Whither Liberal Women in ‘96? : Tired of 20 years battling uphill, they could be an unexpected factor in a Wilson-Clinton presidential race.

While attention has been riveted on the angry white male as the galvanizing force behind the Republican political revolution, an equal but opposite reaction is besetting what might be called the “weary women” voter segment. These women would be a decisive force if Gov. Pete Wilson is the Republican candidate against President Clinton in 1996. Liberal and centrist women, a mainstay of the Democratic Party, are tired of their own agenda. After two decades spent forging a social revolution out of a political process, these women are frightened by the nation’s downsized economy, worried about the future and wondering what their activism has accomplished.

Beyond the coming attack on affirmative action, activist women have recently learned a crucial lesson of American political history: Nothing lasts forever. They are reeling from the embarrassing defeat of Kathleen Brown for California governor plus defeats of progressive Govs. Ann Richards in Texas and Mario Cuomo in New York. The near-loss of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the threatened rollback of the assault-weapons ban are painful indications of how slim is their hold on whatever power they have. Groups like the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee now find themselves trying to fight scores of fires at once, including proposed cuts in nutrition programs, arts and education and attacks on welfare and public broadcasting.

Which brings us to 1996. Abortion is the sole remaining domestic issue that brings women out in force; if Republicans select a perceived anti-choice candidate like Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, women will organize strongly for Clinton. Absent abortion, however, it’s clear that many American women would relish a chance to use 1996 as the first opportunity in 20 years to sink into neutrality or oblivion. It’s this desire to rest from urgent self-protection that appears to underlie the surprising support among women, including many centrist Democrats, for Wilson.

In a Clinton-Wilson race, even Democratic observers note, the women’s vote would splinter. Wilson won 52% of the women’s vote against Brown last November--including 19% of Democratic women and 54% of independents. Even in Wilson’s narrow win against Feinstein for governor in 1990, he got 41% of the women’s vote.

What’s the nature of his appeal, especially against a President who has made women’s issues a cornerstone of his Administration? Wilson, like Clinton, has appointed women to high-level positions, including the Supreme Court, has paid attention to their concerns about prenatal care and child care and has developed programs for small-business development, where women are making progress. His annual bipartisan networking program for women in business is an astounding success. And like Clinton, Wilson has a competent wife (Gayle Wilson was Phi Beta Kappa at Stanford) conversant on the issues--but one who works behind the scenes, as Americans apparently want it.

Certainly Wilson’s willingness to ride Proposition 187 and affirmative action to victory will never win him support from die-hard Democratic women. He won’t miss it. Wilson may be more appealing to some women for what he’s not than what he is: He is not charismatic, does not practice the cult of personality and, as one Republican woman put it, “When he offers to take you home, you’re not worried about what he’ll do when he gets you there.” So long as he does not chip away on choice or introduce rhetoric of race or sex hatred into the affirmative-action debate, they’ll give him a hearing.

For the weary woman voter, being at arm’s length from a candidate might be a relief.