It’s hard to imagine Ross Perot as the answer to anyone’s prayer. But after watching Perot and the press bounce off each other for the past six months, I am convinced theirs is a match made in heaven. Ever since 1972, when Richard Nixon temporarily hoodwinked the political reporters and their bosses, the fourth estate has been searching for a nut it could keep out of the White House. Vindication is sweet, even if it takes two decades.
Clearly, the press believes Perot the long-awaited godsend. Just look at the portrayal of his behavior in their most recent collision over the surfacing of his belief that the Republican presidential campaign was out to smear his daughter.
The consensus of talking heads and pundit pens is that by believing such a story, admitting it and then testily chastising reporters for questioning his judgment, Perot has again demonstrated temperament that disqualifies him from holding the nation’s highest office. A flood of journalistic pronouncements that he is “crazy” and “paranoid” is the proof of their point.
But being called crazy and paranoid by the modern-day news media is like being called dumb by a rock. For real insight, look to history.
More than any other single factor, Nixon’s seduction and betrayal of the establishment press is responsible for the press’s preoccupation with keeping flawed character out of the Oval Office. Since then, the press has viewed each potential occupant as a potential Nixon who might have a temper tantrum and destroy the world-or at the least drive the government over your civil rights.
It was only natural, then, that when Ross Perot stepped forward in an unusual manner with an unconventional approach to politics and an unprecedented amount of personal wealth, he had to be considered within this frame of reference. His claims of altruistic and patriotic motives reeked of insincerity. Could anyone with so much money possibly have made it legally and ethically? Would anyone with wealth and power in private life suddenly leap into politics with motivations truly different from all the others?
Might Perot be the long-expected man on the white horse who must be kept out of the White House, the long-awaited nut whose cracking could again establish the relevancy of the political press?
You bet, said Republican image makers whose job it was to sustain George Bush in office. Certainly, said every enemy Ross Perot had ever made in his life. He is exactly that-Nixon reincarnated, except richer and, therefore, worse.
From the moment Ross Perot became a threat to George Bush’s re-election, that image has been nourished at every turn by the president and the vice president, their wives and their spokespersons. It is perfect. Not only does it feed the worst instincts of the press, it exploits the greatest fears of the American public.
In this sense, the past two weeks were a metaphor for the entire campaign. Did Ross Perot, without hard evidence, become convinced that, in their quest to wreck his campaign, the people around George Bush would stoop to smearing the reputation of one of his daughters at the time of her marriage? You bet. In an effort to portray him as anti-Semitic, they had already peddled a scandalous and untrue story about another of his children. And in violation of the law they had leaked the military medical records of his son and Perot’s military-personnel file.
Would Perot, without regard for the political consequences, answer truthfully that anxiety about his daughter’s wedding memories had indeed played a role in his decision to abandon something as sacred as a political campaign? Absolutely. The Ross Perot I know would rather see his daughter have a happy wedding than see himself in the White House.
Does he really believe that political opponents conspire to do things like destroy people’s reputations, tap telephones and wreak havoc in the lives of their opponent? He does now.
Among the first suggestions given to his campaign by the skilled political professional Ed Rollins, who had so much experience in GOP campaigns, was to periodically sweep the offices and homes of senior staffers for wiretaps and bugs.
Does Ross Perot get angry and do unpolitical things like snap at reporters who question his integrity.? In a heartbeat.
Does this make him an erratic and unstable personality unfit to lead the country.? Compared with what? The politicians I’ve covered in the past 25 years-and the people I know really well in the press? Are you kidding me?
