Click here to go back to Articles and Views main page
Outsider Presidential Candidates
of the Media Age
first published: May 13th, 1997
In the modern age of media and politics (1980-present), we have yet to have an outsider Presidential Candidate with a reasonable level of money, credibility, and charisma. If Harry Browne had had Ross Perot's position (in '96), or if Jerry Brown had had Ross Perot's position (in '92), I think you might be singing a different song.
Pat Buchanan is worse than a bad example. Even if he wasn't staffed by racists, he didn't go in with enough money. And he wussed out in the end.
Ross Perot, an eminently unelectable man, has heretofore been the only candidate with enough clout to make himself fully apparent. If he was a better candidate, he almost surely could've won.
There are 90 million (or so) eligible voters who are registered Democrat or Republican. There are 90 million (or so) who aren't.
I can't yet believe that, in the end, it's not up to the voters. Give them something worthwhile to vote for, and they'll vote.
I do not believe that the idea of political "IMPOSSIBILITIES" can hold water for much longer. They are losing the reins faster than they can grab them.
Ross [Perot] lost because he fiddle-faddled on his desire to run (both in '92 and '96), because he is old and Bill played the young-card well (and wisely) (mostly in '92), and because he showed himself to be issue-selective.
Much of this is not ultimately Ross' fault. In '92, he was largely thrown into it, and I can well understand why he was reluctant, and unprepared. In '96, he was already spoiled, and should have known that for him to run would set the election (for Bill). In my opinion (and the media's, the voters', and the Washington Establishment's), there was virtually no way (aside from a phenomenal Two-Evils scandal) he could've been elected in '96.
I think that Ross would have been wiser to use his time and resources to pick and groom a viable candidate for '96. I hope (with great vigor) that he will have the sense to do so in '00. Ross, if you're reading this- Please don't waste another election! I do not (can not) know if Ross' media pullabitity and millions of dollars and birth-child Trying-To-Be-A-Reform-Party could get a truly "presidential" presidential candidate elected. I think he (it) could.
It was Ross Perot's ability to become a serious potential independent candidate, despite his crippling political defects, in 1992, that first inspired me to consider the office- and to understand the value of preparation and presentation.
Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes, despite their alignment with the Two Evils, all made "independent" efforts. All failed, not due to the media's portrayal of them (or lack of attention), but due to their flaws as candidates. They were portrayed as fringe, because they acted like fringe. Steve was visually unelectable, plus a one-issue candidate; Pat's problems are many, but, at the root, his ideology is not in line enough with the population; Jerry never made a serious effort to remove his 80's flake reputation, and thus, it never left him.
I was days away from joining Jerry Brown's campaign in '92. I had spoken with his primary campaign staff, and had warned my employer I might be leaving abruptly. He had won the CT primary, and temporarily turned the campaign on its ear. It was like a week 'til the NY primary, Brown's make-or-break-er. He (if I remember the timeline right) was being hounded about an alleged "coke party" back when he was CA governer. He was also getting stress for what would come to be known as "Forbesitis"- a refusal do do anything other than tie everything into the "flat tax." I waited to see if he would rise to the challenge (which he could've done, I think). He did not. Jerry Brown was on a blue-streak rampage, visibly shaken by his time in politics, and wildly driven to do something about it. You could watch the fervor of his campaign eat him up. He lost his voice, he lost 20 pounds, and he didn't have the proper handlers to keep him alive. I really came to admire him, but it seemed he never really took the time to think about what was going on. He had the ball, and he ran with it, but his eyes were closed.
One of my biggest intended advantages in the '08 campaign is preparation. In '88, my politics were disinterested, and still primarily my mother's (an unwavering Democrat). In '92, I kept a pretty good eye on things, as did many people. I voted to keep George Bush out (yes, I voted for Bill), because I knew Ross had blown his chance. I also began to think that maybe I should run for President. I was enjoying a lot of political success in college, and when Newsweek called me (for a story on young people doing impressive things, which never ran), I came to some conclusions about my political viability. When Bill Clinton fired Joycelyn Elders, I lost all respect for him, and for the Two Evils system in general. That was a defining moment in my life, and the seed around which my campaign has grown.
Since then, I have a much more focused view on politics, and I observed Campaign '96 voraciously, following every relatively major candidate, every day, with a strict analytic view. There were about 20 of them altogether, and only one won. In fact, he never had a serious competitor. But I watched all the others fail, and made sure to understand why. IMHO, the only other electable candidate (except maybe Lamar Alexander, but I don't feel like talking about him) last year was Harry Browne, who was substantially lacking in both dinero and media attention. If he had had equal exposure to Bill and Bob, or even Ross, I believe we would have a substantially different American Political Scene right now. And I'd like to believe that he would've had a chance.
Before anyone discredits that statement, please acknowledge that there is no way to even conceive of what a race with equal Libertarian exposure would be like. For now, it defies the paradigm of our political landscape.
But anyone who saw Harry in the 3rd party debates, try to picture the impact of Harry's words on the national (or even studio) audience. He got debate-stopping applause when he said we should end the "insane War on Drugs." At speeches (everywhere) the same statement gets standing ovations. "End Social Security, Welfare and Medicare," "Eliminate the Income Tax," "Bring All Troops Back Home" were other things he said.
I think it's fair to say that those statements would have made the election quite a bit more interesting, and October '96 a much-less already-concluded month of politics. There is a huge number of people who are so frustrated with the crap that they would gladly vote for someone who wants to clear-cut the government, and could avoid looking like an idiot for days at a time (unlike Ross, Steve, or Pat).
And the number is growing. :)