What if Ross Perot had won in 92?

[Silverhair]

First the disclaimer: The purpose of this post is NOT to promote Perot. The purpose is to play with the idea. I am also a fan of Harry Turtledove alternate history novels.

Polls showed that he pulled about equally from both the Democrats and the Republicans, and ended up with 19% of the vote. And that is with a truly sorry campaign.

So, suppose that Perot had gotten a good VP candidate, and had not pulled the in, out, back-in bit, but had instead stayed in all the way. He wins with 35%P 30%D 25%R, 315 electoral votes. He has no party members in congress, but congress is also shaken up. They are afraid of what the American people are about to do, and Perot has already announced that his party will recruit and field candidates for all congressional offices in 94.

Perot is famous for being able to find people who can think outside the box. He himself is a strong out-of-the-box thinker.

So the reader is invited to speculate on what might have happened if it had been President Perot from 93-97.

He was against NAFTA, wanted school spending equalized between districts with the emphasis on academics over football, and hated bureaucracy and inefficiency. He was adamantly opposed to the Gulg War and lobbied against it.

Please, no knee jerk reactions. Also, I realize that there will be some who will want to tell me why it was impossible. Since it didn't happen, that is NOT the point. The point is, simply to play with the idea, to have some fun. Not everything has to be so super serious.

[Liberty Belle]

1. Well, we certainly wouldn't have heard that "giant sucking sound"

of U.S. jobs going south of the border--or anywhere else.

Perot was right about NAFTA.

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. Yes, indeed he was. n/t

[dogman]

2. It sure would have been different.

What, no Monica? Would there have been no Contract on America? Might he have jumped in bed with the Rethugs? Would the Fundies be more in charge, sooner? A lot of speculation there.

[Clark2008]

3. Americans would finally know how to read graph and pie charts

Which isn't a laughing matter - they really should know how to do that!

[demwing]

4. We would have a generation of fiscal responsibility

Perot ran on protecting US jobs and eliminating the debt.

If a third party candidate would have rolled into office on that, and successfully pulled it off, the other two parties would see nothing but debt management for years to come.

Thats a good thing :)

[PsN2Wind]

5. Considering what we've discovered about the Bush family

in the years since '92, I would be willing to bet that he pulled out until he could get the security in place to assure the safety of himself and his family. I voted for him and think the country (and world) would probably have been better off had he won the election. It would have put the Repubs AND Dems on notice that they couldn't continue to take the ordinary people of the country for granted and continue selling them out to the Corporatists. Instead we got Clinton, but we also go NAFTA, the WTO, et al.
Having said that, you can bet your sweet-ass that all the anti-Perot crowd will be screaming at you soon.

[Orangepeel]

6. he would have been easier for the republicans to destroy than Clinton was

so they would have.

[orthogonal]

7. Perot was half-baked and paranoid

But then, Bush Sr. was a liar, an Clinton was a lying womanizer, so...

[Al-CIAda]

8. What if Perot wasn't lying about the Bu$hco dirty tricks? -eom

[More Than A Feeling]

9. I love this stuff!

Congressional Republicans and Democrats were both seriously threatened by a third party president and stonewalled. The American people responded by making the congress 1/3 Perovian in 94 (Dems and Reps each get another third.) Then they had to deal with him. There was no NAFTA, no gays in the military. small government conservatives got their wish when perot began consolidating programs and eliminating departments, rationalizing bureacratic jurisdiction. There were no foreign interventions, and so the balkan wars continued unabated. Perot knew that National Healthcare was so much more efficient than having multiple insurers burying doctors in paperwork, so he pulled out the charts and we got national healthcare, which was paid for by strong cuts in the military budget. This forced the military not to waste so much. They also no longer had the option of giving sweetheart deals to contractors, and were forced to institute competative bidding. Perot abandoned the Saudi bases, and thus there was no 9/11, or if there was, it happened much later.

[autorank]

10. Great thread...if he survived the Republican dirty tricks w/out a meltdown

He could of used 'triangulation' in spades to get much of what he wanted. He would have allied with Republicans at times and Democrats at others. I suspect he would have ended up with the Democrats more of the time for two reasons: (a) he was for efficient government, not non government, hence he would have been in a position to deliver services better and provide more services; (b) he was pro-choice and the Dominionists were just getting their sea legs -- they/Republicans would have gone after him. Our trade policy would have rocked. He would have negotiated with foreign governments in a way beneficial to US business and workers. Our domestic policy would have become very interesting. Due to his fiscal responsibility, there would have been surplus revenues which would have pushed for more expenditures, particularly in education. This would have pushed the tech boom harder and it may have lasted. Due to a stay-at-home foreign policy, Europe would have congealed quicker as a military power and we'd see them stronger at this point.

Finally, remember, this guy hired his own planes and private army to get EDS employees out of Iran during the revolution. He succeeded. I think if he'd been elected and we'd been attacked, he would have handled that very efficiently.

Gore would have been a better president for this period than either Clinton or Perot but Perot would have been tons of fun and ultimately aligned with the Democrats.

[TriMetFan]

13. I agree.

The guy would have done things way different.

[spindoctor]

14. Bravo

I would have loved Perot to succeed. I have a lot of respect for the man, who traveled to Iran in the midst of the revolution to rescue his captive employees.
How many captains of industry today would make an investment without return just for sense of responsibility?

The pragmatic choices you describe above would have shaken up the sick system we have today and get some of the rats out.

[shadowknows69]

11. I think Perot would have been a good President

he was the radical element we need to squash the corruption that has made our government a joke. We need to find another "electable" Perot.

[jmcon007]

12. Maybe not much different than Bush....

Perot would have been shocked to learn that you can't run the government like a business. The obvious thing here is that you run companies by decree, but democratic government is run by concensus and compromise. That requires patience and diplomacy, something not a lot of corporate CEOs are known for.
Bush did say that running the country like a business was his intention. It's working out great, isn't it?

[Silverhair]

15. Yes, but W isn't that great of a businessman is he?

Perot started EDS with $1,000 in 1962 to try an idea he had that IBM had rejected. The rest ain't alternate history.

[AllegroRondo]

19. Too bad his daddy can't bail him out this time

like he did with all of *'s previous business ventures.

[Silverhair]

16. Tax Reform was another thing he wanted.

However, he was vague on exactly how the reforms would work. He did say that taxing the rich wouldn't work. His quote was along the lines of: "Even if you confiscate ALL of the Fortune 1000, every bit of it, it won't make a dent in the Federal Budget. There is no way to avoid taxing the middle class." He then went on that the tax code needed to simple and fair. He hated that the tax code was so super complicated. He wanted loopholes plugged.

He also would have been for ending subsidies for corporations. He felt that a business should stand on it own or fail. A failed business was one that needed to die. But by his opposition to NAFTA, he wanted a level playing field.

He had huge respect for the military, yet wanted to limit the use of force overseas. Basically, the military was for protecting the country. He would have used economic leverage overseas.

[sendero]

17. I know most folks think Perot was a joke...

.. and there are definitely things about him I didn't like. But overall, I think he 1) was not a slimeball liar and 2) he really did understand economics.

I don't think he would have made a bad president, although I'd never have worked for his company, EDS, because they had some really bullshit policies. :)