My father never imagined back in 1990 just what a gift he would
be bequeathing Republican congressional candidates in 2006.
You see, it is at least arguable that my father’s actions made
the difference in electing then-Louisiana state Sen. William
Jefferson to Congress in 1990 in a close race against future New
Orleans mayor Marc Morial. My father adjudged, almost certainly
correctly, that Jefferson would vote in a more centrist fashion
than Morial would, especially on defense, trade, and small business
issues, and also knew that Jefferson was prone neither to
race-baiting nor to other noxious forms of demagoguery.
Indeed, Jefferson’s voting record has been far more of the
“responsible left” variety than of the radical fringes. More on
that in a moment.
But what Dad did not know back then was that Jefferson’s
long-rumored (but never proved) penchant for corruption would
finally blow up in his face just when national Democrats were
trying to make a campaign issue of congressional Republicans’
supposed “culture of corruption.” With the reports of $90,000 in
literally cold cash discovered in Jefferson’s freezer, though, that
Democratic attack had to be put on ice. This week’s news that a
federal judge ruled the search of Jefferson’s office to be
perfectly legal puts the issue back in the spotlight again, and
promises to do so several more times as various appeals are argued
and decided. Each time it does, the words “Democrat” and “bribery”
or “corruption” will be repeatedly in the same sentences in the
news.
That’s rather long-lasting political handiwork for a guy, my
father, whose five-year term as Republican National Committeeman
ended way back in 1993.
THE STORY IS A GOOD ONE, containing as it does so many elements of
what makes Louisiana politics unique — and uniquely fascinating
for political junkies from less exotic locales in these United
States. In some ways, it parallels the recent New Orleans mayoral
elections in which Republicans and other right-leaning white
voters, reading smoke signals from the White House, quite arguably
provided the margin of difference (whether wisely or not) for
incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin over Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu.
As in the mayoral race, the multi-candidate election for the
open, New Orleans-based congressional seat in 1990 came down to a
runoff between two of the more liberal candidates in the field. In
Louisiana’s unique, “jungle primary” system, it wasn’t unusual for
both of the two general-election candidates to be Democrats. In
such circumstances, the best Republicans can do is to figure out
how to make the best of what looks like an awful situation.
Morial, son of former Mayor Ernest “Dutch” Morial, at the time
was a sharp-tongued, highly ideological and even angry-sounding
liberal. (Later, in his own two terms as mayor, the younger Morial
showed some competence and at least had the good sense to hire a
top-notch police chief who succeeded in cutting violent crime for a
while until the police force fell back into bad old habits under
the successor chosen by Nagin. Now president of the Urban League,
Marc Morial is less a rabble-rouser than he had seemed, and
one-on-one exhibits real personal warmth — but that’s another
story.) Jefferson, once a darling of the Louisiana Association of
Business and Industry, had long since made himself a powerful
roadblock, on multiple fronts, against reformers in state
government. Dutch Morial reportedly was the one who nicknamed
Jefferson “Dollar Bill” for Jefferson’s penchant for seeking
personal profit, and Jefferson’s personal finances several times
came under various forms of contention or suspicion.
But Jefferson never showed a harshly left ideological edge, and
he always had shown an appreciation for the concept of private
capital formation. Also to his credit, Jefferson had successfully
pushed for a more reliable, less political budgeting system in
state government.
MY FATHER, HAYWOOD H. HILLYER III, had never been much of a
kingmaker. He spent 25 years helping build the Louisiana Republican
Party from its days of being almost non-existent (less than 10,000
registered members statewide) to a significant political force —
in the process making it less Country Clubbish, more Reaganite. But
his role was neither in fund-raising or deal-making, but in the
largely unheralded work of organizing the volunteer precinct
captains who organize the volunteer workers who walk the streets
dropping off campaign literature at every house.
It was out of character, then, for Dad to jump into the fray
between two liberal Democrats. But Dad was worried about national
defense, and about supporting the first President Bush’s
lip-promise for “no new taxes,” and he figured that crucial
national issues might be decided by small margins. So he called on
Jefferson, pretty much out of the blue, and asked point-blank if
Jefferson could be counted on to support Bush on defense issues and
on marginal tax rates. Jefferson said yes.
What resulted was a letter to all of the district’s Republicans,
signed by Republican former Gov. Dave Treen, by several leading
local GOP elected officials, by state Republican Chairman Billy
Nungesser — and by my father, who recruited the others to come on
board:
We have interviewed Senator Jefferson at length, and
agree with several of his stands on issues important to our
country….
He is for: Maintaining a strong defense….He is for: The
Balanced Budget Amendment, and the line-item veto. He does not
believe in heaping our debt upon our children’s children. He is
against: Raising marginal income tax rates….He is for: Reducing
capital gains tax rates….Senator Jefferson says capital gains
taxes must be reduced to permit more job creation….
These positions make a real difference….We hope you will join
with us in voting for Bill Jefferson on Nov. 6.
In the end, Jefferson won the election with 52 percent of the vote.
He earned fairly strong majorities — difference-making majorities
— among white voters and Republicans. Nobody can prove, of course,
that my father’s letter made the difference, but Treen’s name
especially carried substantial weight among GOP voters puzzled by
what seemed like an unappealing pair of choices.
The good news is that my father was right. For 15 years,
Jefferson has lived up to these promises, consistently ranking
above the average Democrat in ratings from various right-leaning
interest groups. He consistently scores above 50 percent from the
Chamber of Commerce. He often scores above 40 percent in ratings
from the American Shareholders Association. His consistent rating
of 20 percent from the Americans for Tax Reform isn’t good, but
most Democrats are worse than that. And for conservatives who
believe in free trade, Jefferson has been splendid: He provided
absolutely essential support for both NAFTA and CAFTA when both
hung very much in the balance, and the libertarian Cato Institute’s
Center for Trade Policy Studies he scored 82 percent in 2003-04 and
a terrific 88 percent in 1999-2000.
While this decade he has voted against President Bush’s
proposals to cut the capital gains tax rate, he has on record a
host of votes in favor of cutting taxes on investments, especially
(but not exclusively) for minority and other “disadvantaged”
communities. He is one of the two lead House authors of a bill
introduced last year to defer taxation of automatically reinvested
capital gains until the shares are actually sold — an important
issue for the millions of Americans who have mutual-fund retirement
accounts, who otherwise must pay taxes each year on capital gains
that occur only on paper.
On other issues of interest to conservatives, Jefferson has
voted for drilling in ANWR, consistently for strategic missile
defense, in favor of allowing military recruitment on college
campuses, for a slew of tax cuts for small businesses, in favor of
authorizing military force in Iraq, for tax breaks for independent
oil producers back in the 1990s, and for a federal Marriage
Amendment. The pro-abortion NARAL group gives him only a 30 percent
rating, in part because of his opposition to partial birth
abortion.
Finally, Rep. Jefferson not only favors permanent repeal of the
“death tax,” but speaks eloquently on the subject. To wit, from the
Congressional Record of April 13, 2005 (as discovered by my friend
and fellow columnist Deroy Murdock):
What was meant to bring short-term budgetary relief has
become a permanent burden on America’s farmers, small business
owners and families…. There are many reasons to question the
value of taxing the accumulated savings of productive,
entrepreneurial citizens….Many families must watch their loved
one’s legacy being snatched away by the federal government at an
agonizing time. This is tragically wrong and nullifies the hard
work of those who have passed on. In the minority community there
are numerous examples of the injurious effects of the estate
tax….Permanent repeal of the estate tax will provide American
families with fairness in our tax system and remove the perverse
incentive that makes it cheaper for an individual to sell the
business prior to death and pay the individual capital gains rate
than pass it on to his heirs. But for minorities, it provides much
more. It will allow wealth created in one generation to be passed
on to the next, thereby establishing sustainable minority
communities through better jobs and education, better healthcare,
and safer communities.
If it is proved that Rep. Jefferson wasn’t content to provide for
his family through honest capital formation, but resorted to
bribery and graft instead, then he should suffer the full legal
consequences. But for him for 15 years to have been better — more
moderate in votes and in tone — than most Democrats, and
especially than most member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is
evidence that my father’s choice in 1990 was a wise one indeed. For
that choice to pay a sort of backhanded political dividend now, in
terms of making my father’s Republican Party a bit less vulnerable
— that’s icing on the cake, or maybe ice cream in the cooler.
