If elected this fall, the former eBay chairwoman would be the first business magnate in 150 years and the days of Leland Stanford – with all due apologies to Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose celebrity stems more from filmdom than finance – to occupy the first floor of the State Capitol. As the first governor with a home address in Silicon Valley and a résumé steeped in e-commerce, Meg Whitman also would be the first governor to embody the New Economy.
And did I mention that, if elected, Whitman would be California’s first woman governor? That’s funny, because Whitman seemingly has no interest in promoting herself as a lower-case first lady. And that puts her in line for another distinction: the rare woman to seek a high-profile office who didn’t try to make the xx chromosome an x factor in her winning formula.
This is not to say that the feminine mystique has completely vanished from the Whitman campaign. Early into her run, the Republican frontrunner launched a “MEGaWomen” coalition that promised to “provide an opportunity for dynamic women throughout California – Republicans, Democrats and independents – to recruit, volunteer and vote for Meg Whitman for governor.” How many women? Thirteen million of adult age, and more than 850,000 women-owned businesses, Whitman’s campaign literature suggests.
Yet on the campaign trail, Whitman doesn’t resort to the kind of rhetoric we’ve become accustomed to from the likes of Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein – no emotional appeals to crack the glass ceiling, or proving a woman’s place is in the House and the Senate.
So far, for Whitman, it’s all about sticking to a gender-neutral script: jobs, education and a spine of steel. There’s no tugging at heartstrings – not unless you’re paying attention to another race and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who cites her bout with breast cancer and climb from office receptionist as proof of her feistiness.
So why would Whitman choose to cloak herself in androgynous messaging? Sure, there are the peculiarities of a conservative-tilting GOP primary. So, better Plain Jane than Jane Fonda. Moreover, and unlike Fiorina’s biography, Whitman’s led a charmed life that’s not the stuff of Lifetime dramas.
A more salient answer might be that Whitman simply is adapting the world she now inhabits – not just Republican voters, but a grumpy nation-state. She’s no Schwarzenegger in terms of charisma and showmanship. But when fourth-fifths of the electorate believes the state’s on the wrong track, and less than three in 10 voters like the job the governator’s doing, why try to get in on his act?
Whitman was somewhat Arnold-like during her eBay days, throwing high-energy pep rallies. She’s smart enough to realize that, in a slow economy, voters aren’t looking for a cheerleader.
Is the gender-neutral approach working for Whitman? Judging by her gaudy lead in the Republican primary, there’s little question that Whitman has all but neutralized Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. And, per recent statewide polls, Whitman enjoys a narrow lead over her likely November opponent, Attorney General Jerry Brown.
But to remain ahead come November, Whitman will have to do better among – you guessed it – women, who accounted for 51 percent of voters in the 2006 governor’s race.
In the latest Field Poll, Whitman led Brown among women, 45 percent to 43 percent. But among men, she led 47 percent to 43 percent.
How does that compare to the last two Republicans to be elected governor? In 2006, exit polls had Schwarzenegger winning the women’s vote, 55 percent to 41 percent. That’s double Pete Wilson’s margin in 1994, when he finished seven percentage points ahead of Kathleen Brown among California women.
But Schwarzenegger and Wilson enjoyed something in their landslide wins that Whitman probably will not in what’s expected to be a tight race: commanding leads among male voters (a 23-point edge for Wilson; 15 points for Schwarzenegger). It’s hard to imagine Jerry Brown running a campaign as ill-conceived as his sister’s was 16 years ago, or doing something as self-destructive as calling for a tax increase, which contributed mightily to Phil Angelides’ doom four years ago.
Facing a smart opponent who may deprive her of the advantage of a male gender gap, Whitman may find it necessary to return to that concept of “MEGaWomen.” What a refreshing conservation it could be, especially if she has the courage to craft a “post-glass ceiling” message that has little to do with resentment or victimization.
And for California, an opportunity to see if Meg Whitman can do something no man can – to not only talk CEO to shareholder, but woman to woman.
Bill Whalen
