For an Angry Electorate, Perot Emerges as Answer : Populism: California could again be the national political bellwether, as the state puts the Texas businessman far out front in the opinion polls.

Lucky for Ross Perot that California Democrats failed to change the state’s 1992 presidential primary from June to March. Had Californians voted back in March, they’d have wasted their clout on the sort of traditional-party politicians now being ignored from Mexicali to Mendocino. Instead, polls leading up to Tuesday’s primary have made California the barometer of this surge to send the billionaire puritan and populist to Washington as a political Roto-Rooter man.

Thus overshadowed, George Bush and Bill Clinton and their primary results have almost ceased to matter. The Golden State, postwar mecca for the now-threatened American dream, has emerged as the nation’s most enthusiastic gambler on the hope that, in November, America can reclaim that dream by electing its first independent President.

It’s logical for California to be out front. Among the 50 states, its polls show the largest popular majority for Perot--reflecting both economic hard times and local disenchantment with Bush after the Los Angeles riots. Moreover, early 20th-Century California led the fight for populist ideas--like initiatives and referendums--that Perot wants to update.

Yet today’s enthusiasm could be tomorrow’s threat. Perot’s increasingly evident blue-nosed morality could hurt him on the laid-back West Coast. If he loses momentum, poll slippage in California could signal a collapse. If he’s fading in Milpitas and Moreno Valley in August, the odds are he’ll be losing ground in Maryland and Michigan come September.

California is again a bellwether. From voters’ comments in June 2 exit polls to opinion-molder insistence in the six weeks leading up to the Democratic Convention, its citizens will have to push Perot on three broad questions sure to gain importance: Can national Republican and Democratic politics be transformed into a framework for an independent presidency? Can outsider Perot control Washington enough to create a successful new domestic policy? Can the Lone Ranger from Texarkana refocus America’s greater populist tradition and use his electronic town hall as a partial replacement for a broken-down party system?

Californians have an special stake because the state’s economic, business and urban weaknesses demand new activist leadership in Washington. Bush struck many voters as hapless and ineffective after the Los Angeles riots, as he tried to blame a Democratic Administration out of power for 23 years, This only underscored Perot’s contrasting take-charge image. So, Bush’s support plummeted, while Perot’s surged--a recent Times poll showed Perot with a stunning 39%, to 26% for Clinton and 25% for Bush. No other state has drawn such harsh conclusions about George Herbert Walker Bush or looked at Perot with such enthusiasm.

However, because Californians have tentatively rejected Bush, they’re sure to think hard about electing Perot. You don’t elect an untested billionaire who’s never held public office just because he pledges to hit Washington like a combination of Genghis Khan and Ex-Lax. Specific programs don’t matter--what does is that Perot lay out a credible plan.

Voters may be disillusioned with the Republican and Democratic parties, but they’ll want to know how Perot can deal with them. In the next six weeks, it’ll help if voters believe Perot is ahead in the polls in part because the old politics of Bush and Clinton--of stagnant parties apple-polishing for their special interests--is breaking down in favor of a new reformist alignment. The last time was in the 1850s, when breakaway factions from the two existing parties--Northern Whigs and anti-slavery Jackson Democrats--formed the new Republican Party.

Perot is trying to do something similar. He’s been talking to Edward J. Rollins and Hamilton Jordan, the successful ex-campaign managers for Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Jimmy Carter, about jointly managing the Perot campaign. The pollster for Patrick J. Buchanan, Bush’s GOP primary rival, has just enlisted, as has the advertising manager for the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign. Former Texas Gov. John B. Connally, a GOP presidential contender in 1980, is backing Perot. And former President Richard M. Nixon is telling visitors that, although some of his ex-aides have criticized Perot’s efforts of 20 years ago to help U.S. prisoners in Vietnam and to rescue several collapsing firms on Wall Street, he admired Perot’s efforts.

Such a coalition could have a particular effect in California. The Tuesday primary will be weakened because write-in votes for Perot won’t be counted, while exit polls will miss non-participating Perotistas. Nonetheless, the recent Times survey showed 41% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats would back Perot. In a different poll, 61% of registered state Democrats want an open Democratic Convention and 53% want to nominate Perot.

It sounds unbelievable--but not if Clinton is running third. In 1896. the Democratic Party turned away from its leader, President Grover Cleveland, to join with the Populists. Otherwise, it would have been torn apart--which could have some parallel today. Former presidential hopeful Paul E. Tsongas, who’ll have a serious bloc of convention delegates, has said many of his supporters now seem to be for Perot. A cynic might argue that Clinton may be better off permitting an open convention and winding up as Perot’s vice-presidential nominee.

A Democratic ticket of Perot and Clinton would probably win--but the odds seem slim. Perot may do better without either existing party’s nomination. Yet, he’d be helped by publicity as a sort of third-party mega-contender--missing since the current party system took shape in the 1850s--who’s threatening to unravel both existing parties. That could make him appear strong enough to face down Republican and Democratic opponents if he got to Washington.

Moreover, three other political challenges could clarify Perot’s potential clout. First, selecting a potent vice president. Second, his ability to name a first-string Cabinet--some names include Democratic investment banker Felix G. Rohatyn as Treasury secretary, GOP Sen. Warren Rudman as budget czar and Tsongas as secretary of an expanded Commerce Department. Third, hardball tactics in November congressional races--pressuring both GOP and Democratic congressmen in pro-Perot areas to back him if he carries their districts and the election goes into the House.

Last, there’s Perot’s promise to fuse the New England town-meeting tradition with the 20th-Century populist heritage of initiative and referendum. This may be just what U.S. democracy needs for revitalization--or, it could be a dangerous threat. However, Perot is speaking to compelling realities: the coming high-tech and interactive telecommunications revolution, and the need to transcend a party system linked to corrupt campaign finance and special interests. Here, too, California, with its expertise in populist politics, high technology and new forms of mass communications, must have a role if there is to be a Perot Revolution.

In the last few weeks, as Perot has drawn neck-and-neck nationally and pulled far ahead in California, his appeal has stunned the Bush and Clinton campaigns. If he can continue to break new strategic and technological ground, he could conceivably win in November. But if springtime’s magic dissipates, there haven’t been that many thin-skinned, short guys, running on anti-adultery platforms, elected President in the last 200 years.