Anger Equals Action

INSIDE THE LOBBY OF HER WASHINGTON, D.C., OFFICE, ELLEN Malcolm dips into a ratty gray mailbag, rummages around, pulls out a stack of white envelopes and breaks into a broad grin. These are checks, dozens of them, for three women candidates--California Senate hopefuls Rep. Barbara Boxer and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, and Rep. Joan Kelly Horn (D-Mo.), who faces a tough reelection battle. Emily’s List, the political-donor network that Malcolm runs, solicited the money.

Malcolm has good reason to smile, as do the leaders of such other fund-raising organizations as the National Women’s Political Caucus and the Women’s Campaign Fund. The months since Anita Hill aired charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas have been lucrative ones. “We’ve seen a re-politicization of women who were active in the ‘70s,” Malcolm reports. “These are not fringe activists that are trying to go out and do alternative politics.”

Lawmakers on both sides agree. “Something hit home--that it matters when a legislative body doesn’t reflect the composition of the people it governs,” says Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). “Women are 50% of the economic force in this country, and it hardly registers in the Senate or the House.” Adds Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate to the House, “Anyone who underestimates it doesn’t know how to read political tea leaves.”

A broad range of pollsters also are predicting that 1992 will be the year of the woman candidate. They cite the nation’s anti-incumbent, anti-Washington mood (women benefit from being perceived as outsiders), a growing focus on domestic issues (voters view women as strong on health and education, weak on foreign and military policy) and redistricting (which will open up more seats to non-incumbents). Because of redistricting, “there could be three to four times as many open (House) seats in 1992 as 1988, then it all shuts down again,” says Malcolm. She predicts that between 10 and 20 non-incumbent women will have a “very good” shot at House seats next November, compared to about half a dozen who were considered strong candidates in 1990.

Women made up about 3% of state legislators in the early 1970s; today that number is 18%. In 1972, there were 14 Democratic and two Republican women in the House of Representatives. Today there are 20 Democratic women and nine Republicans--out of a total of 435. Only two of the nation’s 100 senators are women (Republican Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas and Democrat Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland). Gains at the local level have been stronger, and one group--the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee--is redoubling efforts on state and municipal races and striving to funnel money to minority women.

Boxer says the Thomas hearings “jump-started” her campaign. When she declared, volunteers swamped her offices--some offering to raise funds, others staffing a new phone bank. And the returns on a fund-raising appeal mailed shortly after the hearings were more than double what had been expected, according to her campaign manager.

Feinstein, too, is reaping the rewards of the Hill-Thomas hearings. The first Emily’s List mailing for her during the 1990 California gubernatorial race brought in $14,000; the November mailing for this year’s Senate contest collected $45,000. And volunteers are coming forward earlier in the cycle. “It created a real sense of urgency,” says Feinstein adviser Bill Carrick.

The hearings also gave rise to a Senate candidacy in Illinois--that of Carol Moseley Braun, Cook County recorder of deeds. After the Hill-Thomas episode, residents called press conferences to convince Braun to run against Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who voted for Thomas’ confirmation. “The hearings demystified the Senate to the American people,” says Braun. “Most people had a view of the Senate as this august body of demigods who deal with weighty issues. Instead, they saw a bunch of garden-variety politicians making bad speeches.”

A national survey of 1,160 voters in September--sponsored by Emily’s List, the Women’s Campaign Fund and the National Women’s Political Caucus--found more support for unnamed women candidates, regardless of party, than men. Whether this will translate into votes next November remains to be seen.

History suggests that women candidates, particularly those perceived as focusing on feminist issues, face an uphill battle. In his book “Why Americans Hate Politics,” Washington Post political writer E. J. Dionne observed that during the 1980s liberals supported feminist issues in polls but didn’t put them first in the voting booth. Conservatives, however, did vote on these issues-- against them. So support for feminist issues cost Democrats votes. Renewed activism by women could change that.