TEA: THE PEROT PREQUEL

Before there were teabaggers we had Ross Perot and the movement he summoned into being by declaring on the Larry King Show his willingness to run for president if the people would get him on the ballot in all 50 states. That was his first, 1992, run for it.

Perot, a billionaire businessman with a military background and the rescuer of his own company's hostages in Iran, offered a disaffected public an alternative to the two major parties and the usual politics. He brought to the fore big themes: populism, direct democracy, electronic democracy, dynamic centrism. He was a political scientist's dream, and he altered the political landscape fast.

This colorful, persuasive little Texan was often depicted as a conservative; but if you look at what he proposed, including the rebuilding of our cities, you can see that he was not. He was pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, highly critical of the Gulf War and the neocons and our habit of building up "bad boys" like Noriega and Saddam and then having to take them down. He wanted to reform how things were done, not implement reaction. I had heard him a number of times on Larry King's radio shows, and I knew from what he said there that he was more a Ted Kennedy than a Dick Nixon in outlook.

I liked him. And I remember at one point talking with a conservative Republican of around my age, who was also very much for him. You found that widely: left and right together. Perot did what nobody else has done: got people of different viewpoints behind a candidate and an agenda. And that agenda was progressive.

At first it appeared that he could win a 3-way election with a plurality, though there were questions about the Electoral College. But then the news media started in on him. And I have never seen anything to compare with that.

Why did the news industry hate him so much, especially when he was such a great source of news? It seemed they thought he was an autocrat (somewhat true) and a potential tyrant. But our system is made to contain the overly ambitious; our greater problem is with those who want and attempt too little.

It is perfectly true that Perot had over the years lied, exaggerated, and told tall tales. That was foolish and it indicated a character flaw. And how he got rich can be discussed and evaluated and argued about. But we have had presidential candidates the media went easy on and should not have, because their wrongs really mattered. I am thinking especially of Nixon's tactics and Reagan's worldview.

The media assault on Perot was relentless. On page 23 of the New York Times you'd find a small article about a major, novel proposal that he was making, one that should have been discussed seriously. On page 1 of the same edition would be an unsubstantiated allegation about his business practices. Thus the reform movement was controversialized and trivialized.

It was clear that Perot's reputation would be destroyed if he proceeded, not because of what was disclosed but because of the insistent reinteration and the editorializing in the news columns. He suspended his campaign while quietly continuing to fund the organizing. Then eventually he got back in. Now the media were indifferent, because now it was clear that he couldn't win.

He used television broadcasts and a succession of pie charts to make his case, including a warning that "free trade" would produce a "giant sucking sound" as our jobs went elsewhere. Few who saw him on TV will forget it soon. He got 19% of the vote, better than any third party contender since TR. And if he had been treated fairly, he would probably have made it.

The media were and frequently are conservative in the sense of protecting the status quo. In this case they did so viciously. And the accumulating frustrations in the electorate were permitted no alleviation, though the popular market in ideas had dutifully produced one with the Perot movement.

So today we have a much, much worse popular movement in our midst. And toward that the media are neutral. Instead of a constructive populism that is about unity and results, we have one that is dividing us as bitterly as possible.

The media, by the way, also deliberately destroyed the promising candidacies of Republican George Romney in 1968 and Democrat Gary Hart in 1984. That's one Repub, one Dem, one independent.

So if you enjoy today's American political scene, thank a reporter.