From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: After Perot
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:52:24 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <92202.1230128925129@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> <8925129@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>
>Ross Perot has left the race for the presidental election- how has this changed
>the chances of the two remaining candidates?
>
>As I am European, I can judge      only from distance; but from the media it
>seems to me that people felt attracted by Perot for two reasons: he appealed
>to conservative emotions and he embodied protest.
>Now I suppose that people with conservative feelings would tend to vote for
>Bush, but people wishing change would tend to vote for Clinton. What is
>gaining now more momentum in the USA?
>Timing might also play an important role. Now that Perot has given up,
>Clinton's popularity seems to be at an all-time high; so will the Perot-voters
>swith over to him?

For what it's worth, my take on this presidential election.  First,
President Bush.  Here is a man who has somehow managed to alienate almost
every interest group in the country.  His biggest problem seems to be that
he has no credibility.  Consider the promise that got him elected, "The
Congress will come to me and demand to raise taxes and I will say no.  They
will come back and try again and I will say no again.  They will come back
and I will say 'Read my lips, no new taxes!!!'."  So what happened in real
life?  The Congress came to him and demanded to raise taxes and instead of
the apocalyptic struggle he promised, he rolled over and played dead.  So
taxpayers everywhere are mad at him, and  conservatives who believe that
increasing taxes is just feeding a bottomless pit are mad at him.

Consider the Civil Rights act of 1991.  Remember, there is no truth in
labeling law that applies to Congress, so just because it calls itself a
Civil Rights bill doesn't mean that it's about Civil Rights.  Those opposed
to this bill believe that it will lead to hiring by quota rather than merit,
whereas hiring by merit, putting more stake in who you are and what you've
done than in what group you happened to be born into, is the ideal.  Those
in favor of the bill believe that hiring by merit doesn't happen and the
quotas are needed to force hiring decisions to be fair to everybody.  What
happened? First, Bush vetoed the bill, to the delight of the anti quota
side and alienating the pro quota side.  Then the Congress changed a word or
two but made no substantial changes, resubmitted it and he signed it.  Now
the anti-quota side is feeling both alienated and betrayed, and the
pro-quota side is delighted but not forgiving of his earlier veto.  Nobody
ends up happy, though the bill is signed.

Consider the Earth summit in Rio.  This is a convocation of people who
believe that the Earth is in crisis and we need action now.  As a result,
there is a general treaty, and a biodiversity treaty.  So why did Bush go to
the Earth summit?  If he believe that the Earth is in danger and we need
action now then why did he render the general treaty almost worthless by
forcing the removal of the enforcement provisions, and refuse to sign the
bio-diversity treaty? If the Earth is not in danger why did he go to the
summit and sign any treaty at all?   Either way he's alienated both sides of
the debate. 

Consider the Gulf War.  Was that about eliminating Hussein as a threat in
the Middle East? If so, why did he call off the war before this result was
achieved?  If not, why did we put 500,000 american troops at risk?  

After four years of this kind of thing President Bush has managed to
alienate just about everybody, and unlike Reagan, he never had a core of
loyal followers who would stick with him no matter what.

Now what about Clinton.  Clinton is a Democrat in a year when disenchantment
with government and government promises is reaching new highs.  The
Democrats are essentially the party of government and special interest
groups (though, to be fair, if we add up all the special interest groups we
come close to the total population).  Supporting Clinton is essentially
empowering the Democratic party which many, who are disenchanted with the
government, are loath to do.  

So, since so many don't want to support Clinton and don't want to support
Bush, what can they do?  Along comes Perot, with a can-do attitude and a
billion dollars (the billion dollars makes him a viable candidate, unlike so
many others who don't have the resources to run a nationwide campaign) and
he gave us someplace to go.  In the short run, his support came from those
(like me) who are fed up with the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans
in the White House.  Since the election is not until November, we could
support Perot, making the two parties nervous, without actually committing
ourselves to a Perot presidency.  If Perot eventually came out with a
program and philosophy that we agreed with, we might even have voted for him
in November.  Remember, though, that Perot support was bi-partisan.  Liberal
Democrats and conservative Republicans both supported him.  This is like
anarchists and communists agreeing on a candidate.  Eventually one of these
groups would have to become disenchanted.  

What has happened now that he has dropped out?  Well, since none of his
support came from Bush supporters, (if they had been Bush supporters they
would not have supported Perot) it is not surprising that Cllinton's support
jumped in the short term.  Over the long term, though, the result is less
clear.  The essential conflict is still between those who want more
government and those who want less taxes.  Clinton is on record as
supporting tax increases (he says just for the top 2% of income earners, but
today it's the top 2%, tomorrow it's the rest of us), but Bush is on the
record as signing a tax increase.  This kind of leaves us between a rock and
a hard place.  I suspect though, that Bush is going to make another
no-new-taxes pledge, push his record in the Gulf War, hammer the Democratic
Congress for not acting on his policies for four years.  The result, as we
get closer to November the polls will get back to a dead heat and we won't
know who wins until the election is over.  When it is, I expect the anti-tax
party (Bush) to win over the pro-tax party (Clinton), and over the next four
years we will find that, whereas in 1988 we elected Bush and got Dukakis,
in 1992 we will elect Bush and get Clinton anyway, leaving me waiting
for Kemp in '96.

>
>Or is the whole analysis not adequate?
>
>I would be very interested in opinions from Americans|||
>
>
>Guido Schaefer
>Student at
>Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
>Austria/Europe


William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================