The Boxer Rebellion: Will Women Candidates Now Gain an Edge? : Campaigns: Mel Levine and Barbara Boxer are close on many issues. But will Levine be penalized because of the Thomas factor and bad timing?

Barbara Boxer may be the only feminist in America who has any reason to be grateful to the likes of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo), let alone Clarence Thomas. In a three-way race for the U.S. Senate in California, she has lagged behind Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy in name recognition and Rep. Mel Levine in money. But if anyone is the likely beneficiary of activists’ desire to elect women to the Senate, it’s the woman who led the women of the House up the Senate stairs to protest that body’s inattention to sexual harassment. And, ironically, if anyone is going to be hurt, it’s the liberal, and feminist, Levine.

Recently, when invitations went out to a Levine fund-raiser from a who’s who list of Hollywood and its spouses, there was some uneasy chatter in the background from women supporting Levine and feeling uncomfortable about it. In the short run, Levine needn’t worry too much. Fund-raising tends to be a much bigger problem for women candidates than for men. Certainly, it is a much bigger problem in this race for Boxer than for Levine.

But Boxer and Levine are targeting many of the same activists, donors and, ultimately, voters in their effort to overtake the better-known lieutenant governor. Which means that in the long run, notwithstanding his solid voting record on issues of concern to women, and notwithstanding his outspoken opposition to the Justice Department’s support of Operation Rescue, Levine may have some explaining to do. If there’s no difference between Boxer and Levine on the issues, why not vote for the woman?

The Thomas hearings were, from beginning to end, a painful lesson in the powerlessness of women. The women who stood up got shot down. The villains were a conservative woman law professor; civil-rights and pro-choice groups, and even the woman reporter who broke the story. However much we thought things had changed, or that we were changing them, no one in the room with any power was a woman.

At least that’s how it looked to many Democratic Party activists. It explains the almost immediate consensus, again among activists, that the only way to respond to Thomas’ confirmation is to focus on electing progressive women.

Unfortunately, there just aren’t many running. Probably the biggest obstacle to women’s political advancement is incumbency--which is why reapportionment and term limits may be more important to the election of women than Thomas, or even abortion. In Illinois, former federal judge Susan Getzendanner is considering challenging pro-Thomas Sen. Alan J. Dixon in the Democratic primary. In New York, Geraldine A. Ferraro and Elizabeth Holtzman are running against each other. And in California, we have Dianne Feinstein and Boxer. Feinstein, a strong fund-raiser, has already run statewide, and nearly won; many consider her the front-runner in her campaign against Gray Davis for John Seymour’s Senate seat. Boxer very much needed the attention her supporters say she’s getting as a result of the Thomas hearing.

Of course, the conventional wisdom these days is that the Thomas confirmation will have no lasting political impact. The polls, reflecting in part the results of the well-orchestrated White House campaign, showed strong support for Thomas, even among women. The senators who led the attack all came out with positive favorability ratings.

Levine would do well to ignore the conventional wisdom. Women outnumber men in Democratic Party registration by 750,000. Whatever the mood among the population as a whole, if there is one group most likely to see the Thomas hearings the way activists do, it’s people who started out not trusting Thomas very much; who cared enough to actually watch the hearings themselves--even on Sunday morning when footfall was on, and who recognize sexism when they see it. America may have supported Thomas, but I doubt that California’s Democratic primary voters did.

Indeed, among Democratic primary voters, a vote for a woman for Senate may be a chance to send a message not only about Anita Faye Hill and how she was treated, but also about how out of touch the Congress and the White House both seem with the concerns of average Americans. No mater what job they hold, women in politics are outsiders. That’s the way the men have always treated them. This year, it may be an advantage.

Whether it’s enough of an advantage to carry two women to the Senate is, of course, far from clear. There’s certainly no love lost between Feinstein and Boxer. In the 1990 California governor’s race, Boxer endorsed Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp over Feinstein, calling him the “best feminist” in the race. Some of Levine’s supporters will doubtless make the same claim for him. But it’s harder to swallow when the image of 14 white men sitting in judgment is still fresh.

Much can change between now and June; 1990 was supposed to be the year of the woman, too, but it didn’t quite work out that way. A worsening economy can eclipse every other issue. The argument to vote for a candidate because she is a woman has to be made subtly: Voters historically have tended to resent the explicit call to vote on the ground of gender (an appeal to “make history” is a better bet), and the argument in any form won’t work if voters are convinced the woman is less qualified. Besides, can Feinstein and Boxer both ask us to make history at the same time?

We’ll probably hear a great deal from Levine on the qualifications issue, and on the economy. His supporters will be talking up Feinstein--even if his consulting firm is working for her opponent: It may be easier for primary voters to vote against Boxer if they’re voting for Feinstein. And vice versa: Boxer supporters won’t complain too loudly if Davis uses Boxer’s Van de Kamp endorsement against the former San Francisco mayor.

When Colorado Sen. Gary Hart ran against a pro-abortion rights Republican woman some years ago, he ran ads of himself in a tank--without a helmet on, of course. It was a not-so-subtle reminder that being a senator is “a man’s job,” and it worked. Maybe Levine and the others can do it with images of large, idle factory machines, or Gulf War veterans.

But in the end, it will still be a difficult choice. It would be a lot easier if Boxer were running for the Senate against Specter instead of Levine. But Specter, the overbearing inquisitor of Hill, is facing an anti-abortion conservative in the Pennsylvania GOP primary and, most likely, an anti-abortion Democrat in November. Pro-choice voters in Pennsylvania have no good alternative to Specter. He gets a free ride. And Levine has to carry his baggage. Whoever said politics was fair?