COLUMN RIGHT : It Was a Reaganite Landslide : Across the nation, measures that increased government regulations were voted down.

On Nov. 3, America voted for Bill Clinton. But the election was a Reaganite landslide.

On initiatives and referendums from Maine to California, Americans turned down new taxes and regulations and repealed old ones. When policy ran separately from personalities, voters chose less activist government.

On the tax side, the biggest losers were proposals to soak the rich in California and to introduce an income tax in South Dakota. Winners included an Arizona initiative requiring a two-thirds majority in the Legislature to pass any tax increase and a Colorado measure requiring voter approval of any state or local tax increase. About the only tax to pass was a small property-tax hike to fund 911 services in Los Angeles.

Even more striking was the fate of regulatory initiatives. Unlike taxes, regulation comes with hidden costs, usually imposed on anonymous businesses. And regulation almost always appears wrapped in virtue, promising a cleaner environment, free health care or social harmony.

Nevertheless, California rejected mandatory health benefits 68% to 32%. By an even greater margin, Ohio voters rejected requiring warning labels on products linked to increased cancer risk.

Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, who portrays his zeal for environmental and civil-rights regulation as an exception to a generally “libertarian” outlook, suffered a humiliating rebuke: Voters rejected by nearly 2-to-1 a Weld-backed referendum that would have required every package used in Massachusetts to be “reusable at least five times . . . reduced in size by at least 25% every five years . . . recycled at a 50% rate or composed of 25% or more recycled materials.”

The measure’s goal was to create greater markets for recycled materials. But for anyone who bought or sold any packaged good in Massachusetts--from soap to office supplies to machine parts--it was a compliance nightmare. The record-keeping alone would have cost millions of dollars. Voters saw the measure for the wasteful central planning it was and opted to keep Massachusetts’ struggling economy on a more market-driven footing.

Even on the sensitive issue of gay rights, voters seemed consistently anti-regulation. By a substantial margin, they rejected Oregon’s anti-gay Measure 9, which would have amended the state Constitution to declare homosexuality “abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse.” But in Colorado and in a number of cities, propositions to repeal local anti-discrimination laws passed. To gay-rights supporters, the Colorado vote in particular looks like a win for bigotry. The measure’s sponsors were, certainly, anti-gay. But lifting anti-discrimination laws is not the same thing as mandating discrimination--by either the state or private citizens. The margin of victory came from voters who saw anti-discrimination laws not as statements of rights but as guarantees of privileges. These swing voters didn’t want to create yet another protected category of employee to sue over discharges and perhaps demand hiring quotas. They were anti-regulation, not anti-gay.

Finally, George Bush’s electoral defeat can be seen as a blow against regulation. In his four years as President, Bush expanded federal regulations more than any President since the 1970s--whether measured by pages in the Federal Register, the number of regulatory employees or government regulatory budgets.

On the campaign trail, Bush apologized for raising taxes but bragged about his regulatory record: the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. That legacy amounts to a $130-billion annual tax on business, a new study for Congress’ Joint Economic Committee estimates. Such costs fall heaviest on industries dominated by small companies, such as bakeries, service stations and printing shops.

President-elect Clinton, who enjoys an entrepreneurial constituency rare for a Democrat, can learn from his predecessor’s mistakes. Faced with a massive federal deficit, he will be tempted to shove social programs off-budget--to make them “free” by forcing them onto employers.

But as a former governor who has struggled to meet federal demands on his state budget, Clinton knows what it means to lose control of a budget and see spending priorities determined in Washington.

If he takes those lessons to the White House, or even if he merely heeds the Nov. 3 tally, he will take a dimmer view of regulation than his predecessor.