As I watch the awful administration of George W. Bush I often wonder what would have happened if H. Ross Perot had been the Texan who went to the White House instead. Would things have been different?
After all, they are both rich Texans and they both are both men of uncopromising views. But if one looks at their public records differences emerge:
Treatment of the Military -- H. Ross Perot, in my view, has always been a staunch supporter of the individual soldier. He tried to fly Christmas presents to the POW's in Vietnam. He had his own form of affirmative action when he aggressively hired many returning veterans. When he was in the Naval Academy he held one of the highest student ranks. He understands the military and he understands war, I think so at least. Would he have gone to war?
Making something out of nothing -- Perot created a very successful company which pioneered facilities management, now known as outsourcing.
Accountability -- who can forget Perot and his charts. He understands fiscal responsibility and the consequences of ignoring it. Would he have passed tax breaks for the rich?
Delegation -- I have always admired one thing about Perot, he is not afraid to employ people who are smarter than he is. His company was full of such people from the very beginning and he aggressively looked for them.
"Killing Snakes" -- this was one of Perot's expressions in the early days. He wanted his people to be results oriented and if they found a snake they were supposed to kill it. By that he meant that his people were to solve problems, not buck them upstream.
Separation of Church and State -- I am unsure about this, but I don't remember Perot making a big deal about his faith when he ran for office. He seemed to be private about it.
Face to face action -- when Perot lost the Medicaid contract in Texas, a contract he had held for years, he got in his plane and visited each of the men who had authority to reverse the decision. He went to their homes, their businesses, wherever he could find them and got the decision changed in his favor. A lot of people didn't like what he did, but he did it. Would he have worked with other nations to get them involved in the war on terrorism? I think so.
Fact-based reality -- Perot is fact-based and results-oriented. He has the outlook, in my view, of the good engineer. Practicality is engrained in him.
Tell the truth -- the last comment I will make about Perot is the one thing I admire most about him. He tells the truth. You can rely on him to keep his word. If he told the American people something then he would do his dead level best to make it happen. It is simply the most basic element of his nature. He says, "This is what I will do," and then he does it. What a wonderful thing to have in a leader.
Anyhow, it seems to me that both men have so much of their histories and natures on the public record that we can realistically speculate what their administrations would have been like.
I have to say that I don't have any real comfort about understanding Kerry's administration. I never could focus in on him and where he was headed.