"Which one of the three candidates would you want your daughter to marry?"
About this Quote
A disarming, homespun metric, the question reframes electoral choice as a test of character and trust. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who stormed the 1992 campaign as an outsider, often sought to cut through policy fog with blunt heuristics. By asking which candidate you would welcome into your family, he invites voters to translate abstract judgments about leadership into the most intimate register: personal safety, reliability, honesty, and respect. The marriage test functions as a proxy for the qualities one wants in a president, implying that governance ultimately depends on character more than on elaborate plans.
The line played to a political moment saturated with doubts about integrity. George H. W. Bush carried the baggage of entrenched incumbency; Bill Clinton navigated scandal and questions about trust; Perot cast himself as a straight-talking reformer with charts and a promise to fix the books. Framed this way, the election becomes less a policy contest than a referendum on who seems safest to let into the house. It is a populist move, collapsing Washington mystique into everyday judgment, and it flatters common sense over technical expertise.
Yet the question also exposes its own limits. It leans on paternalist assumptions about daughters and marriage, and it narrows a complex civic choice to a domestic litmus test that may privilege likability over competence. Policies on war, taxes, health care, and trade do not neatly map onto family archetypes. The appeal of plain talk can obscure the trade-offs and institutional realities that make governance different from household stewardship.
Even so, the resonance lies in its clarity. Voters often choose through shorthand rooted in trust and identity, not spreadsheets. Perot captured that truth with a line that still stings: when politics feels remote, people judge leaders the way they judge those allowed closest to their lives. Whether wise or reductive, the test reveals how character and intimacy shape democratic decision-making.
The line played to a political moment saturated with doubts about integrity. George H. W. Bush carried the baggage of entrenched incumbency; Bill Clinton navigated scandal and questions about trust; Perot cast himself as a straight-talking reformer with charts and a promise to fix the books. Framed this way, the election becomes less a policy contest than a referendum on who seems safest to let into the house. It is a populist move, collapsing Washington mystique into everyday judgment, and it flatters common sense over technical expertise.
Yet the question also exposes its own limits. It leans on paternalist assumptions about daughters and marriage, and it narrows a complex civic choice to a domestic litmus test that may privilege likability over competence. Policies on war, taxes, health care, and trade do not neatly map onto family archetypes. The appeal of plain talk can obscure the trade-offs and institutional realities that make governance different from household stewardship.
Even so, the resonance lies in its clarity. Voters often choose through shorthand rooted in trust and identity, not spreadsheets. Perot captured that truth with a line that still stings: when politics feels remote, people judge leaders the way they judge those allowed closest to their lives. Whether wise or reductive, the test reveals how character and intimacy shape democratic decision-making.
Quote Details
| Topic | Daughter |
|---|
More Quotes by Ross
Add to List
