CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY THE GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY : With Two Candidates So Close in Belief, the Choice Becomes Personal : Gender is by no means the only basis for preferring Feinstein. But since she’s clearly shown her abilities, it’s a legitimate factor.

The idea of a woman governor of California has considerable appeal--the same kind of appeal that Tom Bradley’s candidacy had in 1982 and 1986, and that Andrew Young’s in Georgia and Ann Richards’ in Texas have in 1990. All of these possibilities, past and present, have the same import--making history, expanding the base from which leaders are elected and installing a more responsive government.

There is no question that the life experience and background of any officeholder affects how he or she governs. Who could deny that had George Bush, for example, been born poor, black and female, he would have greater sensitivity and commitment to the poor and those who are racially and sexually disadvantaged? (Whether he would be President is another question.) And does anyone believe that if Latinos are able to break the hammerlock of the Anglo white male on the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, the policies of that body will not change?

It is against this backdrop that I have considered the question of whether to support Dianne Feinstein in her bid to become California’s first woman governor. This consideration started from an unarguable bottom line--that I would not support any woman solely because of her sex. A candidate must offer more in the way of qualifications and positions on the issues.

I would certainly prefer John Van de Kamp, Feinstein’s opponent in the Democratic primary, to the Republican opposition, Sen. Pete Wilson. Van de Kamp has a solid liberal background, a good record of public service and favorable stands on most of the issues I care about. But so does Feinstein, and all other things being equal, I would rather use my vote and resources to make a statement, to break new ground and to craft new role models than to send another white male to Sacramento.

Maybe the political pundits are right when they say the 1990s will be the decade of women in politics. Certainly it has occurred to many voters, and to women voters in particular, that women cannot possibly be more ineffective than men have been in tackling the problems of crime, drugs, the homeless, education, and lack of equal economic opportunities.

I’ve heard John Van de Kamp described as “the best

feminist” in the race. I reject that argument. I do not believe that men, at this point in our history, can be “better feminists” than most women, or that Van de Kamp is better in this regard than Feinstein.

Nor do I buy one of the other arguments against Feinstein’s candidacy, that there can be too many women on the ballot in November. That’s an old argument that whites used to discourage blacks’ political aspirations. And, of course, no one ever argues that there are too many white males on the ballot.

This does not mean that all women are good feminists. Margaret Thatcher and Sandra Day O’Connor prove otherwise. But progressive and qualified women candidates should, for now, be supported over even progressive, qualified male candidates in order to create an atmosphere in which women, minorities and the disadvantaged are more likely to aspire.

Dianne Feinstein’s candidacy could not have come at a better time. Women are angry and resentful over efforts of recent years to return the country to pre-Roe vs. Wade times. Also, people have witnessed the performance of women alongside men in unprecedented areas of the working world, and there is a stronger feeling that there is no longer any justification for discriminating against women solely on the basis of gender.

Aside from the philosophical and historical reasons for supporting Dianne Feinstein, she is running a good race and giving Van de Kamp and his supporters much to worry about. And she and her supporters have been undeniably successful in preventing Van de Kamp from sweeping his party’s support.

The Feinstein positions on most issues, with the notable exception of capital punishment, are comparable to mine and to those of her Democratic opponents. Although I am not philosophically opposed to the death penalty, I think that Feinstein needs to examine the issue of whether it has not been disproportionately used against minority males.

One should not be so naive as to think that Dianne Feinstein’s nomination and election would automatically result in a better world for women and minorities or more effective solutions to the social and economic problems we face. And it may be that neither of the candidates of my party will be equal to the formidable task of beating Wilson and his megamillion-dollar war chest. But I am willing to take my chances, because it is clear that the near-monopoly that the white male has on political power, and the resulting social and economic imbalances, cannot be corrected unless more non-males and non-whites are elected.