ing responsible commentators explainnthat, yes, Perot’s candidacy is amusing,nbut sooner or later we’re going to have tonget serious. Guys, Eugene is serious.nWhen he stops and thinks about it, he’sn(all together, now) mad as hell and notngoing to take it anymore. When the 60’snradicals chanted “Smash the State,” RossnPerot wasn’t what they had in mind—nbut, for Eugene, he’ll do. Now that thenSoviet threat is gone, reckless votingnseems less dangerous, and the answer tonthe question “how much worse could itnbe?” isn’t that clear anymore. So maybengovernment wouldn’t work with Perotnas President. You got a problem withnthat?nPerot’s appeal isn’t ideological. Whonknows what his ideology is? Does henhave one? Who cares? In this respectnhe’s like our last serious non-politiciannpolitician, Dwight Eisenhower. (RussellnKirk, you may remember, defendednIke against the John Birch Society bynsaying that he wasn’t a Communist, henwas a golfer.) Perot certainly has opinions,non everything from high schoolnfootball eligibility to abortion, but henpresents them and probably sees themnas simply “common sense.” If enoughnvoters see them that way, too, he couldngo far.nNo, Perot is, if anything, an anti-ideologicalncandidate, with an attraction fornthose who are disgusted not just withngovernment but with latter-day politics,nwith constant public yammering andnwrangling about rights and principles.nTake Eugene again. They say a MiddlenEastern moderate is someone whosenmotto is “Death to Extremists”—well,nEugene could buy that. He’s certainlynnot a liberal and you’d call most of hisnviews conservative, but he’s not a conservative,nand he doesn’t like most peoplenwho are. He’s still a registerednDemocrat, so he couldn’t have voted fornPat Buchanan if he’d wanted to. But henwouldn’t have anyway. As far as Eugenenis concerned, anyone who is on Sundaynafternoon TV is part of the problem. Asnhe sees it, the fact that both liberals andnconservatives deprecate and dislike Perotnis a big point in his favor.nSomething else Perot has in commonnwith Ike is that he’s thought to be politicallyninexperienced. Politicos and politicalnjunkies seem to be puzzled andnannoyed when voters find that charming.nHow dare he, you can almost hearnthem saying. Where are his position papers?nNow, in fact, a billionaire govern­nment contractor is no more likely than anGeneral of the Army actually to be virgonintacta, but Perot might do well to fakenit. A.L. Rowse tells of a candidate fornthe Oxford University seat in Parliamentnwho won hundreds of votes on thenstrength of one sentence in his campaignnleaflet: “Agriculture. I knownnothing about agriculture.” It mightnwork for Perot, too. If nothing else, notnknowing how government works meansnthat how it works can’t be your fault.nThen there’s the Texas thing. Somensophisticates just will see Perot as an untamedngunslinger from flyover country.nThey prefer their Southwesterners to benYalies like George Bush or Bill Glinton.nIt would be embarrassing to watch Perotngo after those votes, just like it was withnLyndon. If he’s smart—and I’ve nevernseen it suggested that he isn’t—he’llntreat his origins the way Hilaire Bellocntreated his religion, when he ran for Parliamentnin 1905. “Gentlemen,” Bellocntold a public meeting, “I am a Gatholic.nAs far as possible, I go to Mass every day.nThis [taking a rosary from his pocket] isna rosary. As far as possible, I kneel downnand tell these beads every day. If younreject me on account of my religion, Inshall thank God that He has spared menthe indignity of being your representative.”n(Isn’t that more manly than, say.nLIBERAL ARTSnGAY STUDIESnJohn Kennedy’s assurances in I960 to angroup of Baptist ministers that his religionnwouldn’t affect his conduct in office?)nIf I were advising Perot, I’d tell him:nDon’t pander. Don’t apologize. Don’tn”explain.” It’s not the cowboy way. Justnrun an in-your-face campaign that says:nHere I am, a straight shooter who speaksnhis mind, a straight thinker who isn’tnafraid of simple solutions, an obscenelynrich man who can’t be bought by specialninterests because they can’t afford me.nBut here I am fantasizing about givingnadvice to a man who’s Eugene’s candidate,nnot mine. Me—well, I’ll probablynwind up being “responsible” again. Inmean, who wants the election decidednby the House of Representatives? Butnobviously even I find something attractivenabout this candidacy, so let me saynone more thing about it. Some folksnI’ve talked to profess to find Perot a littlenfrightening. But what ought to scarenthem is the alienation and frustration,nthe wrecking impulse, that he’s tapping.nAll things considered, it seems to menthat voting for Ross Perot is a prettynharmless way for that to surface.nJohn Shelton Reed writes fromnChapel Hill, North Carolina,nand likes real Texans.nThe Gay and Lesbian Issues Committee of the University of Wisconsin last Januarynproposed a campus center and studies program for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.nAccording to the Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, Dean of Students MarynRouse appointed the committee and endorsed their proposals. The committee alsonconsidered special housing to provide “a higher level of sensitivity” to the needs of homosexuals.nChancellor Donna Shalala criticized the proposal and said the housing optionnwas “unconstitutional—you are not allowed to put groups together but separatednfrom everyone else.” A grant of $29,400 was approved for the vocal Ten PercentnSociety, a “GLB” student group, to establish a campus center that will help “studentsnwho want to ‘come out of the closet'” with “a sort of buddy-mentor program,” saidnthe group’s president, Michael Dixon. According to Jan Sheppard, “permanent UWnliaison to the gay, lesbian, bisexual community,” the Dean of Letters and Science requestedninterested faculty to submit course outlines for a possible homosexual studiesnprogram.nnnJULY 1992/43n