How Ross Perot changed both of America’s major political parties

Ross Perot’s theme song for his 1992 independent presidential run was the classic country weeper “Crazy,” written by Willie Nelson and made famous by Patsy Cline. It certainly seemed appropriate for a quixotic bid that ultimately failed to win the White House, as has every independent or third-party effort since Abraham Lincoln.

But victory at the polls is only one way to measure the success of independent and third-party presidential efforts. For in many ways, Perot’s two futile candidacies – he ran again in 1996 –provided a preview of today’s political scene.

Political author Michael Barone has said that “no third-party candidate could succeed in America unless he had a billion dollars and a household name.” Ross Perot, of course had both. As the founder of Electronic Data Systems, he became a tech billionaire at a time when most Texas fortunes were still based on oil and cattle. By the 1980s, when he began dabbling in politics, Perot was already one of the richest men in Texas. And the tale of his 1979 rescue of two EDS employees held hostage in Iran made him the subject of both a best-selling novel and a made-for-TV movie starring Charlton Heston.

But it was his plain-spoken depiction of an America in industrial decline caused by global trade policies embraced by both parties that struck a national chord that still resonates today. With the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, America’s foreign policy elite predicted and prepared for a “New World Order.” One of the new order’s trumpeted facets was free trade policies that would dismantle tariffs, lead to lower consumer prices here and around world, and create disincentives for nations – now trading partners – to wage war on one another. Lower trade barriers among nations would ultimately provide peace across the globe and prosperity at home. That was the promise, at least. Free trade became dogma in both political parties, exemplified by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – negotiated by Republican George H.W. Bush in 1992, enacted with bipartisan majorities in Congress, and signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton.

Perot’s opposition to NAFTA was the centerpiece of both his 1992 and 1996 campaigns. Perot warned Americans that “a giant sucking sound” was emanating from Mexico, pulling American jobs southward. He favored tariffs, quotas, and government-planned industrial policy – all anathema to the free trade consensus that came to dominate both major political parties.

But Perot’s message resonated with Americans in the Heartland. Manufacturing jobs were indeed being offshored, industrial towns were being hollowed out, and steel, autos, and textiles were increasingly being manufactured abroad rather than here in the USA.

In June 1992, when he abruptly suspended his campaign with a vague and off-putting explanation, Perot had a significant lead over President George H.W. Bush and Democratic Party nominee Bill Clinton, who was mired in third place. By the time he decided to get back in the race, Perot was damaged goods – but he was a candidate whose message had staying power: He received nearly 20% of the vote in November. And though he fared less well in 1996, his efforts were not for naught.

“He scared both parties out of their stasis,” said political scientist Lara M. Brown. “And what you see during the 1990s is both parties competing for those Perot voters.”

Democratic strategist James Carville concurs. “If Donald Trump is the Jesus of the disenchanted, displaced non-college white voter, then Perot was the John the Baptist of that movement,” Carville has said.

That seems about half right. It is true that Trump brought many of Perot’s proposed policies into the GOP, and today Trump promises punitive tariffs aimed at both China and U.S. firms that move operations overseas. But leading Democrats noticed the staying power of Perot’s ideas as well. NAFTA was considered Bill Clinton’s signature domestic policy achievement, but when Hillary Clinton ran for president, she distanced herself from it as best she could. Why? Because she was having trouble dispatching Bernie Sanders, who ran a populist campaign in the Democratic Party’s primary season, that mirrored Trump’s protectionist agenda.

As president, Joe Biden passed massive subsidies to support American microchip makers and retained many of Trump’s tariffs. Both Trump and Kamala Harris pledge they will block Nippon Steel from purchasing U.S. Steel, even though Nippon Steel is domiciled in America’s most steadfast and important Asian ally, Japan. Had he won the White House, Perot could not have done much more.

Our two-party system makes it almost impossible for a candidate unaffiliated with either major party to win the presidency. As a result, third-party and independent candidates are often derided as mere spoilers – and Perot’s 19.5% of the popular vote may have altered the course of the 1992 election, peeling enough votes from Bush to give Clinton the win.

But third-party and independent candidates like Ross Perot play another important role: introducing new issues and identifying voters who feel unrepresented by the two major parties. Heeding the desires of the electorate, one or both move to absorb those issues and attract those voters. Perot’s protectionist agenda seemed idiosyncratic in the 1990s.; today, it is embedded in the policies of both parties. And the party that connects mostly closely with voters who saw Perot as more than just “crazy” more than two decades ago will likely be rewarded this November.

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!