The Butterfly Effect
Several years ago, a weird Texas millionaire decided to run for president. He believed his vast business experience was enough to overcome his complete lack of political experience. I am not talking about George W. Bush. I am actually talking about H. Ross Perot, the little man who, though now mostly forgotten, had a huge impact on U.S. and world history.
In 1992, this man ran for president and then withdrew from the race, citing fears that Republicans would sabotage his daughter’s wedding. He later re-entered the race. His reliance on business charts and homespun metaphors gave him a certain outsider charm. His Republican opponent was George H.W. Bush, a man whose huge approval ratings during the Gulf War had plummeted, and Bill Clinton, a fairly unknown Arkansas governor with some questionable past relationships. Given that competition and his penchant for straight talk (or telling people he was using straight talk), he won 18.9% of the popular vote, a staggering total for an independent. Bush managed just 37.4%, and Clinton won with 43%. Conventional wisdom had it that Perot siphoned more votes from Bush than from Clinton, meaning that Clinton should have sent Perot at least a thank-you note after his victory.
If Perot had not run, Bush may well have fended off this unknown Arkansas and won a second term. If he had been in office until 1996, who would have run to replace him? Maybe Bob Dole? Maybe the two-term Vice President Dan Quayle? On the Democratic side, Clinton might have missed his window, and we might have seen someone like Bill Bradley. Whatever the case, George W. Bush would not have run in 1996. If his father had not gotten beaten, he might not have run in 2000, either, especially if a Republican was already in office.
Ross Perot ran again in 1996, but his credibility was shot by then and he managed just 8.4% of the popular vote. That is a respectable total for an independent candidate, to be sure, but at less than half his 1992 total, it has to be viewed as a failure. It didn’t matter, though. He essentially put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office (and is the reason I can’t argue about Ralph Nader doing the same for Bush in 2000), and Clinton’s being in office is part of what precipitated Bush’s decision to run. If Clinton was never elected, we also would never be talking about his wife as a possibility in 2008. Ross Perot may have sank back to obscurity, but his impact on world affairs might not be over just yet.
In 1992, this man ran for president and then withdrew from the race, citing fears that Republicans would sabotage his daughter’s wedding. He later re-entered the race. His reliance on business charts and homespun metaphors gave him a certain outsider charm. His Republican opponent was George H.W. Bush, a man whose huge approval ratings during the Gulf War had plummeted, and Bill Clinton, a fairly unknown Arkansas governor with some questionable past relationships. Given that competition and his penchant for straight talk (or telling people he was using straight talk), he won 18.9% of the popular vote, a staggering total for an independent. Bush managed just 37.4%, and Clinton won with 43%. Conventional wisdom had it that Perot siphoned more votes from Bush than from Clinton, meaning that Clinton should have sent Perot at least a thank-you note after his victory.
If Perot had not run, Bush may well have fended off this unknown Arkansas and won a second term. If he had been in office until 1996, who would have run to replace him? Maybe Bob Dole? Maybe the two-term Vice President Dan Quayle? On the Democratic side, Clinton might have missed his window, and we might have seen someone like Bill Bradley. Whatever the case, George W. Bush would not have run in 1996. If his father had not gotten beaten, he might not have run in 2000, either, especially if a Republican was already in office.
Ross Perot ran again in 1996, but his credibility was shot by then and he managed just 8.4% of the popular vote. That is a respectable total for an independent candidate, to be sure, but at less than half his 1992 total, it has to be viewed as a failure. It didn’t matter, though. He essentially put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office (and is the reason I can’t argue about Ralph Nader doing the same for Bush in 2000), and Clinton’s being in office is part of what precipitated Bush’s decision to run. If Clinton was never elected, we also would never be talking about his wife as a possibility in 2008. Ross Perot may have sank back to obscurity, but his impact on world affairs might not be over just yet.
posted by Wounded Liberal at 11:32 AM
<< Home