frankie_the_yankee wrote:Just my opinion. I was around in '92, and most Perot people I talked to seemed to be Libertarians or Republicans who were attracted to some part of Perot's message. (And keep in mind I lived in RI at that time where there was no shortage of Democrats to encounter.)
I will keep that in mind. RI Democrats were very different from TX/AR/LA/OK/heartland Democrats of 1992, most of whom now call themselves Republicans, but would have voted unblinkingly Democrat in '92. Not until the Gingrich revolution of '94 did they start to change parties.
n fairness, I did note some people who were attracted to his anti-NAFTA protectionist statements ("..that giant sucking sound...") and some of these people were certainly labor union guys who leaned Democrat.
But I myself thought Perot was right about NAFTA and GATT (and still do) even though I consider myself to be a Libertarian-leaning Republican.
As do I. NAFTA/GATT are
not free trade; they are
managed trade. As Perot said, anything that is 10,000 pages long isn't
free trade.
You see, I was attracted to Perot's candidacy myself to some degree. And most of his message did not strike me as appealing to people who would buy into the big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message that Bill Clinton was putting out.
So it seemed pretty obvious to me, and still does, that most of his support came from Bush. To change my mind on that would take a whole boatload of information and a solid argument.
I was also attracted to Perot, for several reasons. First, he cut to the truth about NAFTA/GATT. Second, he came from outside the political system, with a proven track record of getting things done. Next, we all have a vested interest in seeing the two party system smashed, and letting independent candidates become viable.
As I pointed out above, the heartland Democrats were not into, as you put it, the "big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message". Many of them weren't industrial unionists. But they were still Democrats, and wouldn't have voted for a Republican to save their lives. The veneer had not been cracked yet; they were Democrats because their daddies were Democrats, and grandaddies were Democrats, and great-grands were Democrats, because "Lincoln was a Republican, and FDR saved us all!"
This is very easy to illustrate. Just look at how solidly Democrat flyover country was until '94/'96. The same good ol' boys who are now afraid Democrats will take away their guns, were convinced in 1992 that George H.W. Bush would send their jobs to Mexico with NAFTA.
When Bill Clinton actually did so, it was he who made them into Republicans, not Ross Perot.
The same "Bubba from the heartland" demographic hasn't changed much, except in party affiliation. It was they who created the GOP majority from '94-'04, then became just as disaffected from the GOP as they had been from the Democrats.
They don't like gun control.
They don't like big spending and national debt.
They don't like federal meddling in local matters.
They cheer the troops, but they don't like sending them into foreign nations that didn't attack us any more than they liked it 40 years ago.
They are socially conservative, and don't want Washington --nor Austin-- dictating what constitutes a marriage or a family.
In short, the traditional middle America Blue Dog Democrats who voted for Perot are, ideologically speaking, closely aligned with traditional rock-ribbed Yankee Republicans (real Yankees from New England, not the "everyone northeast of here" Yankee.
)
When the libertarians and Goldwater Republicans who are so enthusiastic about Ron Paul, are able to spread that message to those Heartland swing voters, Paul will have it in the bag.
Kevin
