a man who ran a multinational corporation yet was a strong protectionist; he was someone who brought new issues to the forefront of the American political zeitgeist. While Perot’s unique brand of politics may have died with him, perhaps his strategies may not have; maybe a watershed moment could force a unique character out of the shadows and into infomercials.