ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, April 19, 1996 TAG: 9604190081
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: HARRIETT WOODS
IT'S ENOUGH to turn the head of every woman in America - all this attention to the importance of the women's vote. Women voters are being courted as never before. The big question, however, is whether they'll still be loved when the election is over. History isn't very reassuring.
The facts are these: Women have made up the majority of voters in every election since 1980. Women are 51 percent of the population, and, according to the Census Bureau, close to 53 percent of the registered voters. In addition, women turn out at higher rates at elections than men. For example, in the last presidential election in 1992, 62.3 percent of voting-age women reported voting, compared to 60.2 percent of men.
That translated into a whopping numerical difference: 60.6 million women compared to 53.3 million men. The immediate results were: more women elected and appointed; more legislation aiding families and creating economic opportunities for women.
Then in 1994, pundits described a backlash by ``angry white men''; the new Congress cut back on legislation and appropriations benefiting women and families. Now the pundits predict that women have been roused, that the gender gap in 1996 will be a ``chasm,'' thus setting off the chase for women's votes.
But there's a catch. Women aren't a separate voting bloc that can be delivered through gender-specific issues. Women are concerned, as are men, about personal pocketbook concerns, about their families and communities, about quality of leadership and the role of government. Their views are just as fragmented by income, education, geography, religion, ethnicity. Everyone agrees, however, that they tend to see things through a slightly different lens.
So how is the courtship going? Both major parties have been putting forward ``Joan'' Aldens as matchmakers. Republicans showcase women party leaders and members of Congress; the White House sends forth high-ranking women appointees - with bragging rights of naming women to a record nearly one-third of all senior policy positions. But as proud and pleased as women are to see other women in decision-making positions, they're smart enough to know who still holds the real power when the post-election parties are over. As the John Alden-Myles Standish story attests, surrogates don't necessarily deliver for someone else.
Women also are being touted as convention keynote speakers. (Current favorites: Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman for the Republicans.) It's infuriating to have women suggested solely as devices to deliver a constituency. They've earned the right to be there as achievers who have something to say.
It's time for political leaders to try something new - like giving women a little credit for intelligence. Women know their own self-interests. They are wage-earners and they are small businesswomen. They are harried mothers at home; they are dedicated professionals at work; they are every combination thereof. They also share, according to surveys and exit polls, some special perspectives that deserve attention, particularly compassion, and a greater willingness to use government to achieve fair treatment for children, the elderly and the disadvantaged. That may be one reason why there's been a gender gap favoring Democrats since 1980, and why Democrats in 1996 see women as their secret weapon. Republicans, saddled with the images of Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan, still see hope because a majority of white women voted for Republican congressional candidates in 1994.
There are signs both parties are gingerly exploring a more thoughtful approach. Republicans have been organizing seminars for women; the White House opened a women's outreach office to learn women's viewpoints. Meanwhile, a bipartisan national coalition of mainstream women's groups called Women's Vote '96 is helping women to make their own connections between voting and their vital concerns.
There is tremendous cynicism about the election process among women, just as there is among men. Politicians have chased women's votes in the past, then forgotten their priorities. Will it be different in 1996?
Only if women flex their political muscles. Every woman must start by defining what really matters most to her, her most urgent concerns. Then she must understand that the vote is one way to get control over these concerns. Finally she must ask questions, individually or through support groups, insisting that candidates make specific commitments so that they can be held accountable. Those romancing your vote won't necessarily follow through unless you do.
A millionaire and a working mother each have one vote. He may be able to multiply his with dollars; women can multiply theirs with numbers. Women aren't a special-interest group; they are the majority - in 1996, they must make good use of their deciding vote.
Harriett Woods, an adjunct professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, is the former lieutenant governor of Missouri.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune
LENGTH: Medium: 92 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICSby CNB