The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Monday, we preview the whites' reform referendum in South Africa. Nobel Laureate James Buchanan looks at the U.S. economy and essayist Roger Rosenblatt observes trial by television. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown were at each other again today. Clinton said Brown was not cut to be President and ought to pack up his tent and go home. Brown said Clinton had a scandal a week and he would continue to point them out until the convention. Their mutual hostility surfaced in a pre-Michigan and Illinois primary debate last night in Chicago. Brown accused Clinton of funneling State of Arkansas money to his wife's Little Rock law firm, a charge Clinton heatedly denied. Paul Tsongas, the third man in the Democratic race, has stayed out of the mudslinging. In Chicago this morning he said he believed the candidate who remains above the fray becomes the alternative. Republican candidate Pat Buchanan did some last minute campaigning in Michigan. Polls showed him lagging far behind President Bush there and in Illinois. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The federal government has begun a criminal investigation of a bank that formerly served the House of Representatives. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington said the probe began last fall. He refused to say who or what was targeted. The House Ethics Committee this month revealed that more than 300 past and present House members have written checks on accounts at the bank without sufficient funds to cover them. The Chrysler Corporation today turned to General Motors for a replacement for Chairman Lee Iacocca. He is Robert Eaton, and he has headed GM's operations in Europe for the past four years. Eaton will hold the title of vice chairman of Chrysler until the 67 year old Iacocca steps down at the end of this year. Iacocca joined Chrysler in 1978. He will continue to serve on its board of directors after his retirement.

MR. LEHRER: South African President DeKlerk today called for a "yes" vote in the referendum on ending apartheid. He said to do otherwise could plunge South Africa into chaos. Jeremy Thompson of Independent Television News reports on tomorrow's "whites only" vote.

MR. THOMPSON: In Johannesburg, South Africans woke up to a new campaign commercial. It could be tomorrow's headlines.

ANNOUNCER: South Africa banned from the world cup cricket, negotiations broken up, underground struggle resumed, tens of thousands predicted to lose jobs as international sanctions imposed. If you vote "no," or don't vote at all, this is what you can expect.

MR. THOMPSON: But despite a multimillion pound advertising campaign by the government and big business, South Africa's five million whites are still deeply divided over which way to vote. Right wing Afrikaners still seem unperturbed by the international consequences of a "no" vote, they're motivated by parochial concerns such as rising crime, recession, and the threat of a black government. Law and order remains a major factor in this referendum. Security was stepped up today after another weekend of violence in the townships which claimed 40 more lives. While most blacks will benefit from a vote for reform, there are rebel elements within Inkatha and the ANC who are opposed to compromise. It's believed they're using violence to provoke worried whites into voting "no."

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens denied again today Israel sold missiles or missile technology to China. He did so in Washington after a meeting with Defense Secretary Dick Cheney at the Pentagon. Arens said this to reporters after that meeting.

MOSHE ARENS, Defense Minister, Israel: I told Sec. Cheney that there was no ground at all for the allegations that Israel had sold Patriot Missiles or Patriot Missile technology to China. And I think we'll be looking at ways of making sure that the United States can verify that that's the case, because that is the case.

MR. LEHRER: Arens and other Israeli leaders have said they believe the allegations were leaked to hurt israel's image in the United States. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater today denied the administration had anything to do with any such thing. He said the U.S. government had worked long and hard to develop good relations with Israel.

MS. WOODRUFF: Russia took a step toward formation of its own army today. President Boris Yeltsin created a Russian defense ministry which he will head for now. His military aides said Russia could have a 1 1/2 million man force within two years. Also today, the President of Kazakhstan said he had established a special military force to defend his republic. The moves were a blow to efforts by the commonwealth of independent states to keep the former Soviet army under central control.

MR. LEHRER: Officials in Turkey said today more than 375 bodies have been found in the rubble of last week's earthquake. They said there was little hope of finding more survivors. The final death toll was expected to be about 800. Another 180,000 people were left homeless by the quake, which struck Eastern Turkey Friday.

MS. WOODRUFF: A group of investigators claim to have solved the Amelia Erhart mystery. The pilot and her navigator disappeared more than 50 years ago while attempting to fly around the world. They were last seen leaving New Guinea en route to Howland Island in the South Pacific. At a news conference today in Washington, the investigators produced a piece of metal they said was part of the plane's fuselage. They also displayed a shoe heel and soul which they think belonged to Miss Erhart. At the news conference, the lead investigator, Richard Gillespie, explained what he believed happened to the pilot and her navigator.

RICHARD GILLESPIE, Historic Aircraft Investigator: On July 2, 1937, Amelia Erhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, after failing to find Howland Island, flew down a 157 degree line of position and arrived over Nikumararo, then known as "Gardener Island," at about 11 AM local time. The tide was low and a safe, wheels-down landing was made on the dry reef flat at the island's western end. For three days, radio distress calls were sent, but sometime between July 5th and July 9th, high seas severely damaged the aircraft and swept it out and over the edge of the reef. Erhart and Noonan survived for an unknown period of time before dying on the waterless atoll.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, the upcoming "whites only" referendum in South Africa, a Nobel Prize winning economist and Roger Rosenblatt on the recent run of trials on television. FOCUS - DECISIVE MOMENT

MR. LEHRER: Tomorrow's vote in South Africa is our lead story tonight. The vote is for whites only. They are to say yes or no to continuing the white government's negotiations with the black majority to write a new constitution. Our preview begins with this report by Julian O'Halloran of the BBC News Night program.

SPOKESMAN: Yes, you! Don't look around. I'm talking to you. Did you vote yes today?

JULIAN O'HALLORAN: A desperate appeal from the ruling National Party is targeted at apathetic whites as polling day arrives.

SPOKESMAN: What about the guy next to you, well, what's his excuse?

MR. O'HALLORAN: The style is highly seductive, but subtlety has not been a prominent feature of this referendum.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: If friends or colleagues have forgotten that the referendum is on today, please remind them to vote "yes."

MR. O'HALLORAN: It's one of scores of commercials with which South Africans have been bombarded by the powerful alliance demanding a "yes" to further reform. The ads have focused overwhelmingly on the terror, rumination and decay which would result, it's suggested, from a "no" majority.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: To get back into big time business, vote "yes" on --

COMMERCIAL SPOKESPERSON: Decide on your future and that of South Africa. Vote "yes."

COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: Every no show is actually a "no" vote.

MR. O'HALLORAN: Much of this advertising has been paid for by big business, coordinated by a prominent publishing group, Times Media Limited. The newspaper and industry bosses masterminding the publicity have portrayed a no majority as leading to an upsurge in activity from the extreme right wing AWB.

STEPHEN MULHOLLAND, Managing Director, Times Media: [in meeting] They will take it as a victory and they will be on the streets and the blacks will be against them. We will have stones thrown. We'll have blood in the streets.

MR. O'HALLORAN: They admit a lot of the advertising has been negative in tone but say that's justified by circumstances.

STEPHEN MULHOLLAND, Managing Director, Times Media: We can't go and paint a rosy picture. Forty years of apartheid, forty years of evil have left this country as Communism left Eastern Europe in a situation where reform is problematic, difficult, treacherous and dangerous. And that's the way it is. The other way, the no way, is certain doom, certain doom, the Armageddon.

MR. O'HALLORAN: Two hours from Johannesburg, nursery school children in the town of Evanda welcome President F.W. DeKlerk. Opposition to his policies is high here, but the turnout by parents is better than expected. DeKlerk, who's campaigned twelve or fifteen hours a day, for three weeks, this is no chance of a photo opportunity. In his speeches, he suggests he can negotiate a place for whites in government even after the black majority gets the vote.

PRESIDENT F. W. DE KLERK: We're being accused of organizing or promoting a suicide plan for you who are here together today. The opposite is true. We're working for a survival plan. We're working for a success plan.

MR. O'HALLORAN: President DeKlerk has run this referendum rather like an American Presidential campaign. Other National Party politicians have hardly been in the picture, while DeKlerk has been speaking six, seven, sometimes eight times a day. But for all his energy and arguments, there's no convincing evidence that he's managed to win back the sizeable slice of support he's lost for his reform process during the past two years. Half an hour later, DeKlerk is at a barbecue 10 miles away, giving the impression every voter and every handshake counts.

MR. O'HALLORAN: [talking to DeKlerk] Your prime minister said the other day that he thought it would be important to get at least 50 percent on Tuesday. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT F. W. DE KLERK, South Africa: A win is a win. I'm not differing from him that 60 percent would be a marvelous win, but a 1 percent win is a win and it will give me a mandate to go ahead. The bigger the percentage is, the bigger the impetus will be that that win will give to the whole process.

MR. O'HALLORAN: Later the same day, police and farmers gather at Nelstrom, Northern Transval, where DeKlerk continues on the campaign trail. When excitable farmers try to crowd an entrance to the hall where DeKlerk is speaking, police give them short shrift. This is a right wing stronghold, where conservatives, disgusted by the prospect of black majority rule, sense it's their last chance to alter the course of events. Away from the political meeting, members of a Johannesburg sports club study possibly the most powerful argument in the "yes" campaign. Holding the referendum while the South African team does battle in the world cup cricket has been a massive stroke of timing. All but one or two of those we met here, said they would vote "yes" and that ending sporting isolation influences their decision.

SPOKESMAN: Every South African I think is glad to see us all back and I think that's what we wanted. We don't want to be isolated. We want to be and show the world what we can do.

MR. O'HALLORAN: Will you be voting yes in the referendum?

SPOKESMAN: Definitely.

MR. O'HALLORAN: In a country which has missed the being obsessed with sport, this could make all the difference.

SPOKESPERSON: [talking to group] Okay. Comrades, what we're going to do here today is sticking up these posters, all right?

MR. O'HALLORAN: In Johannesburg, members of an ANC branch put in their efforts for the "yes" campaign. Why? Well, said a black member, because I love DeKlerk as well as the ANC. But even with the ANC and the white opposition Democratic Party behind it, the "yes" campaign is far from confident of victory. Does that mean the big media blitz has failed?

STOFFEL VAN DER MERWE, Secretary, General National Party: One has to look at the result of the end of the vote. But, on the other hand, it is true that this is a very momentous decision to pick and if you would just think of the distance which we have required the South African electorate to travel in a short space of time, then the facts that we can call such a referendum on such a question at this time and hope for a reasonable win is something fantastic anyway.

MR. O'HALLORAN: The National Party in its haste has clearly left an important section of its white support. It has staked everything on a new South Africa, where it hopes to thrive and recruit a large black membership. Whether the gamble has paid off, we'll know in 36 hours.

MS. WOODRUFF: We get two South African views now. Anton Harber is an editor of The Weekly Mail in Johannesburg. He is visiting the United States and he joins us from public television station WGBH in Boston. Petrus Liebenberg is a political scientist and lecturer in national strategy at Rand Afrikan's University. He has been an analyst and researcher at the South African Department of Defense and the Bureau of Racial Affairs. He is now on a fellowship at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, and he joins us from public station WHYY. We are still waiting for a third guest, a human rights lawyer and the former leader of the United Democratic Front, Azare Kash Kashalia. We hope that he will be joining us shortly. But in the meantime, let me start with you, Mr. Harber. Why did President DeKlerk call this referendum now?

MR. HARBER: He had made an earlier promise that before there was any final constitutional change, he would take it back to his electorate, the white electorate, and get a mandate from them. Whether or not he was about to stick to that promise is one question, but he felt obliged to stick to it. And I think that he felt that the sooner he did that, the better and the better his chances of defeating the far right wing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Liebenberg, do you see it the same way, that that was the President's reasoning behind this?

MR. LIEBENBERG: Basically, yes. One has to remember that he suffered a serious defeat in the very important Pacherstorm parliamentary bielection held on February 19th. President DeKlerk, himself, elevated that bielection.

MS. WOODRUFF: This was a parliamentary vote.

MR. LIEBENBERG: Exactly. To the proportions of a general thirst for a measure of support among the white electorate, because Pacherstrom is a fairly stable economic and financial and primarily a town with a large university and it is town, town of President DeKlerk. And I think that for him quite unexpected and serious defeat actually hastened his decision to call for a general, not a general election, but for this referendum to measure his white support, and the sooner the better, because these factors that he, himself, pointed out and that has been pointed out quite recently, the drought, the serious drought, the bad economy, the rising crime rate, et cetera, actually jeopardizes his chances the longer he waits.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Harber, for those who don't follow South Africa closely, for those who knew that your country's moving toward -- rather away from apartheid -- explain why only the whites are voting in this referendum.

MR. HARBER: Well, it's an oddity. It's a leftover from the previous constitution. Under the current constitution only whites have the vote. And DeKlerk feels that since it was the whites who gave him the mandate to get this far, in order to go through the final process of negotiations, he needs to get a mandate from that constituency. It is an oddity. It is something the African National Congress has opposed. They have said very strongly that it is not appropriate that there be a "whites only" election in this climate and they did oppose it. They have said though that once it's happening, they would prefer and would support a "yes" vote. But there has been a lot of in principle disagreement with the holding of a white referendum in this climate.

MS. WOODRUFF: With the holding of the referendum at all.

MR. HARBER: That's right.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you think, what is really at stake here, Mr. Harber? Is this the end all and be all of peace and avoiding civil war in South Africa, as one would believe from listening to some of the commercials that are airing right now?

MR. HARBER: I don't think it's quite true. I think it's a decisive moment when we will decide whether our country moves swiftly to majority rule or to an interim government towards majority rule, or whether there is a much slower, much more difficult, much more conflict-ridden process. Even if the far right wing wins a "no" vote, I believe that in the end the process that has begun is irreversible. Our people have had a taste of democracy and a taste of freedom and they're not going to let that go away. A "no" vote will mean some very difficult, very tough years in which we have to convince the far right wing of that. But I don't think it means the be all and end all.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Liebenberg, do you see that as he does?

MR. LIEBENBERG: Here basically a "no" vote would mean a victory for the right wing, for the conservatives. One has to bear in mind that a sizable number of people voted so far against the government, against the governing National Party, especially in the Pochester bielection, could be regarded as a protest vote rather than a pro-conservative vote. Now, on the other hand, should the right wing lose this referendum, especially by a narrow margin.

MS. WOODRUFF: In other words, if the "yes" wins.

MR. LIEBENBERG: If it's a yes win. The positive side is that it may strengthen the hands of a person like Mr. Van der Merwe, I think he's not insignificant.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now who is this?

MR. LIEBENBERG: One of the prominent figures within the Conservative Party is presumably in favor of negotiating, of going to the CODESA, which stands for Convention for a Democratic South Africa talks. That could strengthen his hands and that that of his supporters to make a case for going to the negotiating table to put their case and their ideas on the table. And he at the moment is quite a strong figure in the right wing Conservative Party.

MS. WOODRUFF: And you're saying that might happen if the conservatives lose, in other words, if the yes win.

MR. LIEBENBERG: Exactly. Because what is the alternative? Ongoing conflict with the prospect of continued violence and bloodshed.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you don't have the sort of stark scenario in mind that some have painted if this goes either way?

MR. LIEBENBERG: You see unfortunately, and to me it's unfortunate, the whole referendum issue I'm afraid is to a certain extent going to be decided by sets of fears, on the one hand to the right the fear for maybe a black government with a socialist program, the drought, the bad economy, and threats of nationalization, redistribution of wealth and land, on the other hand, in the full page ads of the National Party, they also heavily beat the drum of fear of continuing and massive black resistance in the case of a "no" vote, of reinstating sanctions and economic ruin and all that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Isolationism?

MR. LIEBENBERG: Isolationism.

MS. WOODRUFF: Being isolated.

MR. LIEBENBERG: Unfortunately, you know, these two sets of fears is going to have a tremendous impact either this way or that way. The positive side is that many South Africans truly believe in going to the negotiating table.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying that most South Africans are going, white South Africans who are voting are not going to listen to which set of fears?

MR. LIEBENBERG: Well, they are, of course. I mean, fear is a very real thing in the lives, in the everyday lives of South Africans, especially with our rising crime rate. But on the positive side, not everybody is going to cast his vote on the grounds of fear alone, also on the grounds of positive attitudes. And I have to emphasize that also within the right wing there are people that is in favor of negotiation.

MS. WOODRUFF: I see your point. Mr. Harber, is this fear versus fear, is that what's going to decide that, and if it is, which side seems to be winning that argument at this point?

MR. HARBER: Yes. I think it is fear versus fear. That is a very good characterization. Whites are scared. There is a great deal of fear within the white community. And it's a question of which fears wins out, whether there is a greater fear of a return to international isolation and a return to the resistance movement, or a fear of what they see as the consequences of majority rule. At this point, I think it's very close. I think it's a lot closer than it was a week or ten days ago.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is that?

MR. HARBER: I think because the far right wing campaign has gained momentum. They had a bad start to the campaign. They appeared disunited, uncertain whether they would even take part in the referendum, and they didn't have the access to media and the resources available to those in favor of a yes vote, who had overwhelmingly the greater resources and a quick, coherent, well put message to put out.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what is the argument they're making that's being effective?

MR. HARBER: I think it's, it's that a "yes" vote means one thing. It means majority rule and all the consequences thereof. It means a loss of white power and the loss of white privilege. And clearly that's going to touch a cord with a lot of nervous wives.

MS. WOODRUFF: If it's a close result, where does that leave -- say Mr. DeKlerk wins, Mr. Liebenberg, but with a close vote and you can tell me what's close, is it 2 points, is it 5 points, does that leave him with the mandate he needs to proceed with reform and with negotiation?

MR. LIEBENBERG: That's the question of what is or what could be considered to be an adequate majority. He, himself, made it abundantly clear that the majority of one would be regarded as a mandate to go ahead with the reform process. Now we know that the greater his majority, the greater his credibility around the conference table. The negotiating process will in the near future enter a phase where President DeKlerk, as well as the other parties around the table, will have to make some tough decisions. Now his party has lost three bielections in a row over the past year. And the greater his majority at this referendum, the greater his credibility is going to be, because this whole referendum was announced to kind of reemphasize the fact that he has got a clear mandate from the white electorate, his basic constituency.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what I'm asking is, is if it's a narrow win for him, what can he do?

MR. LIEBENBERG: There's very little he can do, except that he will go forth with the negotiating process. I mean, there's no way you can change the realities of the election result, or the referendum result. But he, himself, covered himself by saying that a majority of --

MS. WOODRUFF: And we heard him say that. Mr. Harber, how big a win, let me put it this way, how big a win does President DeKlerk have to have in order to move ahead, as he believes he needs to move ahead, with negotiations toward reform and ending apartheid?

MR. HARBER: I would have thought that he needed more than 55 percent in order to move quickly and firmly towards an interim government. I would have thought anything between 50 or 55 percent he's going to remain with a number of serious problems. His mandate is still going to be in question because the far right wing will argue that if it's too close and he called a white election, he would lose it, and there's some truth to that. But I think it will slow the process down in that there will be people from within his party who say, I think there will be a strong constituency in his party who say, well, yes, we have a mandate to continue with negotiations, but we clearly have to be careful of our constituency, we have to be more, we have to go slower, we have to be more cautious, we have to make less concessions. I think it is even possible that if it is very close, DeKlerk's position as leader of the party will come under challenge from fellow cabinet members who would follow a more cautious and less conciliatory approach.

MS. WOODRUFF: This is obviously hypothetical, but do you think it's possible that itwould have been better if he hadn't called this at all? Has it turned out to be less the mandate than perhaps he was counting on getting?

MR. HARBER: Well, if he gets more than 55 percent, I would say that what he has done will be vindicated, because I believe there will then be swift movement towards an interim government before the end of the year. Anything less than that and I think we may be saying in a few months that it was an error.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Well, we want to thank you both, Mr. Harber, Mr. Liebenberg and we're sort that Mr. Kashalia didn't get here in time to join us. But thank you both.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a Nobel conversation about economics and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. But first this is Pledge Week on public television. We are taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. PLEDGE BREAK SEGMENT

MR. LEHRER: For those stations not taking a break, the NewsHour continues now with excerpts from last night's Democratic Presidential debate in Chicago. There are Presidential primaries tomorrow in Michigan and Illinois. Late in last night's debate, Detroit anchorman Bill Bonds sparked an angry exchange between Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown over the issue of electability.

BILL BONDS, WXYZ Detroit: Does the question, Gov. Brown, of Mr. Clinton's recent problems lead you to believe that he has an electability problem?

JERRY BROWN, [D] Presidential Candidate: Yeah. I think he's got a big electability problem.

MR. BONDS: Well, what do you think it is?

GOV. BROWN: I want to tell you what it is. It is was right in the front of the Washington Post today. He is funneling money to his wife's law firm for state business. That's No. 1. No. 2, his wife's law firm is representing clients before the State of Arkansas agencies, his appointees, and one of the keys is the poultry industry, which his wife law firm represents and to read the local Chicago Tribune, there's 270 miles of Arkansas rivers that are polluted with fecal chloroform bacteria and unsafe for humans or fish. So it's not only corruption, it's an environmental disaster and it's the kind of conflict of interest that is incompatible in the kind of public servant we expect from a President of the United States.

MR. BONDS: It doesn't sound like you could run as his vice president.

GOV. BROWN: No, it doesn't.

MR. BONDS: Mr. Clinton, do you want to take a swing at all that stuff?

GOV. BILL CLINTON, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I feel sorry for Jerry Brown. I served with him as governor in the late '70s. He asked me to support him for President once.

MR. BONDS: Did you?

GOV. CLINTON: Of course not.

MR. BONDS: This guy just accused you of having somebody funnel legal fees to your wife and the poultry and whatever all that --

GOV. BROWN: It was in the Washington Post this morning!

MR. BONDS: Is it true or isn't it true, Gov. Clinton? Wait a minute.

GOV. BROWN: Bill, you're always trying to attack.

MR. BONDS: Mr. Brown.

GOV. BROWN: You never answer the question.

MR. BONDS: Mr. Brown, let him answer.

GOV. CLINTON: Let me tell you something, Jerry. I don't care what you say about me. I knew when Pat Codell told me what you were going to say that you were going to reinvent yourself and you were going to be somebody else's mouthpiece, you would say anything, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife. You're not worth being on the same platform with my wife.

GOV. BROWN: I'll tell you something, Mr. Clinton. Don't try to escape it. Ralph Nader called me this afternoon. He read me the article from the Washington Post.

GOV. CLINTON: Does that make it true?

GOV. BROWN: I was shocked by it! I was shocked by it because I don't think so --

MR. BONDS: You were poking your finger at him. He poked you back. It's your turn, Gov. Clinton. Go ahead.

GOV. CLINTON: Jerry comes here with his family wealth and his $1500 suit and makes a lying accusation about my wife. I never --

GOV. BROWN: It's in the Washington Post.

GOV. CLINTON: That doesn't make it true.

GOV. BROWN: Are you saying they lied?

GOV. CLINTON: I'm saying that I never funneled any money to my wife's law firm, never. My wife is a fine person who has not done anything unethical. She has given tens of thousands of free dollars worth of free time to serving our state, to doing free work for the state. There's no telling what all she's done. Now, let me finish. That has nothing to do with the electability issue. In terms of my electability, I have been attacked repeatedly over years and years and years and none of it's ever stuck with my people who were discriminating because they know that I am a change agent. The only way we can win this election is with somebody who's tough enough to stand up to the kind of garbage the Republicans throw at you, the kind of personal attacks that I've been subject to in the last few days --

MR. BONDS: Could I say that you're saying, in effect, Gov. Brown, that's garbage and you know it, is that what you're saying?

GOV. CLINTON: It is garbage.

GOV. BROWN: This is not garbage. The Washington Post said that the State of Arkansas, which he's running, is funneling money into the law firm of his wife. I think it's improper and I think this financial and political --

MR. BONDS: Do you know unequivocally, Jerry Brown, that it's the truth?

GOV. BROWN: It is the truth.

MR. BONDS: You know that?

GOV. CLINTON: May I answer that?

GOV. BROWN: And I want to say one thing else --

GOV. CLINTON: May I answer that?

GOV. BROWN: The other night he said --

MR. BONDS: Yes. Let him answer.

GOV. BROWN: -- he's getting all his money from Arkansas. I'd like to know how much is coming from the people doing business with the state are connected with that. This is a scandal of major proportion. We're not going to --

MR. BONDS: Let him take a shot at that, okay?

GOV. CLINTON: Let him answer that. My wife's law firm is the oldest law firm in America West of the Mississippi. It did business with the housing agency of our state since the '40s. So when she went to work there, I don't think they should be willing to give up all representation of state agencies. So, you know what we decided to do? She would never take any money for doing it and then when she became a partner, she gave up her partnership share of any income attributable to business coming from state agencies. We have given up thousands of dollars. That was the appropriate thing to do. To accuse of her ethical misconduct based on something Jerry does not know what he's talking about and he's way off base.

MR. BONDS: May I speak the obvious?

GOV. BROWN: Any law firm that could get a member of the family of the chief executive would give their eye teeth for that. I'm a lawyer. I've been in a law firm. I know how this thing works. I was governor. I know how you raise money.

MR. BONDS: Can we get off the --

GOV. BROWN: It's not right; it's not proper.

MR. BONDS: Jerry, one of you is right and one of you is wrong. We'll find out who.

MR. LEHRER: Newspaperpolls released over the weekend in Michigan and Illinois show Clinton ahead by a wide margin over both Brown and Tsongas. CONVERSATION - PRIZED OPINION

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight, the last in our series of conversations on the state of the U.S. economy. Last week we heard from three Nobel Prize Winning economists, Robert Solow, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman. Tonight, a fourth; he is James Buchanan, 1986 Laureate, professor of economics at George Mason University and founder of the school's Center for the Study of Public Choice. Charlayne Hunter-Gault spoke with Prof. Buchanan last week.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Prof. Buchanan, thank you very much for joining us. There seems to be such a plethora of economic proposal out there. Do you hear anything from the candidates that you think is viable?

PROF. BUCHANAN: Well, I hear a mixture of things. There are some things in several candidates that are quite viable. I in a sense think of a composite of candidates would be my choice. I certainly am hearing things from Jerry Brown that I like very much, and mainly that he does understand, I think the only candidate who understands that the tax structure should be fixed and placed so that people can make decisions on the basis of some expectations of quasi-permanence. I don't go along necessarily --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. That's one tax rate for everybody.

PROF. BUCHANAN: No, no. No, no. I don't go along with that. I think that's too simplistic. I think that would be added on and it would be a tremendous revenue raiser for the government which would worry me. But I think he's absolutely right in thinking that the tax system ought to be in place. I think we had a legitimate expectation that the '86 Reform Act, which did broaden the base very considerably and lower the rates, would have stayed in place for quite a while so people can make their plans on the basis of that tax structure. I think it's scandalous what both parties are doing now. Every year they come back and they manipulate the change. I don't know how anybody can act under the expectations that the tax structure has any permanence at all. And Brown seems to be the only one recognizing that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's good about that?

PROF. BUCHANAN: It seems to me we need a structure such that people can make their long range plans, businessmen in particular can make investment plans and so forth. How can you make investment plans when one year they're going to put on an investment tax credit, the next year they're going to take it off, one year they're going to reduce capital gains, the next year they're going to put it back on? It just destroys any sort of permanence to the rules, so to speak, to the tax rules. And, of course, the secondary bad feature of that continual changing, it causes some of our best minds to go into law and not into producing value, I mean, worrying about how they're going to act for this or that pressure group to get this or that tax favor.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. So that's Jerry Brown, one down. What else are you hearing that you like?

PROF. BUCHANAN: Well, I like Paul Tsongas's recognition that, in fact, we must have the business or productive sector of the economy prosperous in order for anything else to happen. Unless that happens, nothing else can happen. So I certainly like that. And although Bob Kerrey is no longer in the race, I certainly like his proposal to cut back on the number of departments and particularly to cut back the size of the congressional staffs. That was a very good feature of his campaign. I like someof Pat Buchanan's idea about cutting back on the intrusion of government in our lives. But of course he offsets that by trying to get the government to protect everybody and everything, which I don't like at all. And I like George Bush's free trade position, but I'm just wondering about whether he has the conviction necessary to carry it through. If he quits carrying Lee Iacocca around with him, maybe I'd be a little more supportive.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what about Bill Clinton's middle tax class cut, which is echoed in other --

PROF. BUCHANAN: I think the manipulation of the tax code this year by both parties is just almost an open scandal. And I think the best thing to do with the tax system, the best thing we could possibly do, would be leave it alone, again, for the reasons I'm mentioning.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think is missing in this debate?

PROF. BUCHANAN: Well, I think what's missing in this debate is the following. It seems to me I've been surprised, amazed really, that there's been little or no feedback on our politics by the momentous events that have happened in this post '89 period. We're in a genuinely revolutionary period where the death of socialism has really, should have shown us that the solutions to things are not by trying to control the economy through politics. None of our politicians, with the partial exception of Jerry Brown, seems to have understood that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What exactly do you mean by that?

PROF. BUCHANAN: I mean that our politics or our government should really set the rules, should give the framework within which private enterprise and business can, in fact, get the dynamics of the economy going. Tsongas comes close to recognizing that at times, but still they don't recognize, it seems to me, the limits of politics. And the effects of the post revolutionary moment, in a sense, does not seem to have fed back on our political thinking.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If you were a candidate or advising one, what would you be telling that candidate to say to encompass what you've just laid out?

PROF. BUCHANAN: Well, I would like to see, as for a long time I've said, I would like to see us effect, try to implement policy and change policy at the level of basic constitutional rules, an economic constitution so to speak. I for a long time advocated that the federal government should try to have its budget balanced and we need a constitutional rule, amendment, to require the government to balance its budget. I would like to see the Federal Reserve subjected to more of a dictate that their job is to maintain the value of the dollar, for example, and nothing else. I would like to see us open up our economy to free trade. I would like to see the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico signed. Those are the kind of things, those are structural changes, not this temporizing. That's what I object to and I think is very damaging, this sort of short run temporizing, manipulating here, there and yon, and imposing all sorts of regulatory burdens. But the worst part of all is the temporizing, that is, the failure to recognize that these political effects on the economy should not be continuously changing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that happening?

PROF. BUCHANAN: It's happening because that's the way the politicians think that they can satisfy the various pressures. They're simply responding to catering to the pressure groups.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just quickly on the current recession one of our Nobel Laureates criticized the Fed for not acting soon enough to lower interest rates, and that has extended the recession. What's your view of that?

PROF. BUCHANAN: I think the Fed made a mistake last year. They failed to understand the impact of the bailout of the savings & loan. They finally came around to understanding in the last week in December and acted quite quickly to try to cover their mistakes that they had made for a year and a half before. Now they I think recognize what's going on. Whether or not they will overshoot or whether they will do it just right, or whether they will undershoot, I wouldn't know that any more than anybody else would. I think they are now on top of the problem, however.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So that in terms of what could happen, what should be happening right now, in terms of this recession, both the President and Congress are working on proposals to cut taxes, help business investment, help homeowners and homebuilders, are they on the right track?

PROF. BUCHANAN: I don't think any of that is needed. I think that we are going to come out of this recession very quickly now, because the Fed is moving, has moved very quickly to get some more liquidity in the economy. And I think there are all sorts of signs right now that we're moving out. Whether that's going to be, you know, effective enough is another question, but certainly in a temporary sense, I think the manipulation by the Congress of trying to do something now would be better for them not to do anything.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If, as you say, politics is at the root of our long-term economic problems, how do you see breaking through this political gridlock? Does the change -- if the politicians continue to manipulate the system, as you say, and be hostage to special interests, where do you see the change coming from? Must it come from the top? Is it possible to come from the bottom?

PROF. BUCHANAN: Well, I do think you see a lot of that coming from the bottom. I think ultimately people get fed up. Ultimately people begin to recognize what's going on. I think some of the distrust now, some of the reaction against the incumbents that's represented by the low rates that Congress and the President gets in the public at large, some of the results last year in some of the elections, and especially the movement now toward term limits, which again Jerry Brown is supporting, those are all indications that ultimately the public does react. It just takes a long time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The public right now is going through a tremendous depression about the future of the economy. Do you see this lifting anytime soon?

PROF. BUCHANAN: I think it is happening to some extent. I don't put much credence in these measures of consumer confidence. That can change very quickly. I think that is going to turn around. That's a fairly short-term phenomenon. And I think ultimately we have to depend on the public. There's no other way. We're not going to do this from the top down. It has to be the people somehow get riled up and turn the rascals out. And that's one reason I'm in favor of the term limit proposal. It's not so much per se that the term limits are desirable, but it rather, it now seems to be the avenue that is exciting the public in this respect.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Prof. Buchanan, thank you for joining us.

PROF. BUCHANAN: Thank you very much. ESSAY - PUBLIC DRAMA

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight essayist Roger Rosenblatt, editor at large of Life Magazine, has some thoughts about real life drama.

MR. ROSENBLATT: If jury trials are among the more satisfying of public events, they are also among the more exasperating and mysterious. These days there are more than enough trials to affect both reactions. The Mike Tyson trial, that was a sensation, affecting both sensations of satisfaction and mystery. The John Goti trial or trials, filling the popular imagination with questions and answers simultaneously. Ditto for the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer and the dark secret of his gruesome crimes. The Kennedy Smith trial too. Even watching that one play out on TV did not answer all the questions one would have wanted answered.

WITNESS: The bra was in very good condition. I didn't note any defects or tears or any stains of any sort.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Experts were called forward to rank the performances of the defense and prosecution as if the trial were a sports event, though not a game. Yet, when all was said and done, not all was said, not all was done. The verdict was done. That constitutes the satisfying part of jury trials. They are orderly, structured contexts in which certain matters are settled according to definite terms. Neatness in an unneat world, guilty or not guilty, a case of disruption or chaos in our midst may be officially closed. Thus, the great appeal of the jury trials and drama. Witness for the prosecution, the Paradine case, the Winslow boy, the Winslow boy, a fine example of righting a wrong cleanly. The Winslow boy was wrongly accused of stealing in school and was expelled.

ATTORNEY: Plenty of time to break open a locker and rifle its contents.

PERSON ON STAND: I didn't do that.

ATTORNEY: Plenty of time to forge your name on a postal order.

PERSON ON STAND: I didn't.

ATTORNEY: A name that you already practiced forging.

PERSON ON STAND: I didn't.

MR. ROSENBLATT: His father fought to reinstate the boy's honor He fought in court, of course, where modern morality plays are put on the boards, where things are settled, where truth asserts itself over lies. But then there is this other element of the unsettled, the perplexity and doubt, affected by a different set of truths. Dahmer was found guilty. Okay, that's that. Tyson was found guilty, close the book. But who is Jeffrey Dahmer? Who is Mike Tyson? Nothing in the orderliness of the trial tells anything about the minds of those paraded so nakedly before us. The system is not constructed to reveal their minds, only their actions. Yet, the more they show, the more frustrations they engender. With the advent of vehicles like court TV, we are entering an era in which trial by jury will increasingly become public dramas, public morality plays. They will more likely abet rather than replace fictional representation like TV's LA Law.

ATTORNEY: Tell us why you did buy it, Mr. Appleton.

MR. APPLETON: Glen was in horrible agony.

MR. ROSENBLATT: But in some ways it will be less satisfying than fiction because fiction can go into the mind and the legal system cannot. Remember the old Perry Mason shows with every guilty party expressing his or her confession, motive and character in a single end of the trial explosion?

ACTOR: He wanted to destroy my reputation, destroy me.

ATTORNEY: [actor] And so you stole from Daniel Redmond's chambers the container of pills he'd picked up for his secretary?

ACTOR: Yes. I knew what those pills would do to a man who drank as much as Weston.

MR. ROSENBLATT: No such revelations on court TV. We will watch the accused sit before us more and more while we understand less and less. Or remember "Inherit the Wind," about the Scopes Monkey Trial, the evolution trial in Tennessee.

SPOKESMAN: Would you ban Copernicus from the classroom along with Charles Darwin? Would you pass a law throwing out all scientific knowledge since Joshua?

MR. ROSENBLATT: In the movie, Spencer Tracy played Clarence Darrow who defended the evolution teacher. Frederick March played William Jennings Bryant, who prosecuted the teacher and stood up for creationism in which he wholeheartedly believed.

ACTOR: I believe in a God who can make a whale and who can make a man and make both do what he pleases.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Gene Kelley played H.L. Menchen, the reporter at the trial who was on Darrow's side, the side of right, clear reason. That side lost the verdict but won the case intellectually and William Jennings Bryant was so overcome with confusion, he had a stroke in the movie. The Menchen character gloated to Darrow that Darrow had made mincemeat of that bible beating bastard. Whereupon Darrow shouted --

CLARENCE DARROW: My God!

MR. ROSENBLATT: -- what could you possibly know about a man like that? The answer was nothing. It is always nothing. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the main stories of this Monday, Democratic candidates traded insults one day ahead of the Illinois and Michigan primaries, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington said it had begun a criminal investigation of the bank that served members of the House of Representatives, and White South Africans prepared to vote in a referendum on whether to dismantle apartheid. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Judy. We'll see you tomorrow night with a Gergen & Shields preview of the Michigan and Illinois primaries, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.