Chasing the Reform Vote
As this riveting campaign unfolds, we can easily miss a startling fact: the President of the United States who follows George W. Bush will be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. Two liberal (oops, progressive) Democrats or the Republican most willing to stand up to Bush over the first six years of his presidency. To use the word of the moment, that is change. And because of a little-noticed electoral fact, more change may be on the way.The candidates this fall will be competing to win an electoral bloc that has been the invisible force determining many recent elections. The reform-minded voters who backed Ross Perot in 1992 will once again be the "jump ball" for this election. Call them, to paraphrase our outgoing chief executive, "The Deciders."
The cantankerous energy of the Perot vote may seem distant today, but I remember it vividly. I stood a few yards away from the stage in Little Rock, Arkansas on Election Night, 1992. That night, speaking to 30,000 screaming supporters, president elect Bill Clinton took note of the day's biggest surprise. Ross Perot had received 19 percent of the vote, after it was clear he was flakier than a fresh croissant. Clinton told Perot's voters he heard them, and pledged political reform as an early priority.
Perot is often remembered today as a funny looking little man vowing to "get under the hood" of a broken system. He lent himself easily to Dana Carvey's mimicry, as when he declared that George H.W. Bush had tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding. In fact, Perot waged a sharply substantive campaign. Perot vowed to clean Washington of "foreign lobbyists." He spoke of campaign finance reform. He talked about the ballooning budget deficit—not so much as a matter of economics, but as a metaphor for how government had gotten out of control. And he assailed the pending NAFTA trade agreement. Perot's supporters were overwhelmingly Republicans ready to break with the GOP.
In fact, that's how political change usually happens in America. A part of the governing coalition breaks off. The disaffected bloc backs a third party bid. One of the major parties wins by absorbing the independent force to form a new majority. That's what happened with the Whigs and the Republicans in the 1850s. FDR's Democrats absorbed the third party Progressives of the 1920s, who had been disaffected Republicans. (Harold Ickes, for example, was a Republican before he became FDR's long serving cabinet secretary. His son is a top Clinton strategist.) Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy worked successfully to absorb the George Wallace voters of 1968 into a new Republican majority. Following the pattern, Ross Perot was a disaffected Republican—and his voters were ripe for the plucking after 1992.
Instead, the Democrats failed to win them over. In Clinton's first years, reform didn't happen. Campaign finance and lobbying changes never passed. Deficit reduction took so much political capital that it wound up looking half-hearted. And on trade, Clinton simply disagreed with Perot, passing NAFTA and other deals. The Perot vote, in short, wasn't courted. (I remember urging political reform to a senior official. "What about Perot?" I implored. "Let's hope he runs," came the reply.)
The result: Perot voters switched to the GOP in 1994, giving them the Congress. The bloc swung back to Clinton in 1996. It split in 2000; moved strongly for Bush in 2002 and 2004; and repudiated the Republicans in 2006. Once again these less partisan, change-oriented, often angry voters are in play. Recently I asked one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's top strategists how much overlap there was between the Perot vote and a potential base for an independent Bloomberg candidacy. "Eighty-five percent," came the answer.
How can candidates today appeal to the "radical center"? Some issues remain from 1992, and some are new. Public financing of campaigns is still a top priority. (Let's hope that's not still true when Chelsea Clinton is old enough to run for President.) Today it's plain that the voting system glaringly needs repair too. A swirl of other issues may appeal to these voters—ranging from immigration reform (the proxy for free-floating anxiety) and anti-free-trade sentiment to new concerns about a resurgent Imperial Presidency.
Especially intriguing, each candidate today has some claim on the political change vote. McCain sponsored the bipartisan campaign finance bill that became law in 2002. Obama was a key sponsor of ethics reform. Hillary Clinton introduced omnibus election reform that is the best single bill on voting. Neither party seems content to simply turn out its own base, as Karl Rove did so effectively for the Republicans over the past eight years. The early skirmish between McCain and Obama on whether they will participate in the presidential public funding system is a telling sign that the independent-minded voters are already "in play."
There are many good reasons to hope these candidates speak to the need for repair of our democratic systems. It's the right thing to do, for one. Moreover, democracy reforms are the only way that profound policy change will be possible after Election Day. All true. But something far more basic is at work: A bid for the mantle of political reform isn't just high mindedness, it's raw political self-interest. And that's good for the country.
> More posts from the Michael Waldman can be found on his bio page.
