PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "A Third Choice in 1996"

« Back to A Third Choice in 1996 main page

Transcript for:

A Third Choice in 1996

Think Tank Transcripts:Will There Be a Third Choice in 1996?

ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, arecipient of the Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen,bringing better, healthier lives to people worldwide throughbiotechnology.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. If you don't like thecurrent crop of Republican presidential hopefuls and you areunsatisfied with Bill Clinton, fear not. You may have a third choice.Four years ago, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote. Will Ross theBoss try again? How about Jesse Jackson or Bill Bradley? What aboutRalph Nader? What about Pat Buchanan if he doesn't like theRepublican nominee? What about Colin Powell if Buchanan is theRepublican nominee? Off the wall? Stranger things have happened.

Joining us to examine the role third parties play in politics areSteven Rosenstone, director of the National Election Center theUniversity of Michigan and co-author of 'Third Parties in America:Citizen Response to Major Party Failure'; Gordon Black, author of'The Politics of American Discontent: How a New Party Can MakeDemocracy Work Again'; Ronald Walters, chairman of the politicalscience department at Howard University and author of 'BlackPresidential Politics in America'; and David Gergen, former adviserto Presidents Reagan and Clinton and visiting professor of publicpolicy at Duke University.

The topic before this house: Will there be a third choice in 1996?This week on 'Think Tank.'

Third party candidates often identify a new concern among votersand place it on the national agenda. Such challengers tend to reshapeand renew the major parties. Third party candidates have includedRepublican John C. Fremont, who lost in 1856; Bull Moose candidateTheodore Roosevelt, who lost in 1912; Progressive candidate HenryWallace, who lost in 1948; states' rights candidate Strom Thurmond,who also lost in 1948; George Wallace, who lost in 1968; and JohnAnderson, who lost in 1980. But were these men losers? They didn'twin, but they did change American politics.

And oh, yes. One third-choice candidate won, in 1860: AbrahamLincoln.

In Dallas in the summer of 1995, it was apparent that many voterswho supported Ross Perot in 1992 were still unhappy with the majorparties.

CITIZEN: (From videotape.) I think both parties have failed in alot of ways, and we sometimes wish that we could have another party.

CITIZEN: (From videotape.) We're supposed to be here telling thepoliticians, we're not happy with you.

CITIZEN: (From videotape.) If they get away from the moral issuesand the family value issues, I definitely see a third party.

MR. WATTENBERG: Unhappiness with the two major parties is growing.In January of 1992, 33 percent of voters identified themselves asindependents. But by January of 1996, it was up to 41 percent. RossPerot says he once again hears the ongoing growl of discontent. He islaunching a third party for the 1996 election. Perot's Reform Partyis already on the ballot in several states, including the big one,California. Come November, they say their candidate will be eligiblein all 50 states.

And other political independents are out there. Jesse Jacksoncould run on a new Liberal Party line. Ralph Nader is already on theballot in California as the candidate of the Green Party. There isspeculation that Senator Bill Bradley might run.

In fact, there are more than a few people who are willing to servetheir country as president.

The first question to you, Professor Steven Rosenstone. How likelydo you think it will be that we will have a third party in 1996?

MR. ROSENSTONE: There is no doubt there will be a third party in1996.

MR. WATTENBERG: A major third party.

MR. ROSENSTONE: Well, major depends on lots of things. The messagewithout the money, without the media and without access to thedebates has an awful lot to do with deciding whether it's going to bemajor, of the proportion of Ross Perot, or minor, of the proportionof John Anderson. Given the way the laws are written, candidates thathave lots of money that is their own, billionaires, stand a greatadvantage to be major party candidates, to use your language. It'shard to imagine 1992 producing the vote that Ross Perot got withoutthe access to the media, without the millions of dollars, without theaccess to the debates. And that's a deciding factor in 1996.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Gordon Black, you have worked in the pastwith Ross Perot. Do you think he's going to be a player?

MR. BLACK: Absolutely. I mean I don't think there's any questionabout it. He's behave in a very consistent manner over the last fouryears. He tried United We Stand. It didn't work the way he wanted itto, and he's going down this tack and he's putting in enough fundsthat it's going to happen. I mean it was always just a matter ofmoney in the sense that these election laws are designed to keeppeople off, but if you have enough resources, you can get people on.And there are certainly enough people out there willing to supportthe effort.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Dave Gergen, in 1992 you got a numberof scoops from the -- from Perot himself. What do you think it lookslike?

MR. GERGEN: Well, Ben, anything can happen this year, and somepeople think it already has -- (laughter) -- starting in NewHampshire. But people close to Ross Perot tell me he is very, veryunlikely to run himself this year. One circumstance under which Icould see him running would be if Pat Buchanan or someone like himwere to become the Republican nominee and was seen as a non-viablecandidate, by whatever standard. And Pat may be very viable by thatpoint, but if he were non-viable and the country were somehowcalling, then I could see the possibility of Ross Perot stepping in.MR. WATTENBERG: Ron Walters, what do you think Reverend Jackson isgoing to do? Is he going to be a player?

MR. WALTERS: Well, he's certainly going to be a player, but Idon't know whether or not he's going to run for president. I thinkhe's spent a good part of the time trying to keep Bill Clinton's feetto the fire, trying to put him back to what we call the mainstream ofthe Democratic Party's tradition. But since the election --

MR. WATTENBERG: Not what I would call the mainstream, but we'renot going to argue that.

MR. WALTERS: I know. (Laughter.) But since 1994, I think, with theupsurge of what we call radical Republicanism, I think that thethreat on the right is such that I don't think Reverend Jackson willexperiment in 1996. I think the pressure is inexorable on allDemocrats to try to pull together in order to turn the Congress backto the Democratic Party and to try to help Bill Clinton win thepresidency. And I think that pressure is really building at thispoint.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, what about -- I mean wouldn't the samesort of pressures be on Ralph Nader to stay off the ballot inCalifornia? Last I saw, he was picking up 7, 8 percent. That couldtake that state from Clinton. If Clinton loses California, there goesthe ballgame. Have you heard anything, Dave? Gordon?

MR. GERGEN: No, but have you ever known Ralph Nader to bow to thatkind of pressure?

MR. WATTENBERG: No.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. That's why I would assume he'd press on.

MR. WATTENBERG: And conceivably cost Clinton California?

MR. GERGEN: If it's a highly competitive race. At this moment,there are many in the White House, of course, who think the gap iswidening and that the president is more likely to win by a largemargin. I know that you disagree with that, and I know many otherRepublicans disagree with that. But after New Hampshire, you know, Ithink that there's -- I still think it's going to be a verycompetitive race, in which case Ralph Nader could have a very bigimpact. But I think that possibility has opened up that it could be awide -- you know, that the president could win by a large margin.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just play out a couple of scenarios. Whathappens if Buchanan wins the Republican nomination?

MR. BLACK: It would detach a significant chunk of the RepublicanParty into Perot's camp almost immediately.

MR. WATTENBERG: Into Perot's camp or might there be --

MR. BLACK: Won't cross over; it will not cross over to Clinton.MR. WATTENBERG: Now wait a minute. You didn't let me finish. Mightthere then be another third party of the center, perhaps usingPerot's line in which he has said, oh, I don't want to -- I mean, forexample, if Pat Buchanan were the nominee, there would be a lot ofpeople knocking on Colin Powell's door saying now you ought to run athird party.

MR. BLACK: But I don't think you're going to know whether he'sgoing to be the nominee till the very end, and if it comes out at theend, it's too late to do much about it one way or the other.

MR. ROSENSTONE: I think the other thing you're forgetting, Ben, isthat there's entry costs, and the entry costs are not free toeverybody. The entry costs to Ross Perot, in some sense, are muchlower than the entry costs to Colin Powell. Coming in late in thegame without having the capacity to sit and write a $70 million checkfrom your bank account makes it a little more difficult for you tojump in at the last minute and say, ah, suddenly now there's a holehere in the middle, I'm going to jump in and think I can take it.

There's ballot access problems -- $12 million spent -- $18 millionspent in 1992 just on ballot access. We're up to around a $25 millionbudget right now for ballot access for Perot in 1996. That has to bedone, and we know how complicated that process is.

You need in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 million dollars in thelast couple of weeks of the campaign to compete at the national levelwith the major parties on the media front. You need to capture themedia attention that Perot cleverly was able to do. And you got toget yourself to those presidential debates.

And those are part of the calculations about whether you're goingto jump in, and not everybody is going to get access to all thehurdles they need to jump there in order to really be a player.

MR. WATTENBERG: Isn't it -- I mean, we have seen in the majorparty primaries, where the entry costs are also extremely high, someplayers -- Reverend Jackson, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Brown, Pat Robertson-- have succeeded in living off the land and doing very, very welland gaining enough lift from free media to become serious candidates.I mean, is that --

MR. BLACK: Well, Ben, the problem is it's a far cry -- 3 or 4states, or 5 or 6 states, or 10 states, and 50 states. I mean ifyou're going to be a viable candidate, you have to have a strategythat's going to get you on the ballot in 50 states. And that meansyou really have to be started, certainly now, in order to qualify asan independent candidate. It's not simple.

And think about it. In 1992, Perot did it with probably one of thegreat outpourings of public support in modern politics, and he barelydid it.

MR. ROSENSTONE: And $18 million of his own money.

MR. BLACK: And $18 million, right. I mean, this is an incrediblycomplicated process.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah, Ben, I may be wrong about this, but my workingassumption right now is, with the possible exception of GeneralPowell, there is no third party candidate who could emerge who canwin the presidency this year. I don't see it happening. I think theonly real question is what the third party candidate does to theother two.

For the most part, any third party candidate helps Bill Clinton.That's especially true if it's someone like Ross Perot. Only JesseJackson and Ralph Nader getting in can hurt Bill Clinton. Anybodyelse helps Clinton.

I wanted to ask Gordon something. By this time, I believe, fouryears ago, Ross Perot started to move. I think his interview withLarry King was --

MR. BLACK: Late February.

MR. GERGEN: -- late February. So it was just about around thistime that he indicated his interest. And again, I don't think he'sthat interested. I'm curious to know what he's going to do with histhird party this year if he does not run personally? It becomes avehicle for whom?

MR. BLACK: Well, I don't think there is another candidate besideshim. That's been the discussion. I mean, there are a lot of peoplewho would like to have another candidate beside him, but I don'tthink there is one. And I think in the end, it will be him.

MR. WATTENBERG: Might Perot, for example, ask former Senator DavidBoren, who was the -- I think the keynote introducer at his -- whatthey called the Pander Party in Dallas.

MR. GERGEN: And he's -- and they're friends.

MR. WATTENBERG: And they're close friends.

MR. BLACK: And they're very good friends. And I would be inclinedto think that the real issue is who's going to be the vicepresidential candidate, and he would be high on the list.

But the reality is that unless they move very quickly, they can'tfinance it. And that's also --

MR. WATTENBERG: Let me ask this question. Let's just play a littlescenario here. Let us say, for example, no budget is passed and PatBuchanan really shakes up the Republican Party and every kind of mudand scandal is dropped on the Clintons. Ross Perot then comes in andhe says, 'These clowns can't even pass a budget.'

MR. BLACK: 'They can't govern.'

MR. WATTENBERG: 'They can't govern.'

MR. BLACK: Which is the argument against him that they made in '92coming back to haunt them.

MR. WATTENBERG: Could Perot -- Dave, you're the skeptic here.Could Perot -- take my scenario. Perot comes in --

MR. GERGEN: I thought that was -- yeah, I said at the beginning Ithought the one scenario in which I could see Perot getting in wouldbe if the Republicans were to nominate Buchanan and the country, ineffect, was beckoning him in some fashion, or he could argueplausibly that the country was beckoning.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, next question. Why are -- we saw thefigures on the chart before. Why is the number of independents risingso rapidly? You have now what, the numbers we saw is 41 percent ofthe people in the United -- the voters call themselves independents,which is what? Is that a historical high?

MR. ROSENSTONE: No, it's not. And I would like to take issue withsome of those numbers because I think they're not quite the wholestory.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, take issue with that. That's what thisprogram is for.

MR. ROSENSTONE: Part of the problem is that if you ask thoseindependents a follow-up question, do you consider yourself closer tothe Democratic or Republican Party, over two-thirds of the people youwant to call independents are actually closet partisans.

MR. WATTENBERG: I don't want to -- I'm just trying to see if I canget things moving here, but that's all right. Go ahead.

MR. ROSENSTONE: And the people, when they split themselves out,over two-thirds of them will either say I'm a Democrat or aRepublican to this follow-up question. And you know what? They haveissue positions and voting patterns that look just like Democrats andRepublicans. In fact, the number of strong partisans right now arehigher than they've ever been since 1964, and the number of, quote,'pure independents,' those that don't have this closet allegiance,that don't lean to one party or the other, are the lowest they'vebeen since 1964.

If anything, the signs are that we've not had a groundswell ofindependents since 1980. It's been relatively flat since 1980. It'sbeen two decades of about the same allegiance to the Democratic andRepublican Party, about the same satisfaction with the major partycandidates.

MR. BLACK: I'm going to disagree.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah, I am, too.

MR. BLACK: You're asking this question, if you give them afollow-up question. The reality of that follow-up question is thatessentially people will answer a question if you give it to them. Ifthere are only two choices on the plate and you say which of the twochoices do you tend to be closer to, almost everybody is going tohave an answer to that question. Does that mean loyalty or affectionor a since of affinity? I disagree absolutely.

MR. WATTENBERG: You think this rise of voters who self-identify asindependents, that's for real?

MR. BLACK: I think it's for real. I think it's a loss of affectionfor the parties. And the alienation index by Harris has been -- is at67 percent. It's the highest it's ever been since 1966. There are alot of other indicators that indicate -- the polls -- the pollquestions on third parties which Gallup has been asking since 1937,in the '60s period were in the twenties, in the '80s period were inthe forties, and they're now in the sixties.

MR. ROSENSTONE: The problem with those questions is those are notthe same questions across those decades. Those questions havechanged.

MR. BLACK: Slightly, but not much.

MR. ROSENSTONE: And Survey Research 101 has taught, that if youwant to monitor change, you can't change your questions over theyears.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, Ron Walters, Howard University.

MR. WALTERS: I agree with Steve that when you look at actualvoting behavior, about 13 percent of those people are actually what'scalled pure independents.

But the point here I think is being missed. What we have really,regardless of what people call themselves, is a shifting pattern ofpolitical behavior, which is to say that the people who used to callthemselves Democrats don't act like pure Democrats anymore, and tosome extent, the same thing is true of Republicans. It is that we'rein a period of shifting political behavior and shifting partyloyalties.

MR. ROSENSTONE: I think that's a fair assessment, but I think thecentral point I'm trying to make is don't assume that that 41 percentis, A, homogeneous, or B, going to march in unison off to anindependent candidate.

MR. WATTENBERG: Dave Gergen.

MR. GERGEN: I would agree with that. But I think the evidence isvery persuasive that there are a lot of angry people in this country,resentful people, insecure people. And I would argue this, that Idon't see a third party arising in this election -- in a serious wayin this election cycle. But if the Democratic Party were -- ifClinton were to be reelected and were to govern over on the left andthe Republican Party continues to be seen as more out on the rightthan people have expected, there is a huge group of people in thecenter who feel beached, who feel sort of left stranded in thispolitics, and it's the makings of a serious third party, I think, inthe future.

MR. BLACK: And they weren't beached in 1960.

MR. GERGEN: That's correct.

MR. BLACK: They weren't beached in 1956. They had a choice. Bothcandidates basically wanted their votes and they went to the center.But that's not happening anymore.

MR. GERGEN: That's right.

MR. WATTENBERG: That the voters do not have a choice in thecenter?

MR. BLACK: Not in the center. I mean, you know --

MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, Bill Clinton won because he ran as acentrist.

MR. BLACK: I understand that's the presumption, but he wasn'tperceived very much in that direction.

MR. WATTENBERG: In '92 he was.

MR. BLACK: If you go back to -- think about what the -- thecritique of the parties prior to 1960. It was that they didn't offera choice; they only offered Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum. All the bookswere written about that. And nobody in their right mind would writethat book today because the parties are so dissimilar in terms oftheir constituencies and their positions. And the voters pick it up.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. In fact, that's what was coming out of NewHampshire. A lot of the moderate Republicans up there were sayingthat nobody is really speaking to them.

MR. GERGEN: Well, there's no self-proclaimed moderate in the race.

MR. BLACK: That's right. (Laughter.)

MR. GERGEN: You know, Lamar Alexander seems the most moderate, andhe will never answer he's a moderate. He's a conservative.

MR. WATTENBERG: David Gergen and I were in New Hampshire lastweek, and we were in a van with Lamar Alexander. And I inadvertentlysaid something about, well, there are three moderates in the race,referring -- one of them being him. And he immediately said, 'I'm nota moderate.' (Laughter.) And yet all the polls, all the exit pollswe've seen show him getting the votes of the independents and themoderates.

MR. BLACK: All perspectives are relative.

MR. WATTENBERG: Absolutely. (Laughter.)

All right, let me just ask a question about the Buchanan thing. Isit possible that the rise of Pat Buchanan, winning New Hampshire,likely running a strong race, probably not getting the Republicannomination -- the standard scenario is this is going to split theRepublican Party, all the pieces are going to fracture, everything'sgoing to go crazy, it's going to help Clinton.

Is it possible that Buchanan could be a bridge to bring inprobably lower middle-class, blue collar, alienated voters who mightwell go for the Democrats and bring them into the Republican Party?David Gergen. MR. GERGEN: I think it's possible. I think he has beena street-corner conservative all his life. He's always been -- he'salways understood these ethnic voters who came into the RepublicanParty with Nixon. And he certainly understood the Wallace voters. ButBen, I don't know how he does that unless he's the nominee. It's muchharder to be that vehicle or that magnet unless he's the nominee.

MR. BLACK: He could potentially do it as a vice presidentialcandidate --

MR. GERGEN: He could potentially.

MR. BLACK: -- to some extent, and would shore up a ticket with aDole on it, but I don't think so other than that. I mean -- and Idon't think that's likely to happen. I think that Dole will see himas a liability before this is all over because, again, he chases awaythe centrists. And if he's going to go after Clinton, he's got toback in the election to the middle on some of these things.

MR. WATTENBERG: Would Buchanan run a third party if they all dumpon him and --

MR. BLACK: It's too late. There's a rule also about it that reallyprecludes --

MR. GERGEN: But if he somehow feels cheated out of the nomination,then I think he becomes -- you know, if he wins a lot of primariesand it's taken from him --

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but Gordon says there is a rule in theRepublican Party that you cannot then run as --

MR. GERGEN: What is that?

MR. ROSENSTONE: There's ballot access rules about sore losers.

MR. BLACK: Yeah, sore losers, right.

MR. ROSENSTONE: Anderson ran into those in --

MR. WATTENBERG: And you can't get on the ballot?

MR. ROSENSTONE: You can't get on. If you ran in the primary andlost -- or ran in the primary, you can't in some states get on theballot as an independent.

MR. BLACK: Right.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Ron Walters, what do you think is goingto be the upshot of this Buchanan situation?

MR. WALTERS: Well, I think that a lot of it depends upon howtolerant his backers are. He's allied to a wing of the party whichmany people see as intolerant, and the question is whether or notthey will tolerate him -- because if he's going to be a vicepresident, he's going to have to accept a lot of a theoreticalpresident's agenda. And so is that a marriage? Can there be amarriage? I don't think there can be.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, I wasn't talking of him as a vice president.I was talking of him looking to his own future saying, 'If I canbring these people into the Republican Party without causing afracture, I'm a hero. If not, I'm a bum. I'd rather be a hero becausefour years or eight years from now, I would like to run.' What do youthink?

MR. ROSENSTONE: I think the biggest impact is the same kind ofimpact that Perot did, which was to shape the agenda of the debate,to force the parties to talk about things they didn't want to, to getissues on that otherwise would not have been on the agenda. That's apowerful impact, and I think that's probably the one he's most likelyto have in '96.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, last go-around, real quick. Are thirdparties and the threat thereof good for America?

MR. GERGEN: I think it's been healthy to shake up our politicsfrom time to time. As Jefferson said, 'A little revolution every 20years is a good thing.'

MR. BLACK: I think if you look at the history of third parties, ingeneral they have played a very favorable role, but not always.

MR. WATTENBERG: Ron.

MR. WALTERS: Third parties are a good indication of some of thesplits in society and how various issues are playing, and I thinkthey give us a good sort of read as to what's actually going on inpolitical terms.

MR. WATTENBERG: Steve.

MR. ROSENSTONE: It's a wake-up call to the major parties. It'swhen they ignore issues, don't pay attention to issues that a lot ofpeople care an awful lot about that parties have come around tochampion them. That is a nice safety valve and, as David suggested,the American version of revolution.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, David Gergen, Steven Rosenstone,Gordon Black, and Ronald Walters. And thank you.

Now it is my pleasure to announce the winners of our contest tocreate bumper stickers for or against President Clinton. Aftersorting through hundreds of entries, we have some winners. First theanti-Clinton entries, which are more numerous because, as the recentprimary showed, it's easier to go negative. The runners-up are:

Number 6. Nix the Slicks in '96. Number 5. Free Willie: Vote forDole.

Number 4. Clinton/Gone '96.

Number 3. Stop and smell the Rose Law Firm.

Number 2. Clinton's White House: George Washington wept here.

And the winner is, from Ms. Norma Smith of Chicago, Illinois:Clinton: 99 percent fact-free.

Now on the positive side, the runner-up in support of PresidentClinton reads:

Clinton Sax Beats Dole-Drums.

And remembering that this is a negative era, the winner is DavidWool of Bayside, New York, who writes:

End GOP upheaval...Support the lesser evil...Vote Clinton.

Our two winners will receive a political package which includesvideotapes of this program, the new PBC documentary, 'A ThirdChoice,' about the history of third parties, autographed copies of mynew book, 'Values Matter Most' and its companion PBS documentary.

And don't worry, Democrats. As soon as Republicans choose theirnominee, you too will get a chance to go negative, when we do parttwo of our bumper sticker contest.

Please send your comments and questions to: New River Media, 115017th Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20036. We can also be reached bye-mail at thinktv@aol.com or on the World Wide Web atwww.thinktank.com.

For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg.

ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content.

'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, a recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, unlocking thesecrets of life through cellular and molecular biology.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. END

Back to top

Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc.

©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved.

Web development by Bean Creative.