NEWS ANALYSIS : As Women Climb Political Ladder, Stereotypes Follow

Ask voters to compare men and women politicians and they probably will reply that the women are “harder working,” “more caring” and “more ethical.” But they also probably will say that the men are “tougher” and “emotionally better suited” for politics.

Then also ask the voters to describe the differences between former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein and state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp. The responses, as the Los Angeles Times Poll recently found, will be strikingly similar--with stereotypes about women politicians in general spilling over into the current battle for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

All this is more than just an interesting academic exercise as Feinstein strives to become California’s first woman governor. Women throughout the nation in recent years have been climbing higher on the political ladder, some into governors’ offices.

And beyond the issue of who becomes California’s next governor, a broader question being posed by Feinstein’s candidacy--as well as others this year--is whether the state is entering into what Mervin Field of the California Poll has been predicting will be “the decade of women in politics.”

“There’s a mood out in the culture of wanting to elect a woman,” said Margery Tabankin, executive director of the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee.

Added Kathy Garmezy, the committee’s abortion rights director: “There’s a radarscope thing happening--(Margaret) Thatcher, (Violeta Barrios de) Chamorro, (Corazon) Aquino, (Benazir) Bhutto. . . .” Voters--especially women--notice these world leaders and realize the United States lags behind other nations in electing women to the highest positions of power, she said. “I have this desire I’ve never had before to elect a woman.”

Feinstein’s biggest boosters in polls conducted by The Times have been women, who are supporting her by 2 to 1 over Van de Kamp.

But Beverly Thomas of Los Angeles, a veteran fund-raiser for women candidates and now campaign manager for Kathleen Brown’s race for state treasurer, said, “I’m not sure women are going to vote in droves for women. Now, for the first time, they may have a tendency to do that. But I don’t know whether it will last. I wouldn’t want to bet.”

Still, she said, “There is something that is different out there. People (women) come in and want to get involved. They want to give money. Trust me, it’s like night and day.”

One difference, virtually every political activist agrees, is renewed tension over abortion rights after last summer’s Supreme Court decision that gave states broad new power to regulate abortions.

“There are few moments in history when an issue becomes a litmus test,” said Tabankin, asserting that abortion rights has become an issue upon which many women decisively measure politicians. “There’s a feeling that ‘no man is going to tell me how my body should function.’ ”

Thomas said that when Brown campaigns before women’s groups she invariably is asked to reiterate her support for abortion rights. “It’s got nothing to do with being treasurer, but they want to know,” Thomas said. “It’s like, ‘OK, now we can do business.’ ”

“If women really are feeling a new surge to go to the polls in 1990, it was started by (abortion) choice,” she said. “They’ve been awakened. They’re personally threatened, no matter which side they are on.”

“Secondly,” she continued, “women who have been in lower offices are now starting to run for very exciting offices. These women are political veterans who have learned how to raise money. They have percolated up at the same time that there’s this awakening.”

In Feinstein’s case, women voters seem to be supporting her more enthusiastically than are women political activists. Many activists, who tend to be more liberal than ordinary voters, have reservations about some of Feinstein’s stands. They accuse her of being a latecomer on women’s issues and are not satisfied with her positions on the environment and gay rights. Some are inclined to agree with the assertion of Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) that Van de Kamp “is the best feminist in the race.”

There also is private concern among some activists--mainly those pushing other women candidates--that there could be “too many” women on the November ballot. What would be the effect, say, on Kathleen Brown’s prospects for treasurer if Feinstein were to win the gubernatorial nomination? Just how many women will the electorate vote for? A third Democratic woman, March Fong Eu, is virtually assured of renomination as secretary of state.

Three Republican women also are seeking nominations--state Sen. Marian Bergeson of Newport Beach for lieutenant governor, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores for secretary of state and former U.S. Treasurer Angela (Bay) Buchanan for treasurer.

To a large extent, the fate of Feinstein and other women candidates hinges on their ability--and their opponents’--to manipulate the old stereotypes, altering troublesome perceptions and cashing in on those that offer opportunities.

“Stereotypes provide the basis for attitudes about a candidate until the voters get to know that candidate,” observed Times Poll Director I. A. Lewis.

Accurate or false, the perceptions are political reality. They are shared by men and women alike and affect voter attitudes, the Times Poll found. They therefore help to shape campaign strategy, especially as it is played out in television commercials.

For example, Feinstein personally wrote the words “tough and caring” into her first TV ad. It was a strategic move aimed at countering the negative perceptions of women as weaker leaders than men and softer on crime, while taking advantage of a positive stereotype that they are more compassionate.

Feinstein’s supporters insist that the “weaker sex” stereotype especially does not fit her.

“She is real tough--I mean real tough,” said Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), a longtime backer who, nevertheless, has frequently tangled with the former mayor. “She doesn’t back down. She thinks she knows what she knows. She’s not pigheaded--she can be persuaded with logic and merit--but if she thinks she’s right, you’ve got one tiger on your hands.”

Regardless, a statewide survey of registered voters by the Times Poll in late March found that on the general perception of “toughness,” Feinstein rated no better against Van de Kamp than women politicians collectively did when compared to men. And that was pretty low.

Similarly, however, Feinstein--and women in general--rated high when judged on “working hard,” “caring” and “ethics.”

A big plus for women politicians in this era of political scandal is that they are perceived to be more honest than men, although one longtime politico who is a woman confided: “Off the record, I don’t think we’re any more honest than men are. We’re human beings, and not any more ethical.”

But the public perception of women is that they are “ethically clean,” noted Field of the California Poll. He theorized that in the voters’ view “women haven’t been in politics long enough to be accepting bribes.”

Thus, when the Times Poll asked voters of both parties in February which of the three major gubernatorial candidates they thought would “do the best job of improving ethics in government,” Feinstein was chosen over Van de Kamp by nearly 4 to 1 and over Republican Sen. Pete Wilson by 3 to 2. Ironically, it is Van de Kamp who has carved out government ethics as a principal issue, deriding the state Capitol as a sleazy “swamp” and sponsoring a major ethics initiative for the November ballot.

Still, specific stereotypes about women and men can be overcome by individual candidates, as both Feinstein and Van de Kamp have shown.

For example, although she is not perceived to be “tougher” generally than Van de Kamp, Feinstein has managed to surmount the perceptions of women as weaker leaders and softer on crime.

Also, in the Times Poll last month, Feinstein--in contrast to women politicians generally--rated well both on “leadership” and “law and order.” Despite Van de Kamp being the state’s chief law enforcement officer, Democratic voters were not certain which candidate would “do the best job handling the death penalty.” If anything, they tended to think Feinstein would.

“She’s like the cops’ pinup lady,” quipped Speaker Brown in commenting on Feinstein’s strong support for the death penalty.

Indeed, Feinstein’s strong advocacy of both the death penalty and abortion rights does place her in the mainstream of California voters, Democrats and Republicans alike. It is a potent combination of positions “that’s tough to beat,” pollster Lewis noted.

The Times Poll found that 43% of Democratic voters both support capital punishment and “favor abortion.” By contrast, only 14% of the Democrats oppose capital punishment and favor abortion.

Just 7% of the Democratic voters share Van de Kamp’s personal opposition to both capital punishment and abortion. Despite his personal views, the attorney general has pledged to carry out the death penalty and is a strong advocate of abortion rights. But many voters find this dichotomy of personal beliefs and public positions contradictory and confusing, Times surveys have indicated.

Feinstein has been trying to capitalize on her opponent’s vulnerability with fervent appeals to women voters. She argues that “the best keeper of the faith” for abortion rights “is a woman who is personally committed and pro-choice.”

To women delegates at last weekend’s state Democratic convention in Los Angeles, she asserted--in a pointed jab at Van de Kamp--that “leadership comes in different packages” and not necessarily in “an Oxford gray suit.”

Feinstein was cheered when she said, “Today, for the first time, a woman stands before you as a candidate for governor. . . . Let’s make history.”

Van de Kamp later characterized the appeal as blatant sexism. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to campaign before women on the basis of ‘Vote for me, I’m a woman,’ ” he said.

But in interviewing voters last month, the Times Poll found that 61% of the women who support Feinstein support her “strongly.” Among both sexes, 55% of Feinstein’s backing is “strong,” compared to just 43% of Van de Kamp’s.

By more than 2 to 1, Democratic voters chose Feinstein as the candidate who “would do the best job of handling the abortion issue.” Men and women favor abortion rights about equally, the survey showed. But women consider the issue to be somewhat more important than men do in deciding who to support for governor. Additionally, women who favor abortion are more likely than men to abandon a candidate who opposes abortion rights.

Van de Kamp scored points with voters last month by urging the state Department of Health Services to allow testing of the French abortion pill RU486, the Times survey showed. Democrats favor the pill by 5 to 3. And when they were asked whether Van de Kamp’s position makes them “more likely” or “less likely” to vote for him, his stand resulted in a net 12-point gain.

The attorney general also has been able to take away from Feinstein one of the perceptions about women politicians that generally helps them, that they are good at shepherding the taxpayers’ money. Van de Kamp has been attacking Feinstein for leaving behind a potential $180-million city deficit when she departed the mayor’s office. In the end, a deficit was avoided when new Mayor Art Agnos took drastic fiscal measures.

In the Times poll, women politicians scored significantly better against men than Feinstein did against Van de Kamp on the question of who is better at handling the taxpayers’ money.

It has been risky, however, for Van de Kamp to attack Feinstein. “Nobody likes negative campaigning--least of all men attacking women,” pollster Lewis said.

The Times survey found evidence of this. Half of those interviewed were asked whether they would be “more likely” or “less likely” to vote for a male candidate who attacked his female opponent. The other half were asked their probable reaction to a woman assailing a man. The result was that among Democratic voters, an attacking man stood to lose 15 points more than an attacking woman.

“Men are more chary of attacking a woman than women are,” said Barbara Johnson, Van de Kamp’s campaign chairman. “. . . In running against a woman one has to be careful. Care has to be taken to run fair and square. You treat a woman with respect. You don’t talk disrespectfully. You talk about her record.”

This has been precisely Van de Kamp’s tack in criticizing Feinstein, Johnson insisted. “Women candidates can’t have it both ways--say they’re equally strong and then cry foul when there’s an attack on their record.”

And she added that Feinstein “should be careful, too. The advantageous part about being a woman (candidate) is that people believe you are caring and compassionate. But there’s a danger of being seen as strident. That could turn people off.”

Former Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge) agreed. A tenacious politician who gave up her House seat to run unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1986, Fiedler said that women candidates must walk a narrow path.

“There’s a very fine line between being strong and effective and coming off bitchy,” she said. “And a woman with a strong personality and presence has to be careful of that.”

Some people think Feinstein stepped over the line with her second TV commercial that seemed to compare Van de Kamp to Richard M. Nixon, subtly equating the attorney general’s criticisms of her to Nixon’s infamous red-baiting of another California woman, Helen Gahagan Douglas, in a U.S. Senate campaign 40 years ago. Ostensibly the purpose of the ad was to ask Van de Kamp to knock off the negative campaigning.

Speaker Brown, one of Feinstein’s strongest supporters, said the TV ad was a bad idea. He explained:

“We have found that you cannot successfully attack a woman. Women just aren’t seen as sleaze yet. You can’t do it; it doesn’t work. And my guess is that if the public has that attitude about women, a woman doing it is really revolting because there’s no credibility to do it. You really can’t sling mud unless you’re a mudder.”

The Times Poll, which interviewed 1,667 registered voters by telephone, found that more than two-thirds of the electorate--men and women alike--think “women are discriminated against in politics.”

Nearly two-thirds of the women, but less than half the men, said that “women have too little influence on American life and politics.”

But less than half the women, and only a third of the men, said that electing more women to high office would “make government better.” Three-fourths of both men and women predicted that the highest offices will remain mostly in male hands for years to come.

The margin of error for the Times Poll, conducted March 23-28, was three percentage points in either direction for all the voters and five points for just the Democrats or Republicans.