36
PARTISAN REVIEW
the end of the Cold War.
William. Phillips:
Since my past is being invoked, I would like to
make a very brief comment. I think that I was probably more correct
years ago in staying away from electoral politics, although at the time I
thought I understood what was going on in the world. I had a global
view and was not bothered by immediate matters. Now I'm more con–
fused than I was then.
Marion Oliner:
If I understood the gist of the discussion tonight, I was
struck by the fact that Ross Perot is somehow supposedly symbolizing
something new and unexpected. Perhaps I am wrong, because I am not
as well-informed as some of you, but I have the sense that Ross Perot is
part of an ancient tradition of the maverick who comes and simplifies
issues, has solutions to complex problems, is pure, as against the com–
promised politician, and prides himself on having no machine affiliation.
All these things, it seems to me, made Reagan quite attractive, and to
the country's detriment, too, inasmuch as he kept himself so aloof from
what was going on. So I wonder whether Perot, like so many before
him, doesn't appeal to an everlasting romantic need for a hero? On the
other hand, we are busier than ever destroying the images of the leaders
we have had.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.:
It's quite true that throughout American his–
tory, third parties have arisen to bring forward issues which have been
ignored by the major parties, or to express voters' sense of outrage or
estrangement from the political process. But the distinguishing feature, it
seems to me, about Perot is that he doesn't have a party. In
1948,
the
Dixiecrats produced a party and a candidate, Strom Thurmond. The
Progressives had a party. Even George Wallace had a sort of party. Ross
Perot has no party at all. He doesn't need a party.
All
he does is buy
television time. I think in that sense he is a portent of a rather depressing
future.
Eric Breindel:
There is a separate, distinguishing feature. As some of us
agreed earlier, if Ross Perot had remained in the race, he might well
have won. At the time, three or four weeks before he withdrew, he was
running virtually even with the two major party candidates. That is suc–
cess of a sort, unlike anything any other third party candidates have
achieved. After all, Henry Wallace was not a potential president of the
United States. The debate in
1948
was whether Henry Wallace would
get five million votes, and it turned out that he got about a million
votes. Strom Thurmond as a Dixiecrat was a protest candidate; George
