From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Why Bush supporters should Back Perot
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:29:25 GMT

In article <s7go6INN35r@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>You still have yet to explain to me why it would take constitutional
>reform to have a third party candidate in the White House.

I don't say that it would.  But if a third party won the White House,
then one of the major parties would go over to him, or it would be
marginalized by his organization (including mass defections of
incumbents plus replacement of some by his supporters) and there would
be two parties again.  If Perot deliberately refused to build an
organization, then once he left there would be two major parties again,
as the person who replaced him would not be so fastidious.  Splinter
parties of the sort which can act as swings in a parliamentary system
just don't thrive in an environment where if a candidate looks promising,
a major party will either adopt him or send in a candidate with most
of his policies and ten times his money.  Perot is an anomaly because
he can self-fund, but unless he's planning on subsidizing candidates
till the end of time, at most he'll be a ripple.

The usefulness to those who which to hold office, in American federal
politics, of having an organization which can act as a majority in
Congress (since all the administrative jobs-- majority/minority
leader, majority/minority whip, Speaker of the House and President of
the Senate, etc. _are_ apportioned in an openly partisan matter;
the Constitution says nothing about how the Congress runs its
day to day affairs) has tended to create two parties which act as
magnets for anything which gains a groundswell of support.  The fact
is, the day that most Americans really _do_ consider the budget
deficit _more_ important than a host of other issues, from tax rates
to abortion, then one of the parties (probably the Republicans, but
maybe not) will go and do something about it.  Right now, Americans
want the deficit reduced-- as long as taxes aren't raised and programs
aren't cut.  So that's what the parties give them.

  You see...
>In this election, I am tending to support a person named Perot who has
>1) A voice of change when people are looking for it, 2) is not a
>Democrat, 3) is not a Republican, 4) has a hundred million bucks to
>spend on television advertisments.  Let's look at what this guy could
>do to the election results.

[examples deleted]

The thing is, that if a strong third party candidate runs, he tends to
take his supporters more from one major party than the other.  As a
result, the major which loses less support to the third party will
tend to win.  If he really can draw support evenly from both sides, he
might pull it off-- or if there's a real groundswell.  But remember
that there really are a lot of people out there who feel serious party
loyalty, ranging up to what a friend of mine calls the "yellow-dog
Democrats" (so called because they'd vote for a yellow dog if the Dems
nominated it) and their Republican equivalents.  Whereas the Dems and
the Republicans have to capture the swing voters, a third party has to
capture essentially all of them, _plus_ some fraction of the committed
partisans (because, again, about two thirds of the country identifies
to some extent with a party.  That didn't prevent Reagan Democrats,
and it won't prevent Perot Democrats or Perot Republicans, but he
has an uphill fight to a greater extent than Bush or Clinton does.)

>Oh, not necessarily.  And, I really doubt that we are in CONTROL of 25%
>of the GNP as much as we "have the legal power to mismanage" it.

Agreed, but I don't care _who_ is in the White House, any bureaucracy
can successfully mismangage any amount of money.  The _only_ way to
force a bureaucracy to become even slightly more efficient is
to starve it.

>  The
>biggest problem with the borrow and spend philosophy of today is that
>it is SO addictive to our government officials.  First you borrow money
>(through taxes, or foreign relations)... and then you pour that money
>into social programs so that you'll get reelected.  Then, in your
>second term you do the same.  Then, in your third term (assuming it's
>Congress here) you do the same.  And you keep doing this until you
>resign, or until you piss off enough people in your district that you
>get voted out of office.

Pretty well a fair statement of our current state of affairs.  I'd
support a balanced budget amendment-- I just think that the solution
must be cuts in federal outlays, not increase in federal income.

>Okay then.  Given the three "electible" people who will be on your
>ballot in November, look at their economic track record closely.  Which
>one is likely to break the "borrow" and "spend" cycle that we've had
>for as long as I can remember?

None.  Because no one will get a budget deal through without consulting
Congress, and compromises with Congress will lead to another deficit.
Until and unless people send a message to their Congresscritter that
deficit spending has to stop, it's a matter of who is less likely
to open the spigot wider.

>Entitlements are important.  Without public education, we won't have a
>workforce.  Without higher education, we won't have a power base to
>compete on the international front.  You see... there are a lot of
>things we HAVE to do to get ourselves back into the position of a world
>leader.  These include education, foreign trade, the rebuilding and
>enhancement of our infrastructure, better opportunities for small and
>medium sised businesses.  All of this power rests in the hands of our
>government.  If your state government doesn't have enough money to keep
>the education standards of your University afloat (mine doesn't), then
>the money HAS to come from the Federal government.  If your state isn't
>doing enough to encourage economic growth, then the Federal government
>is going to have to step in and intervene.

Why?  Consider the question: if the federal government doesn't do
enough to encourage growth or keep education standards high, who is
going to step in and intervene?  What does the federal government have
that the states don't?  More money?  No, we've just discussed that; it
doesn't have the money it's spending now.  The power to raise taxes?
But states can do that too.  Personally I think that if the citizens
of Michigan (my home state) want to pay higher taxes to keep the
University of Michigan going, that's their prerogative (whether I'd
vote for it or against it is another matter, and depends on whether I
think they really need more money or simply need to economize or raise
tuition).  But why should the citizens of California pay money to my
school?  Especially if they're already spending their money keeping up
the University of California system.  The federal government is in no
better position to improve education that the states are.

>>Well, I wouldn't want him for a boss.
>
>That's your choice.  The more I look at it, the more I think he might
>have been justified in the policies he took as a boss.  After all, he
>was in charge of an information service that catered to huge
>corporations.  I think if I was the boss at this place, I'd do
>everything in my power to make sure my employees weren't intoxicated
>(by means of any chemical) on the job.  There would be too much at
>stake.  And the thing about forcing employees who live together to
>marry... It sounds like he might be making these policies to reduce the
>chances of industrial spying.  I'm not making excuses... it's just that
>I'm not really surprised about the policies that he enforced.

Surprise isn't necessary.  I wasn't _surprised_ that Bush reneged
on his "No New Taxes" pledge, or that he failed to support Russian
and Ukrainian independence.  But that doesn't mean I approved.
Similarly, I have some distaste for someone who uses his economic
power to coerce his employees private behavior.  He didn't do anything
illegal, but he did do something arrogant, nosy and impolite.  The
question is how much he respects the idea that the Federal government
is supposed to be less arrogant, nosy and impolite due to the vast
power we entrust to it?

>>  What's he like as President?

>Another sign that we need real change (and soon) in our government.  If
>a voice can't be heard unless it has a hundred million dollars to spend
>on television advertising...  What does that say about our democracy?

I'm not sure how one combats plutocracy by electing a plutocrat.  Then
again, all of the candidates' campaign contributions represent, in
addition to corporations and such, the money of millions of people who
think they're the best candidate for the job.  I may not be among
them, but the fact that they can get a few million people to support
them is at least some comfort that the election is not merely a matter
of spending money, but also of convincing people you have good enough
ideas to give you theirs, whether you're Jerry Brown or George Bush.
Perot doesn't need to do that-- is that necessarily a good thing?

(Note-- I am _not_ defending the current campaign financing system
as a "good thing".)

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections