Demagogic Doublespeak

Ross Perot returned to the airwaves Sunday night, continuing his endless presidential campaign and spreading his egomaniacal brand of Orwellian doublespeak. What makes Perot even more frightening than Big Brother, though, is that when Boss Ross describes his demagogic and self promoting propaganda as "democracy," the crowd goes wild.

Billed as a "national referendum," the survey Perot conducted during his Sunday television appearance and in inserts in TV Guide this week was a cynical exercise in political thought control. Relying on responses delivered voluntarily by mail or by phone ensures that the "poll" will be anything but a representative referendum.

The questions themselves reek of bias, manipulation and subliminal persuasion. One question, for example, argues, "If our government wants the American people to pay more taxes, should it provide leadership by example-all sacrifice begins at the top-by cutting Congress's and the President's salaries by 10 percent and reducing their retirement plans to bring them in line with those of the American people?" It takes tremendous audacity to should such biased filth in the language of democratic poll-taking, and by doing so, Perot mocks the process he claims to promote.

Nonetheless, Perot's efforts have inspired me, and I have come up with some questions to supplement his survey:

1. If his disdain for lobbyists is sincere, should Perot provide leadership by example by ceasing his relentless lobbying efforts and dismantling United We Stand, his self-promoting lobbying organization?

Lobbyists spend large amounts of money on propaganda intended to win support for their agendas and to intimidate lawmakers into voting in their favor. Perot spent $500,000 on his Sunday television appearance and $1,90,000 for his TV Guide survey, both of which are clearly intended to produce at least the illusion that enormous masses of people support his agenda. His promise to forward the results of this survey to Congress and the President, coming on the heels of his recent threat to legislators that "I can deliver" votes, is nothing short of an attempt to intimidate politicians into submitting to his proposals.

With the obvious difference that Perot does not actually provide funds for political campaigns (yet), his activities are nearly indistinguishable from those of the lobbyists he so detests.

2. If Perot believes he and other U.S. lobbyists should be allowed to "educate" the government, should foreign lobbyists be afforded the same privilege?

His proposal to prevent lobbies from financing political campaigns is worth considering. But while he wants to limit U.S. lobbyists to educational and informational activities, he would ban foreign lobbyists altogether.

U.S. lawmakers could hardly be hurt by the additional information foreign lobbyists provide. Preventing the input of foreign lobbyists could pave the way for xenophobic and isolationist policy by making it possible to ignore international perspectives.

3. Having insisted in Congressional testimony on March 2 that the people "want details, not soundbites," should Perot abandon his hollow rhetoric in favor of specific proposals?

He criticized President Clinton's state of the union address, saying it "only laid out the outlines. He needs to give up the details now." In fact, Clinton has presented his proposals in refreshingly honest detail.

If Perot seriously believes spending should be cut beyond Clinton's proposals, he should accept the president's challenge and provide specifics. Until then, his complaints are meaningless and risk diminishing support for Clinton's program when no viable alternative has even been suggested.

4. As a relentlessly vocal advocate of democracy, and as a presumably firm believer in the ability of the people to run their country, should Perot trust the voters to reject ineffective leaders?

In his presentation on Sunday, Perot proposed that a term-limitation law automatically take effect if legislators fail to meet preordained deficit reduction goals. His idea, though unique in its style, is plagued by the same flaw as other proposals like it.

As my cousin recently told me, "We already have a term limit mechanism in place. It's called an election." If voters are dissatisfied with their representatives, they should reject them at the polls. Term limit laws, in any form, deprive voters of even those leaders who have proved themselves worthy of re-election.

Contrary to his claims, Perot's proposal might not provide an incentive for legislators to cut the deficit. Because it would punish all members of Congress-even those who have done all in their power to reduce spending-there would be little political reward in trying.

5. Having rightfully criticized proposals for a balanced budget amendment, is Perot's recent embrace of the proposal more empty symbolism?

The amendment proposal is a gimmick, and Perot correctly said so during the presidential campaign. Like term limitation laws, it assumes that an amendment will change the behavior of legislators who do not currently vote for reduced spending.

Perot well knows that politicians and bureaucrats will turn to accounting tricks and "off-budget" spending to meet the requirements of a balanced budget amendment. In his Sunday address he said, "We must eliminate all the Government's accounting tricks." But saying it will not make it so, and Perot would be the last person to suggest a way of accomplishing this Herculean task.

6. As a proponent of openness and honesty, should Perot abandon the secrecy that has surrounded his organization?

He has refused to reveal the intended goals or activities of United We Stand, and he not disclosed the results of his recruiting efforts. As an entrepeneur, Perot should know better than to ask people for $15 to become members of his organization when he refuses to say what exactly they will be purchasing.

7. Since Ross Perot is evidently here to stay, should be at least fulfill his promise to disseminate truth instead of carelessly embracing falsehoods and distortions?

Perot's tendency to resort to vague rhetoric allows him to get away with misstatements that are only rarely challenged publicity. For example, during his congressional testimony he ludicrously asserted that no one in Clinton's administration "has ever run a business or created a job, far as I know."

Perot should follow the advice of the Sen. Harry Reid (D.Nev.), whose anger at this comment prompted him to respond, "I think you should start checking your facts a little more, and stop listening to the applause so much."

Perot has shown that he is in a position to be heard and even respected by many people. With this opportunity for ego-stroking comes the responsibility to be honest.

Perot would best serve democracy by following his own advice to "call a dog a dog and an elephant an elephant." That means he should admit that Sunday night's Ross Perot Show was not an attempt to gauge public opinion, but a cynical and egoistic effort to manipulate it.

Perot's national referendum' mocks the democratic process the claims to promote

His stature gives Perot an opportunity for ego-stroking and a responsibility to be honest.