Richard Lamm may run for President.
This man would not be my first choice for President. He is less than felicitous in the way he phrases his beliefs, and at times he seems to suffer from an almost perverse lack of common sense about his chosen profession, politics. In fact, when I first heard that he had joined that amorphous list of possible independent or third-party presidential candidates, my first reaction was less than enthusiastic. Here's just a portion of that reaction:
"Another factor which gives me pause where Lamm is concerned is his tendency to shoot from the lip. Yes, he does speak for fiscal sanity, but he is also the sensitive and thoughtful leader who, some years ago, said that old, sick people had a "duty to die." Yukh! No, Lamm has some problems where common sense is concerned."
Politics is usually a series of compromises, and the importance of that fact has been forcefully driven home to me as a result of watching the failure of the Clinton Administration. There is a descending order of preferences I have for the Presidential race, some belonging in the realm of pure fantasy, some representing such a surrender and capitulation on my part that I cringe just to think about it. Suffice it to say that my first choice this year would have been for a credible independent leader, with high name recognition, to have stepped forward for all of that vast crowd of disappointed frustrated independents like me who have given up on the Republicrats and are hoping against hope for some compassionate, common-sense leadership from outside of the existing political duopoly. My first choice for such a leader would have been Bill Bradley, for reasons I have described elsewhere. But the clock has ticked too long, and he has now missed the boat not only in Texas but in a few other states as well. While an Eastern and hopefully ex-Democrat politician like him would probably not have had much of a chance in Texas anyway, the fact remains that, barring a credible group emerging to wage a draft campaign of the sort that sprung up around Colin Powell last year, Bradley is probably out of contention now, even though, despite repeated characterizations to the contrary in some sloppily researched news stories, he continues to leave the door open to a presidential run, even for this year.
Which leaves those of us who believe in the need for serious governance with the unpleasant choice of either voting for continued drift under Clinton or Dole, or taking the chance that Perot's personal hobbyhorse, the Reform Party, can somehow be transmuted into a meaningful vehicle for legitimate independent politics and useful electoral reform.
As of now, it is still my belief that Ross Perot will effectively rig and manipulate his new toy in such a manner as to ensure his own nomination by his personal Reform Party creation. However, his control of this institution is not absolute. To begin with, Perot stated very clearly, when he announced the formation of this party on Larry King, that he envisioned the party NOT fielding anyone for elective office except presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Yet now there are a handful of Reform Party candidates scattered throughout the country, including several who had already been running as third-party candidates in states which had ballot lines Perot coveted. Their status, as Reform Party candidates, was the price Perot was forced to pay in many cases in order that he could merge with those third parties and acquire their ballot lines. This was scarcely the arrangement he must have been expecting when originally mounting this effort. I am confident that he believed his billions would simply get his name or that of his party on the ballot, and successfully choke out rival third parties. Well, it hasn't always worked out that way.
Secondly, he continues to be plagued by his own behavior of the last 5 years, and the problems that have stemmed from that behavior. There are lawsuits in which he is engaged with respect to his alleged spying on his '92 volunteers. Also, several of the grassroots groups, who had formed in a democratic manner in '92 to support his candidacy, have since legally formed themselves into legitimate entities in their own right, much to his discomfort and frustration. These groups continue to plague him, despite repeated harassing lawsuits on his part attempting to question their right to exist.
Finally, there are some very serious legal questions concerning his use of the funds he has appropriated for his political activities which may erupt to bite him in a tender spot soon. For example, United We Stand America is a non-profit non-political organization, supposedly. Yet there appear to have been clear instances of his having misused UWSA's funds for patently political purposes.
It is for all of these reasons that I continue to believe there is a fighting chance that the Reform Party may yet shed its autocratic antecedents, and emerge as a legitimate grassroots group. The indications are all in the opposite direction but, hey, it's the only realistic hope left for us reformist independents.
My dream scenario goes something like this: Perot becomes entangled in a highly visible legal tussle with someone which makes him look really bad, -- maybe he's dragged into court by the FEC for campaign funding violations, -- or forced to pay damages to a spied-on and abused 92 volunteer, -- or loses a lawsuit against one of the rebel groups and reaps a lot of widely covered negative publicity as a result. Because of this, Perot is then forced to clearly and explicitly withdraw from contention as a presidential candidate. Prior to this point, however, he successfully wins his case with the FEC, who grants federal funding to WHOMEVER the Reform Party nominates in Perot's stead. Ultimate outcome: a pot of change awaits the nominee of a Reform Party now cleansed and purified, as the result of the downfall of Perot. This means that someone like Richard Lamm, (currently considering running for President inside the Reform Party) is able, should he win that nomination, to enjoy a platform of significant power and effectiveness.
Or at least my scenario WENT something like that until some of those 92 dissenters took it upon themselves to write a few letters to the FEC complaining that Perot's candidacy this year was NOT a legitimate outgrowth of his '92 showing, and that because of that there should be no consideration given by the FEC to making federal funds available to Perot or his Reform Party. Walter Shapiro gives a vivid account of one such ex-volunteer's action in a column on the USA Today site.
These actions were tragically shortsighted and premature. There are precious few glimmers of hope this year for the independent voter to hang onto, -- those voters who passionately want fiscal and political reform. The potential of federal funding for a third-party presidential candidate other than Perot was one of those few dim glimmers. But not only did the FEC take the letters seriously, and actually postpone a ruling that had been promised on the question for a full week as a result, but in the end refused to rule on the question at all. The implication was clear that the postponement could only have been caused by the Commission sensing that its mind might be changed as a result of the considerations raised by the ex-92 volunteers. A postponement would have made no sense if the Commission had already been disposed to rule negatively on the issue, so I am forced to conclude that the message of the Perot dissenters had a deleterious effect on the potential for federal funding.
To me, the actions of these ex-Perot volunteers in general, and of Herb Rosenberg in particular, represent a curious and dangerous example of adhering to the dictum that the means justify the ends. It appears to have been more important to these crusaders to make Perot's life miserable and pursue the slim chance of denying Perot himself federal funding (an attempt which failed, an outcome which was probably inevitable, as Shapiro eloquently points out), than to protect the much more likely possibility that federal funding might become available not only for Perot but for another more legitimate independent presidential spokesman. They should have brushed up on their civil rights history: the central dogma, the rhetorical heartthrob of that movement, was to keep one's eyes on the prize. This the Perot dissenters signally failed to do, and the country may regret their decision for years to come.
It has been hard for me to write the foregoing. Several of the Perot dissenters in New York are friends of mine; their passion is real; their intentions are sincere. I suffered with them when our democratically organized group was forcibly taken over in 1994 by a hired Perot minion sent into the state expressly to "fire" our democratically elected coordinators. But this time they were tragically, horrible wrong, and history, I am afraid, will judge them harshly indeed.
In any event, one can only hope that a well-intentioned person like Lamm, who believes in political reform and fiscal reform, as he does, will be able to mount a credible campaign despite the well having been poisoned for federal funding. He at least has his own home page now, and the word is that he is leaning more and more toward taking the plunge. And today, his home site announced that former Congressman John Anderson, a giant in the third-party movement in this country, has endorsed his candidacy. As a member of the so-called Gang of Eight or Seven (the number keeps changing), Anderson has always presumably been most sympathetic to a Bradley candidacy out of all the third-party and/or independent alternatives which have been discussed, if the press accounts of the sympathies of this "Gang" are correct. Personally, I believe those accounts ARE accurate based on a conversation I had last January with Congressman Tim Penny, another member of the group. If Anderson has decided to endorse Lamm, this is a clear indication that this group has given up completely on Bradley, once and for all. Therefore, because of his sincerity of belief and intention, his willingness to suffer the slings and arrows of a skeptical media and public, and his readiness to tangle with a viper like Perot inside Perot's own snakepit of a Reform Party, I now have no choice but to tentatively support the presidential bid of former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm.
Whether this position seems to you the only common-sense alternative left to the common-sense reformist center in this country, or an exercise in insanity, let me hear from you. You are cordially invited to fill out the boxes below and express yourself. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to quote statements sent to me in this manner, in whole or in part, in subsequent Musings. Also, be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the Musings, "Eyes on the Prize," to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at
