PARTY OF SPOILERS

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT DALLAS

ROSS PEROT AND JESSE JACKSON have at least one thing in common: each of them could play havoc with the 1996 presidential race. Perot makes Republican candidates cringe when he threatens to "do whatever I have to do to get our goals accomplished in the most intelligent way." They fear a repeat of the damage Perot inflicted on George Bush in 1992. And Bill Clinton's advisers shiver when they hear Jackson musing that "a lot of people are interested in more ballot access as the Democrats and Republicans become indistinguishable." The Clintonites worry about an independent Jackson candidacy that could destroy the President's already fragile prospects for re-election.

Though radically different in ideology, Perot and Jackson both yearn to advance an ambitious agenda, even if that means playing the spoiler. Each is a failed presidential candidate with no realistic chance to win the White House, but each muses about running under the right circumstances. For Jackson, those include a weakened President who continues to disappoint his party's left wing. For Perot, the lure would be the G.O.P.'s failure to keep its promise of revolutionary reform.

Perot poses the more plausible threat to a two-party system besieged by voter cynicism. His personal fortune can easily finance his candidacy again. United We Stand America, his reform-minded pressure group, is inching toward becoming a new party. It could serve as a vehicle for him or a like-minded ally.

The electorate seems receptive to new choices. TIME-CNN polls have shown a consistent majority of voters-56% vs. 34% in last week's survey-favoring creation of a full-fledged new party. The level of support remains high, though regard for Perot has ebbed. Waning loyalty to the major parties, rather than enthusiasm for any one independent leader, whets the appetite for alternatives. "You're going to see a centrist, third-party challenge in '96, without question," says Lowell Weicker, a former Republican Senator who won Connecticut's governorship as an independent. Others speculate about a fourth party as well.

What Perot lacks at the moment is a clear rationale for a sequel. Last year he urged his followers to give the Republicans a shot at ruling Congress. Perotistas, who lean rightward anyway, voted for the G.O.P. by a ratio of 2 to 1. Now Republicans must be given an opportunity to satisfy Perot's following. "They basically have adopted our 1992 platform," Perot contended in a TIME interview. "Then the question is, Will they deliver? That's all that matters to us." With Perot doing the grading, Republicans may have little chance of passing the test.

In fact, Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," compared with Perot's manifesto, is timid in attacking the deficit and ignores other major items on Perot's priority list as well. Even legislators who have enjoyed explicit support from Perot have stiffed him on such critical issues as nafta, gatt and the Administration's effort to nourish Mexico's anemic currency. When Congress was considering gatt last November, Perot warned that if the trade agreement was approved, which it was, United We Stand would consider forming a new party. Local chapters all over the country-prodded by national headquarters in Dallas-have been staging debates among their members on the question of doing just that. These affairs usually turn into denunciations of the established parties.

During his 1992 campaign and United We Stand's toddler stage in 1993, Perot fended off pressure to organize a full-fledged party. He knew that the procedural obstacles were towering. But recently Perot shifted, possibly because of rebellions within several state chapters and a general sense that his organization was groping for a new mission. In Pennsylvania organizers of Perot's 1992 petition drive converted that effort into the Patriot Party. Its chairman, Nicholas Sabatine, is working with splinter groups in two dozen states in an attempt to go national. Pollster Gordon Black, a founder of New York's Independence-Fusion Party, thinks these efforts can be woven together with United We Stand's. But like some other new-party advocates, Black yearns for an appealing ticket. "Perot as kingmaker," he says tactfully, "is a more formidable proposition than Perot as candidate."

In either role, Perot thinks he has the luxury of time. He can wait until Sept. 1, he says, before deciding whether to plunge in. But, as he did in 1992, he insists that he is not eager to run: "I wouldn't give you two cents for the title."

A run by Perot or any other well-financed candidate courting disgruntled independents could be a huge break for Clinton, because it might draw millions of votes away from the Republicans. Clinton's survival would then depend on the core Democratic vote, including African Americans, some Hispanics and blue-collar workers. But that is Jesse Jackson's constituency too. An independent run by Jackson, says a Democratic strategist, "costs us the election. You say goodbye to Illinois, Michigan and Ohio, for starters."

That potential leverage explains why Jackson, who twice sought the party's nomination, this time is considering apostasy. Jerry Austin, Jackson's manager in 1988, explains that "as an independent, he's in the finals and can affect the outcome." By Jackson's lights, it is Clinton who is betraying the old-time Democratic religion by embracing too tightly the centrist, free-market agenda of the Democratic Leadership Council. "I just fear," Jackson told TIME, "that there is a D.L.C.-Demopublican party emerging."

Jackson argues that Clinton surrendered too easily in 1993 when conservatives challenged his economic-stimulus package. Last week Jackson staged a press conference starring representatives of feminist, Hispanic and labor organizations to defend affirmative action against the assault from conservatives. He chided Clinton for timidity in this fight. How the President handles this issue and related ones, Jackson said, will be "big factors" in his decision whether to challenge Clinton.

Last fall, as Jackson campaigned hard for Democratic candidates, he tried to interest Clinton in staging a "White House conference on jobs, racial justice and gender equality," he says. The only response he received was a pro forma phone call from a White House aide. When the White House chose new Democratic National Committee members, it did not bother to solicit Jackson's opinion. In fact, Jackson does have access to White House staff members who plan to discuss his idea for a conference on jobs. Furthermore, Vice President Al Gore met privately with Jackson two weeks ago to talk about some of his complaints.

Nonetheless, Jackson perceives slights and policy failings, which fuel his repeated hints about challenging Clinton. Says a party official who knows Jackson well: "He wouldn't be doing this if the White House just gave him a hearing once in a while." But the White House sees any conspicuous effort to placate Jackson as dangerous to its efforts to win back disaffected white moderates. And his Rainbow Coalition is longer on enthusiasm than resources. Few other black leaders seem eager for a quixotic crusade that would probably end with a conservative Republican in power. Jackson himself would find that distasteful as a political epitaph. So the betting among insiders is that when Jackson presides at the next Rainbow Coalition conference in May, he will have worked out a rationale for reconciliation.