Rich Guys and Presidential Politics

George Soros recently announced that he would be spending at least several millions of his fortune to rid the country and the world of George W. Bush. Soros has a long piece in the December Atlantic Monthly that deserves a long look. Before I begin my deconstruction however, a look back at another billionaire who crossed the American political stage.

Rich men who decide to spend huge amounts of money on politics are interesting animals, and sometimes they kick up enough dust to change history. For instance I have always held that Ross Perot was primarily responsible for electing Bill Clinton. Politics is a much-misunderstood game in which years of plodding sameness can be replaced by radical change in the blink of an eye.

In 1992 George H. W. Bush (it’s a heck of a note when you have to go to a FOURTH initial to distinguish between two people) was on cruise control toward a second term. Bill Clinton was in danger of becoming a joke. In the polls Bush had a large lead and the election seemed secure.

Enter Ross Perot. Overnight the dynamic changed, but most people failed to realize WHO was now in trouble. In the early weeks of the three-way campaign, pundits focused on Clinton’s poor poll numbers. There was talk that Clinton might fail to get 25% of the vote required for “major party” status.

What the pundits almost totally ignored was the fact that now President Bush was polling BELOW 50%. There was a monumental shift in public attitudes. Where over 50% of the voters had been prepared to vote for Bush, now over 50% were psychologically open to voting for someone other than the President.

A break of this type is much like a marriage where one or both spouses have begun to wonder if maybe divorce is the answer. Like Humpty Dumpty, Bush’s electoral prospects would not be put together again. When Perot went weird and then dropped out just prior to Clinton’s nomination, the “swing voters” could either go back to their stodgy ex (Bush) or run off with the handsome ner-do-well from down the street (Clinton).

The result was an explosion of support for Bill Clinton that Bush never recovered from, and when Perot re-entered the race it effectively cemented the president’s fate. It was well known that Perot disliked George H. W. Bush, and he could take great satisfaction in knowing that he was responsible for the president’s defeat.

The Perot and Soros stories have little in common beyond the fact that both were rich men who were willing to spend millions to beat a Bush. Perot was someone who represented a “third way” in American politics. Loony as some of his ideas were, he was joined by millions of Americans who had grown frustrated with the choice between Republicans and the Democrats.

Now comes Soros.

I had heard of him but had no notion of his politics until he announced a five million-dollar donation to a group dedicated to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Now, as an advance peek at a book scheduled for release next month, the Atlantic Monthly has published a Soros “essay” that gives us a clear view into the man’s mind.

Next: Deconstructing Soros