Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 27, 1992 TAG: 9203270475
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Well, none has ever bounced a check at the House of Representatives' bank.
And for some voters - disgusted with politics as usual, disenchanted with establishment candidates, angry about the economy and uncertain about the future - this may be enough for now.
Thus does Jerry Brown, practicing the politics of indignation, win by a hair over Democratic front-runner Bill Clinton in Connecticut, and take his "cause" - whatever it is - on to New York.
Thus does Pat Buchanan, again beaten by George Bush, hang in there - determined to save the Republican Party by cowing the president; never mind that Buchanan's message is among the most extremist and pernicious heard in a recent presidential campaign.
And thus, now, does Texas billionaire Ross Perot flirt with a self-financed - but well-financed! - independent bid for the White House, causing a galloping case of heebie-jeebies for both the Bush and Clinton campaigns.
The odds of Brown, Buchanan or Perot actually winning the presidency are only slightly better than the chance of winning the Virginia lottery, but never mind: This is the year of the renegade campaign, the year to send a message by voting for self-appointed protest candidates.
It's a strong message. Clinton, the presumptive nominee, got only 37 percent of the Democratic vote in Connecticut against only one active candidate. (Paul Tsongas won 20 percent even though he'd already dropped out.) Clinton's challenge is not so much to beat Brown as to win over those Democrats who remain uncomfortable with his candidacy.
By the same token, President Bush - a campaigning incumbent - continues to lose a fourth or more of the GOP primary votes. There's a message there, too.
The messenger seems almost incidental. For what kind of government could we actually expect from a Brown, a Buchanan or a Perot? We know they have a desire to tap into the national angst to serve their own purposes. But the likely nature of their presidencies is highly speculative, and not a lot of people are bothering to speculate. It's beside the point.
They are keeping the race interesting. Brown, former governor of California and until recently a beneficiary of the political-money world against which he rails, rants as well against "scandal-a-week" Clinton, not doing the Democratic Party any favors.
Buchanan, the conservative former columnist, television commentator and presidential aide, assails Bush for failures, broken promises and lack of principle - adding bite probably to sound-bites we might hear from the Democrats in the fall.
And Perot positions himself for a third-party candidacy with an off-the-wall blend of populism, conservatism and a pox-on-both-their-houses alienation. (He proposes taking away Congress's constitutional right to raise taxes, making increases subject to public referendum. He'd cut entitlements to social security and Medicare. "I get along all right without mine," he says.) Like Brown, he heaps contempt on government in Washington.
Brown, Buchanan and Perot are the outsiders running against the corrupted insiders. They are the mavericks, men on horseback dancing with the wolves of American voters' discontent.
Each self-appointed, media-fed candidacy in its own way symbolizes the breakdown of the traditional political system's ability to produce leaders who rise through the ranks but can bring about change for the better in government.
Of course, if that's what we want - a government that works better for people - we need leaders with an affinity and capacity for governing.
Thus far, all Brown, Buchanan and Perot have shown are high-wire personalities with an affinity and capacity for stoking the fires of electoral outrage.
by CNB