The lessons of Texas: the Hutchison victory will have many good effects - not least the overturning of the Wofford precedent - Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison's election to the US Senate countered the issue of health care reform that helped to elect Democrat Senator Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania in 1991

National Review, July 5, 1993 by Grover Norquist

WHEN Kay Bailey Hutchison defeated Bob Krueger by a 68 to 32 per cent landslide, she brought Republican Leader Bob Dole's count in the Senate up to 44, strengthening Dole's hand for potential filibusters and probably dooming much bad legislation, starting with the striker replacement bill.

Even more important, Mrs. Hutchison must appear as the. Ghost of Elections Future to the 21 Democratic senators up for re-election in 1994. Her victory offers six important lessons.

First, the imminent and inevitable bloodbath between economic and social conservatives is neither imminent nor inevitable. Kay Hutchison was not the first choice of most pro-life and pro-family activists in the May 1 Republican primary. They had worked and voted for either Jack Fields or Joe Barton. But once Mrs. Hutchison was the Republican candidate, facing a Democrat who had endorsed the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that would forbid the states to limit abortion in any way, the battle lines were drawn. Mrs. Hutchison's commitment to vote against FOCA made her, by comparison, the pro-life candidate.

Kay Hutchison, recognizing this, treated the social concerns of pro-family groups with respect--as did Georgia Republican candidate (now Senator) Paul Coverdell last fall. Her campaign policy paper, "Putting Families First," addressed concerns that Phyllis Schlafly and the Christian Coalition have stressed: "Many spouses have entered the work force not because they want to, but because they have to. One of the reasons: the federal tax burden on married couples and families has grown from 2 per cent in 1948 to 24 per cent today." She called for establishing a non-refundable, $1,000 tax credit for each child under age ten.

Second, a Republican who campaigns against tax hikes, for spending restraints, and against the Washington Establishment leaves no room on the political stage for Ross Perot. In the most important political campaign in 1993, in his home state, Ross the Boss was simply irrelevant. His organization, United We Stand-Texas, polled its membership and impotently announced four days before the election that 84 per cent were supporting Mrs. Hutchison. George Bush failed to run credibly against taxes and higher spending (having raised each) and refused to campaign against Washington and Congress (he sought to run the Establishment, not to crush it). Bush's campaign left an opening for Perot. Kay Hutchison's did not.

She campaigned for term limits, elimination of congressional perks, a balanced-budget amendment, and a line-item veto. She didn't have to ask for Perot's support.

Third, running against Clinton trumps running away from Clinton. Mrs. Hutchison ran hard against the BTU tax, the Clinton tax package, the spending increases, and the "stimulus package." Krueger has occasionally voted against the President, but not when it really mattered. Every congressman and senator who voted for either the "stimulus package" or the reconciliation bill--and that is almost every Democrat--should read Mrs. Hutchison's literature and view her ads tearing Krueger apart. You may be sure that their challengers will.

Fourth, health care is no Democratic silver bullet. It was supposedly this issue alone that gave Harris Wofford his victory over Richard Thornburgh in Pennsylvania in 1991. This time, as Krueger sagged in the polls, Clinton ,,, sent his campaign maestro Paul Be""gala to activate the Wofford precedent. Kay Hutchison refused to duck the issue, and she showed how Republicans can leave Hillary Clinton's allies defending a liability. "One of the clear differences between our philosophies is over health care," Mrs. Hutchison said. "My health care plan empowers people while Bob Krueger's wants to empower government. Bob Krueger's 'plan' consists of price controls, which will create health-care shortages." Mrs. Hutchison urged moving toward allowing individuals to carry their health plans--including medical IRAs --with them rather than having them tied to employers. The key mechanism she cited to achieve this "portability" and cover low-income workers is the Heritage Foundation's refundable-tax-credit proposal. Tested in battle, Hillary Clinton's big gun didn't fire.

Fifth, Republicans do not need to follow the Democrats in balkanizing the electorate. Democrats, who hoped Hispanics could be seduced into dependency and therefore political dependability, were shamed by a Hutchison campaign that asked for Hispanics' votes on the basis of their being Americans. Mrs. Hutchison campaigned throughout Texas for a 2 per cent limitation on the growth of government spending, using the slogan, "Government runs a deficit because it spends too much, not because it taxes too little." She won South Texas 60 to 40 and may have carried the Hispanic vote.

Last, don't underestimate the importance of organization and party building. Karl Rove, Kay Hutchison's lead strategist, points out that the Democrats ran their most expensive and intensive get-out-the-vote effort--and so did the Republicans. In the last days, the Republicans made 1.4 million phone calls and 2.4 million mailings to get their voters to the polls. An unprecedented effort of local activists led to over 230 of 254 counties being organized. In Smith County, for example, local activists A.W. "Dub" Riter and Gene Shull organized 600 community leaders, made 10,000 phone calls, walked the 12 best precincts, and raised $43,000.