The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, U.S. officials discouraged talk of a June Bush-Gorbachev summit and the nation's unemployment rate rose to 6.9 percent. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: After the News Summary, we'll focus on how differently people see the big Gulf victory parades with six newspaper editors from around the country. Charlayne Hunter-Gault concludes her week of conversations on affirmative action with opinion analyst Daniel Yankelovich. Then our weekly political analysis by David Gergen and Mark Shields, and finally essayist Roger Rosenblatt has a different view of the Big Apple. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The prospects for a June Bush-Gorbachev summit dimmed today. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft expressed reservations about a meeting in late June or even early July. He said each day it gets tougher. Sec. of State Baker reported little progress in his talks on arms with Soviet Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh in Geneva. He said considerable work remains on a missile reduction treaty. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: China has agreed to attend an international conference aimed at limiting arms sales to the Middle East. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said China's President accepted President Bush's invitation in a letter received yesterday. Fitzwater said the decision would strengthen international non- proliferation efforts and showed China's willingness to help stabilize the Middle East. The conference is planned for early July. Fitzwater also said China's participation indicated the President's decision to renew Most Favored Nation trade benefits. This afternoon Mr. Bush met with House members to discuss that issue. Some in Congress have proposed legislation to tie MFN privileges to improvement in China's human rights record. President Bush prefers no conditions. After the meeting, the Congressmen had this to say.

SPOKESMAN: Well, I think it's clear that the White House believes strongly that the Chinese are participating in this arms conference because of their ties to the U.S., not because of pressure, and that the administration has gotten further in the last year by using its approach than it would get using a congressional approach. I think clearly the President believes that and he feels that very strongly.

SPOKESMAN: Some of us believe it should be possible to formulate legislation which would simultaneously put the Chinese on notice that we do insist on progress in the area of human rights, but to phrase it in such a way that a year from now it will be possible for the President to fairly report to the Congress that some progress has been made. China, after all, gets enormous benefits from MFN, and I don't believe they are going to lightly disregard our concerns in this area given their desire to maintain MFN in the future.

MR. MacNeil: The House of Representatives today passed a $295 billion defense spending bill. The priorities in the bill differ sharply from what the Bush administration requested and the President has threatened to veto. It reduces funding Mr. Bush requested for the strategic defense initiative, while providing more money than the administration wanted for military personnel and non-nuclear weapons. The House vote was 273 to 105.

MR. LEHRER: The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 6.9 percent last month. That was a .3 percent increase over April and the highest it's been in four years. The Labor Department said it happened in spite of the addition of nearly 60,000 new jobs. Bad economic times have forced Bridgeport, Connecticut to become the largest city ever to file for bankruptcy. The city asked for protection from its creditors after failing to close a $12 million budget.

MR. MacNeil: NASA engineers today continued their analysis of the cargo door problem on the orbiting space shuttle Columbia. They simulated the problem using the shuttle Discovery on the ground in Florida. A loose piece of weather stripping may prevent the doors from closing properly for Columbia's return to earth. If it can't be connected by electronic command, two astronauts will make a space walk to fix it. Meanwhile, Columbia's astronauts continued their biomedical research. Today they released particles in a laboratory box to see how they behaved in weightless environment.

MR. LEHRER: A federal judge in San Francisco today upheld a ban on camera coverage of executions but said reporters should be allowed to witness them. Public Station KQED had sued San Quentin State Penitentiary for permission to videotape an execution in its gas chamber. The judge said security concerns justified the camera ban. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Desert Storm victory parades, six editors, affirmative action, Gergen & Shields, and New York City. FOCUS - VICTORY PARADE

MR. MacNeil: First tonight the continuing celebrations of the end of the Gulf War. How much is enough? Major festivities are scheduled for Washington tomorrow and for New York City on Monday. We'll discuss the public and political psychology of the Gulf War celebrations with our regional editors in a few moments. First, Kwame Holman as a backgrounder as Washington prepares for tomorrow's big show.

MR. HOLMAN: Almost before the smoke cleared in Iraq, Americans began celebrating with a vengeance. In parades honoring the war's victorious leaders, in countless welcome home ceremonies, citizens expressed a variety of pent up emotion -- relief that the war was brief and U.S. fatalities low, pride in the performance of the U.S. war machine, and hope that honoring Gulf War soldiers would ease the public's guilt about the treatment of Vietnam veterans a generation ago. According to the Pentagon, there have been more than 350 welcome home events involving Gulf War soldiers. But the biggest one yet descends on Washington, D.C. tomorrow. What is America and the world going to see on Saturday?

HARRY WALTERS: It's going to see the largest military victory celebration in our nation's history since 1945. And they're going to see a celebration that's built only for the troops, of the troops and by the troops.

MR. HOLMAN: Harry Walters is the field general and chief promoter of Saturday's full scale official event which will be attended by the President. This morning, in fact, the President dropped in on the preparations.

PRES. BUSH: I think it's fantastic for our country. I want to just take a look there.

MR. HOLMAN: It's been weeks in planning. $5 million in private funds will help pay for it, including a million each from the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The taxpayers' share once estimated at $3 million is 7 million and rising. Most of the government money is for transporting and housing 8,000 troops and tons of military hardware that will be on display.

SPOKESMAN: It'll kick off at 11:30 with a streamer ceremony right in front of the reviewing stand where the President will put the battle streamers on the colors of the four services, five including the Coast Guard. They'll have 82 fly-overs led by a Stealth at the beginning of the parade flying right over the reviewing stand, Apache helicopters coming next, and the Navy aircraft, the Air Force aircraft. And at 9 o'clock, we're going to have three times larger fireworks than Washington's ever seen before.

MR. HOLMAN: This celebration will seek to involve Vietnam veterans whose own welcome home ranged from indifferent to hostile. That theme of reaching out to Vietnam veterans has run through many of the post Gulf War celebrations. At Washington's Vietnam Memorial this week, there was doubt the parade could heal old wounds.

SPOKESPERSON: When they came back, there wasn't any support. People looked down on them and they had a bad name basically after coming back from fighting for their country. And trying to make up for it by inviting them to other things, you know, for Iraq -- I mean, they remember that they weren't accepted when they came back. I don't think they'll forget it.

MR. HOLMAN: Vietnam veteran Hugo Carpenter says current celebrations can never make up for past neglect.

MR. CARPENTER: I think that they spend the money on the Vietnam hospitals -- they want to make up for the Vietnam veterans -- pay 'em for the agent orange problems they have -- take care of the Vietnam veterans' hospitals and the VA hospital, put the money in there, put the money in health care for the Vietnam vets. This is not anything for us. This is for a political move. That's all it is.

MR. HOLMAN: Such criticism of the cost of Saturday's celebration rankles Harry Walters, a former soldier and Veterans Administrator.

MR. WALTERS: I know the cost of war is very high. I also know the price of freedom is high. And when we have that memorial service on Saturday morning, we will be honoring over 300 young men and women who did not come home from the Gulf. I don't recall anyone putting a price on their lives.

SPOKESMAN: This weekend is going to reaffirm the kind of mentality that got us into the Gulf in the first place, that the way to resolve conflicts in the world is to intervene through military means and to cause massive death and destruction.

MR. HOLMAN: Damu Smith says despite their opposition, he and other peace activists in Washington are reluctant to protest Saturday's parade.

MR. SMITH, Political Activist: Well, I think a lot of us wanted to be careful about any kind of protests. There will be some protests this weekend by some groups, but we didn't want to do anything that would give the appearance that we were opposed to our young men and women who were compelled to go to the Gulf under military orders to fighting this war. We're not opposed to our young people and the young men and women who did want they had to do. We were opposed to the policies that put them there in the first place.

MR. HOLMAN: Former Marine Tom Cox says soldiers need the kind of appreciation they'll get tomorrow in the nation's capital. Cox fought in the epic World War II battle on the island of Iwojima. We talked to him this week at the Iwojima Memorial near Washington dedicated to all Marine battles.

MR. COX: I think it's wonderful. I think it's part of Americana to have a parade. I think it's good for the young people and it's certainly good for the families of the people that died in that war.

MR. HOLMAN: Rehearsals for tomorrow's parade were held amid published reports that some Gulf war soldiers have complained about the number of ceremonies they've been required to attend and now want only to go home. Whatever the view of some soldiers, the parade promises to be new and spectacular for 1 1/2 million expected to line Washington's Constitution Avenue tomorrow.

MR. MacNeil: New York will hold its own big parade on Monday. Five days of festivities leading up to it began yesterday when a flotilla of U.S. Navy ships that served in the Persian Gulf steamed into New York Harbor. Among them was the battleship Wisconsin which fired some of the first missiles against Iraq when the war started. Up to a million people are expected at Monday's ticker tape parade. The city expects to raise all of the $5 million cost of the event from private donations. Joining us now is our cast of regional editors, Ed Baumeister of the Trenton, New Jersey Times, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune is in Washington tonight, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution, Erwin Knoll of the Progressive Magazine in Madison, Wisconsin, Lee Cullum of the Dallas Times Herald, and Gerald Warren, editor of the San Diego Union. Clarence Page, what do you think about all these big parades coming up? Is it too much? Is enough enough or how do you feel about it?

MR. PAGE: Well, I had the pleasure of watching Chicago's parade and I found one of the ironies of this whole celebration first of all is that we're talking about a four day war and we're talking about celebrations and it's gone on for weeks. I'm in kind of a trick bag criticizing this war or these parades rather, because it's hard to criticize them without sounding like you're being unpatriotic or that you're anti-troop. Neither is the case. But I think some legitimate questions should be raised as to what are we celebrating here. Are we trying to make up for our Vietnam guilt? Are we celebrating really a great victory that compares in any way to VE Day or VJ Day, or are we really, really kind of playing into a political campaign here that really is designed to make the Bush administration and the defense industry look good? I think those are questions that really have to be asked.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Cynthia Tucker, how do you feel about it?

MS. TUCKER: Well, like Clarence, I understand the dangers of criticizing these celebrations, but I don't think they're really being held to honor the troops quite frankly. I think we've already honored them. When the troops first began to come home all across America in small towns and large cities, spontaneous, enthusiastic celebrations were held. Families were genuinely grateful back there. Soldiers were back home. People were relieved the war was over and that we had accomplished our narrow aims in the war. These are staged spectacles and I think they're more to aid President Bush's re-election campaign and I also think they are more for those Americans who feel a certain powerlessness here at home. After all, we're deep in a recession. Our cities are in crisis. There are many problems on the domestic front, and so maybe many Americans feel all we have to celebrate is our military might.

MR. MacNeil: How do you feel, Gerry Warren? Are they chiefly to aid President Bush's re-election campaign?

MR. WARREN: I don't know, Robin, why a parade is less political in Chicago than it is in Washington, D.C. When the Marines, the bulk of the Marines came back to Camp Pendleton in April, Oceanside had a parade. About 100,000 people turned out to honor the Marines. A month later, San Diego, 30 miles South of Oceanside, had a much larger parade. I didn't see anything political in either one of those. Nor do I see anything unduly political in the one that's happening in Washington or in New York. The length of the war, it seems to me, has nothing to do with the desire of the American people to thank these people, these armed forces members for what they did.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, how do you feel?

MR. KNOLL: It seems to me, Robin, that the ancient Caesars used to give people bread and circuses to keep them happy. We've regressed now. We only give them circuses, no bread. This is a circus and I think it's obscene that we're spending $12 million in Washington and a comparable amount I guess in New York on these spectacles when we have people sleeping in our streets. We're even denying benefits to people who were in this war. The news here in Wisconsin in these last few days has been that reservists who were called to active duty but didn't go to the Gulf, who went to Germany instead to replace military units, are not going to get any of the benefits that have been set aside for veterans of the Persian Gulf. So, on the one hand, we're putting on these God awful spectacles. And on the other hand, we're being chintzy with the people who actually were summoned to duty in this war.

MR. MacNeil: Ed Baumeister, what's your feeling?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Well, I don't get the feeling in talking to people in New Jersey, which has two of the big bases that were involved in sending people and equipment over, I don't get the feeling that the desire for a parade goes much beyond the towns that are close to the military bases. You get even up in the Northern part of our county and people say, parade, I mean, the war was so long -- I mean, it's three months ago. But if this was a war for a nation with a short attention span, then the time that's elapsed between its end and now is very long and I don't think it's resonating. I just don't get the feeling that people are looking forward to it, that they see that it follows hard on the heels. I mean, I'm a former PFC, and I think these guys deserve a parade if they want one, but I don't get the feeling that this is going to play as a broad enterprise.

MR. MacNeil: Lee Cullum, what's your view?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, it seems to me that it's appropriate to have the parades. Now I will certainly agree that they have missed their psychological moment. It would have been better if they could have been in March or April at the latest. But of course, the troops have been coming home gradually. They didn't all land in March. It's been a slow withdrawal from the Middle East. I see no reason not to have them. You know, the military is very important in the American imagination. Think about our National Anthem, "and the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air." That's a far cry from "God Save the Queen." I think Americans like the clarity of the military. I think they also have a spirit of chivalry and I think that makes our military imagination different from other military states in history. I was quite struck during the war by the prayers in churches and synagogues for everybody involved, for the people of Iraq as well as our own troops, American troops. So it's complex, the American psyche. I think it will respond to these parades. I see no reason not to celebrate.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, you seemed to be suggesting a minute ago that the parades are saying something different than we're glad the war was won and it's a great victory. What did you mean they're saying?

MS. TUCKER: I think that that is, indeed, a small part of it, that we're glad the war was won, but it was not a great victory. It was a small victory against a rather small country, just barely into the industrial age. When the history of America in the late 20th century is written a hundred years from now, this little war will barely be a footnote. I thought Lee Cullum's reference to "God Save the Queen" was interesting because Great Britain is very much a country in decline and it depends very much now for its national psyche on its royal family. Great Britain just sent the queen to this country. That's their great symbol in a time when it doesn't have the importance it once did. So I think it's appropriate that Lee Cullum made that reference because I think we see ourselves in some ways as a country in decline. We're not the great economic power we once were, so all we have to show is our military might.

MR. MacNeil: Lee, do you want to come back on that?

MS. CULLUM: Well, I understand what Cynthia's saying and I certainly share her concern about the economy. And it's a major concern here in Dallas. It's a greater concern, in fact, than these parades. But I don't think that means we should deny these troops the honor that we promised them and the honor they deserve. I do think that Cynthia is right that we have got to address ourselves to our economy, because I think it's in serious trouble.

MR. MacNeil: Is the euphoria, Clarence Page, is there still some euphoria around from the war?

MR. PAGE: Well, that's a good question, Robin. I don't know that -- certainly Lee Cullum was right when she says we missed the psychological moment. And certainly there's been no mention made in this conversation yet about the tragedy of the Kurds, the blazing oil fires, the ambiguous end of this war, the fact that Saddam Hussein remains in power, still has a potential to commit mischief. I -- since Ed Baumeister trotted out his PFC stripes, let me point out that I was a Spec. 4 during the Vietnam era and certainly I agree that I'm delighted to see these troops get a better welcome home than the vets of my era did and that I do not begrudge anyone this celebration. I think it's about time, belatedly, that we do observe the great sacrifices that have been made, but I'm also reminded of what got us into Vietnam. I'm reminded of how we get into wars that we might -- or problems we might settle otherwise, and that's what disturbs me about this continued celebration that's going on and I think that I just have to raise questions about why this is going on as long as it has, and I think a lot of other people are raising questions too.

MR. MacNeil: Let's change the subject here a bit. Ed Baumeister, there was a lot of attention in Washington this week, and we paid a lot of attention to it, to the civil rights debate, the charge that it was a quota bill that was being -- and its ineffective defeat in the Congress because they didn't get a veto proof bill. Did it attract as much attention outside Washington, and how do you feel about the way the debate has turned?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Well, it did attract a fair amount of attention outside of Washington. When it passed the House, we put what we call a streamer on that, a headline that went all the way across the top of page 1. But it's a very difficult debate for people to glum onto. And that's in part I think because it's so political but it's also in part I think from talking to people around my town that, that the debate -- the issues of civil rights have now become narrow ones. How much can you sue for? We used the following phrase in trying to explain it to readers. It said that the bill would return to employers named in so called disparate impact job bias suits. I don't understand that fully and I can't imagine our readers did so I'm not sure we did a good job in fully reporting it, but it's very tough. Civil rights is not the leaps and bounds thing that I remember in the '60s, and I think a lot of people my age do, so I think it reflects that as much as it does the politicization of it.

MR. MacNeil: Gerald Warren, how much noise did the civil rights debate and bill make in San Diego?

MR. WARREN: We made quite a bit of noise about it in our newspaper, but I don't see the public reflecting any deep understanding of the issue. In the first place I think they're a little bit confused by it. It is not a civil rights bill, as Ed indicated, as we had in the '60s. It is a bill that corrects some of the things that the Supreme Court has done recently and because politicians are what they are these days in the modern era, they reduce these things, these arguments to sound bytes. And so you don't have a real debate on the issues behind this bill. I think people are just saying let the Congress handle it, if it affects me then I will let you know about it.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, what is your view of the way the debate turned on civil rights?

MR. KNOLL: Well, I think there's actually a similarity between the civil rights bill and the homecoming parades. They're both shows without much substance. The civil rights bill is not much civil rights bill. I'm not sure which is the more unappealing spectacle, the Democrats pretending that this is a serious piece of legislation, or the President pretending that it's a serious threat. This bill isn't going to do much for anybody because they've watered it down almost to the vanishing point. And the President claiming that it's, that it constitutes imposing quotas and so on is sheer demagoguery and I think the mainstream politicians of both parties are just playing games with the American people about it.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, do you have a view on it?

MS. TUCKER: Yes. Here in Atlanta, we pay a lot of attention to the civil rights bill. Atlanta, of course, is the traditional citadel of the civil rights movement. I think people have paid attention to the civil rights bill but many people have paid attention to it in a very negative way. I think much of the American public has bought into Pres. Bush's rhetoric that it is a quota bill. It isn't. One of my major disappointments with Pres. Bush is that he interrupted negotiations between civil rights leaders and major business leaders over the civil rights bill. He feared that they were nearing a compromise. That made it absolutely clear to me that the President wasn't interested in a compromise. He was only interested in a racially divisive issue to use in his next campaign, and that disturbs me greatly.

MR. MacNeil: Did it play big in Dallas, Lee Cullum?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, there certainly was attention to it in Dallas, and I have to say for the first time on this program I agree with Erwin Knoll. I think that the bill really does signify very little. I think it amounts to a political tennis match. I think it's yesterday's answer, it's today's -- it's an answer from yesterday to today's civil rights problem, and I suspect that today's civil rights issue is not in the courts, it's in the schools and it's in the economy. Can the economy perform well enough to make room for women and for minorities at the levels to which they aspire? So I think the bill needs drastic re-thinking. I think it's gotten mired in next year's election campaigns.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page.

MR. PAGE: Well, since Lee Cullum is being so magnanimous, let me say that I agree with Gerry Warren. It's a very unusual day in that regard, but the fact is I'm afraid politics have been able to cloud over the real debate and the real issues here. Archibald Cox and other legal experts have looked at the Democratic version and the Bush version and said there's not a dime's worth of difference between them, and it's true, this argument's gotten tied up in differences between a manifest relationship, a significant relationship, or a substantial relationship. Those are not the kind of terms that make great picket signs. Sadly enough, I'm afraid President Bush and the Democrats have probably made more of this than was necessary. I hate to see someone of Pres. Bush's caliber doing a sophisticated version of what David Duke does in Louisiana, but I'm afraid that's what's happened. This bill has become a symbol and one that's been a very divisive symbol. Sadly enough when this country becomes divided over race, the white side wins. And I think that's what the GOP has invested in, and I hope that won't be what happens in 1992, but I'm afraid we're moving toward that.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Well, thank you all six once again. FOCUS - COLLISION COURSE?

MR. LEHRER: And now onto the same subject, to Charlayne Hunter- Gault's fifth and final conversation about affirmative action. It is with a man who samples and analyzes public opinion for a living.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Daniel Yankelovich is president and co-founder of Public Agenda Foundation, a not for profit research group that focuses on improving the quality of public debate. Known as the dean of public opinion researchers, Yankelovich's most recent work is "Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World." What do your research studies tell us about the public mood on affirmative action?

MR. YANKELOVICH: The public doesn't have very clear ideas about affirmative action. There's a lot of confusion. But the way it nets out is by and large Americans are in favor of what you might say is costless affirmative action, if it doesn't cost anything fine. As soon as you introduce the notion of preferential treatment or quotas or anything of that sort, thenpeople pull back. So you have strong majorities who want to -- are pro civil rights and strong majorities who say that they're in favor of affirmative action, but as soon as the twist comes in, there's a cost associated with it, people back away and that majority's going the other way.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you get differences in attitudes on this between the races, say whites and blacks see it differently?

MR. YANKELOVICH: Almost completely the opposite. And it's become sharper than it was. One of the biggest changes in this whole picture is changes in black attitudes and perceptions, very dramatic, black attitudes and perceptions have become much more pessimistic than they were in the recent past. In 1970, 2/3 of blacks felt that things were getting better for blacks. A decade later in 1980, still half of blacks felt that way. Now it's 20 percent, 1 out of 5. This is one of the great changes. White attitudes haven't changed that much, but the picture is a picture of black pessimism, feeling that things aren't getting better, and that, therefore, the tactics have to be strengthened in order to remedy the situation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it perception? Is it what?

MR. YANKELOVICH: It's perception to a great extent more than actuality both among blacks and whites. Clearly, it's impressions that come from the media, from other sources, images, news, hearsay. And the base of actual experience is much more modest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The actual experience for blacks or the actual experience for whites?

MR. YANKELOVICH: Certainly for whites the experience of reverse discrimination is very low.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The experience of a white person saying that he or she didn't get the job because somebody black got it instead.

MR. YANKELOVICH: That is correct. The questions are asked, have you ever had that sort of experience, and you have fewer than 1 out of 10 whites saying that they have. But then when you talk about blacks experiencing discrimination in education, it's about double that, about 15, 18 percent. When it comes to the job discrimination, it's about thirty something percent, as against the perception, which is in the 70, 80 percent range.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any experience or data that tell you why this perception is so different from the reality?

MR. YANKELOVICH: The subject is a very loaded one. The idea of affirmative action with its implication of quotas or norming or preferential treatment has become a very emotionally laden subject in this recession because people are hurting. They're finding -- there has been this increase in unemployment and the fear of unemployment and so that the whole idea now of when affirmative action ideas first were supported in the country, people were doing pretty well and their attitude was look, I'm doing okay, why should other people do okay too?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And that was when, in the '60s and '70s?

MR. YANKELOVICH: In the '60s and '70s. And it started to change in the '80s and now it's, with this particular recession, the attitude is very different. People are hunkering down, they're fearful, they're trying to hold onto the gains that they've made, and they're scrambling, and they're feeling very defensive.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is this the first time something like this has happened, or is civil rights progress a cyclical affair depending on things like the state of the economy?

MR. YANKELOVICH: Well, the economic cycle is one factor, but in recent years, the growth on campus of multiculturalism and the concern with identity and differentness -- in one of your interviews the poetess is quoted saying that she thought color blindness was the opposite of racism and has now come to a very different conclusion. Well, the country isn't ready for that. The country endorses the fundamental core American values of equality, of opportunity, and continues to regard color blindness as the ideal. And to the extent that that's challenged, you're not only playing around with race issues and social class issues, now you're stirring up issues of basic values, core values. And that's very threatening to the majority.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it your view as someone who's looked at trends all over time that this is just kind of a bump along the way, or is it more than that?

MR. YANKELOVICH: I think it's a bump. I think it's a bump, but the bump could become much worse than a bump. It could become a hill, a mountain, a tomb. But there are some obvious things that need to be done and in your interviews I think everybody kept on coming back to this notion of communication, to the idea that we're not talking with each other, we're talking past each other. It's almost impossible in today's political climate to talk honestly about race and I've had the experience of conducting group interviews and doing groups for the National Issues Forum and Public Agenda and some of the work that I did in connection with my new book "Coming to Public Judgment" of seeing people who when they really do talk to each other, blacks and whites together talk to each other, you get an enhanced understanding and an empathy that just doesn't exist today.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you give me an example.

MR. YANKELOVICH: Well, in recent series of forums, national issues forums, by the end of the several hour discussions where blacks and whites were equally represented, on the black side there was much more appreciation for the white concern with reverse discrimination and understanding of it, a taking of it into account than at the beginning of the interview, and on the white side --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why? Why? Because --

MR. YANKELOVICH: Well, because they -- at the beginning of this discussion, there was a tendency to brush aside and pooh pooh the concern with reverse discrimination as racism, dismiss it as being racist.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And reverse discrimination in this context meant --

MR. YANKELOVICH: Reverse discrimination meant that the whites felt that blacks were getting preferential treatment. They --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At their expense?

MR. YANKELOVICH: At their expense. And on the white side, at the end of the interview, there was much more acceptance of the idea that maybe some forms of special preferential treatment were needed and were desirable. So the very thing that bothered them at the beginning gave way in the, in the discussion. I had the impression though that this was the first time in their lives that these blacks and whites were talking with each other. The media is no help. When the media presents these issues, they usually, if they represent the public at all, they represent the extremes, the confrontational extremes who debate each other, talk past each other. I think what you find in all of these interviews is that black or white come away with the greater respect for the good faith of the other side. If you're throwing around labels like racist, you're not giving any, attributing any good faith to the other side and vice versa, so if you get people to talk with each other about this issue, and you establish a basis of good faith, and then you have in the country a belief in eliminating discrimination and embracing pluralism, you'll get over the hump. I felt that of all the people you talked to, William Raspberry came closest to the mark in reflecting what I see in the public opinion data in saying that to make progress, you need broad public support. It's not just going to happen through the courts, through, well, the university administrations acting unilaterally through the institutions. You need the public support. And the public support is eroded so that part of the problem of reverse discrimination, of affirmative action that emphasizes the preferential aspects is that it is creating particularly in this recession climate a backlash, resentment, frustration that is building up and is leading towards a collision as blacks become more impatient.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But this sounds like an unavoidable collision course.

MR. YANKELOVICH: It is an unavoidable collision course. It is affecting the politics in the country as well as education and the work force. It was a factor in the politics of the last election and it is going to be an even bigger factor I believe in the Presidential election of 1992. So it is inescapable and if we're going to get over this bump, we'd better learn to start talking to each other and finding ways of finding a common ground. There is a basis for a common ground if people talk to each other, but we sure, we sure in the hell don't have it now.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Dan Yankelovich, thank you.

MR. YANKELOVICH: You are welcome. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: Now some Friday night analysis from Gergen & Shields, David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, who joins us tonight from New Haven, Connecticut, and Mark Shields, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. First, Mark, on what Dan Yankelovich told Charlayne, do you think the race bump is going to be a big factor in the 1992 election?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I'd say based upon the last and the debate on the civil rights bill, it certainly is. I think it's part of the Republican strategy. I think the President has gone right up front on the issue and is -- quotas will be a mantra.

MR. LEHRER: Is there mileage there for him?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think that remains to be seen. I think the consensus here is that he's got a tactical political advantage out of his position on the civil rights bill this week and when you're riding high in the polls, I guess that's what you're looking for.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, David, that this week at least based on the fact of the vote in the House where he was, where the President was able to get 15 votes -- or let's put it this way -- the Democrats were unable to get the 15 votes that were required to have made it veto proof, that this was a victory for the President's position?

MR. GERGEN: Well, Jim, in terms of sheer politics, even the Democrats would tell you that this was a clear victory for the President. He was able to get the message out that this was a quota bill, as Cynthia Tucker said earlier in the program, and many Democrats were hearing from blue collar constituents that they saw this as a quota bill and that they were beginning to blame this tragic, they were beginning to blame blacks and other minorities for economic hard times, they're beginning to see that preferences and advantages have been given to the other side that somehow gave them an advantage that was unfair and so this has been a very tough time. But I think it's very unfortunate we're into this, that it is seen as a victory for this reason.

MR. LEHRER: All right, when David says we're into it, Mark, do you believe we're into this, to the very end, I mean, that there will be no -- Sen. Danforth, a Republican from Missouri, apparently is working very hard to get a compromise in the Senate to avoid or at least -- it can't be avoided now, but at least push it aside, this huge conflagration over this thing -- has he got any chance at all?

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, I think he does. I think John Danforth and a group of nine Republicans including Warren Rudman of New Hampshire who turned down any consideration to be attorney general have put the President in potentially the most embarrassing position of all. I mean, he can't sabotage, submarine undermine their initiative to forge a compromise. Ted Kennedy, the leader of the left, of the liberals in the Senate, has said he wants to work with them. Jack Danforth has a reputation of fair mindedness so if he fashions a compromise that has broad based support, the President's going to be hard pressed to do it.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, David, that it's still possible that this thing may not go to the O.K. Corral?

MR. GERGEN: I do think it is, Jim. I think Mark is absolutely right. The most encouraging thing that's happened in the last few days is this group of Republicans have come forward in the Senate, they're very, very uncomfortable with the current state of play. They're appalled by the debate that has taken place so far, by the divisiveness of it. They think that -- they would argue that President Bush has been maligned in this debate but they certainly agree that the administration has played too hard on the quota issue, and, Jim, there are some indications that they've been given signals by the administration that they have no objection to them moving forward with this. So it's -- I was told by the White House yesterday that while the White House would much prefer the Bush bill, some there said, look, I don't think it's going to come to a veto. I think if any bill ever comes down here, it'll come down here ultimately with the President's blessing. So I think that even the White House now would -- implicit, and some of the rhetoric is -- we've played this game out far enough now, maybe there is room for compromise.

MR. SHIELDS: Jim, there's one minor addition to what David said. The Democrats did not and the House certainly did not turn tail and run. The only switch from last year on the votes were Republicans who had voted for the 1990 bill and didn't vote for the 1991 bill. They lost almost half the Republicans who had supported the bill in 1990, and I think there was a real discomfort feature on the President saying things like they're trying to grind me into the political dust, my enemies are, I mean, of personalizing what is a very large political debate, and I think Dan Yankelovich tests you on it.

MR. GERGEN: Can I add one point on this?

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. GERGEN: I do think the President was personally upset by the tone of the debate because he feels he is committed to civil rights. He convinced himself it's a quota bill and many of these Republicans who are now pushing this bill say its his advisers -- they're putting the blame on the advisers for the quality of the debate coming out of the administration, but I would say this, Jim, I think that President has won a victory this week. What we've seen in the last ten days or two weeks or two is the President's taking on a really hard edge on a number of social issues. Now that is going to have the effect of solidifying his own base. The conservatives are delighted. At the same time, there are going to be some Democrats, I think we ought to recognize this, who are becoming, beginning to lean toward Bush, beginning to like him after the Persian Gulf War, I think might well have voted for him for President. As the social issues play out, abortion counseling, school prayer, civil rights, and the like, I think you're going to find some Democrats begin to peel off now and the President's approval ratings may come down even as he solidifies his base.

MR. LEHRER: You agree, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I think David is absolutely right and I think it is part of the '92 strategy to solidify the base rather than to reach out, and the question of civil rights, Tony Lewis pointed out this week, Richard Nixon didn't have a great week, more of his greatest hits were released for public scrutiny, had a far better record, a more advanced and aggressive record on civil rights when as Dan Yankelovich pointed out blacks were a lot more optimistic about the future in 1970 and desegregation and desegregating the building trades than George Bush can -- I mean, George Bush can take offense, but it's a short civil rights record to point to.

MR. LEHRER: Look, let's go back to the other subject that Robin talked to the editors about and that's these big parades, the one in Washington and another one in New York, et cetera. What are your thoughts about those, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think that both sides without sounding too ambivalent, both sides obviously have their point. There is a real need on the part of the American people to welcome back those who were in harm's way, who willingly went there, and at the same time to retroactively acknowledge the enormous sacrifice and the terrible cruel indifference of the American people to those who served in Vietnam. I think the critics have a legitimate point about proportionality. I mean, you know, this was a war that lasted four days, was the United States and the world against a third rate power, that a hundred days after it's over to be spending $12 million in a nation that does have serious problems raises serious questions about proportionality. But I think what was touched on in the editors' discussion is really salient, and that is the question of America in decline. There is a need and a desire, legitimate desire, to celebrate something, something that's gone right.

MR. LEHRER: Anything. Yeah. David.

MR. GERGEN: Well, Jim, every time I smile at something Mark says, this little bug falls out of my ear, so if you'll bear with me, I'll try not to let it go again this time. The -- I am very much in favor of these parades. It's a tradition that's stretched back over 100 years in this country. The Civil War parade in Washington lasted two days. The World War I, there was a plane that ran out of power right over the Smithsonian Institute, almost crashed into it, landed in the bushes nearby. This is the first time we've had a parade since the Second World War in Washington for returning veterans and I think it's a good idea. The nation needs to celebrate and thank these people, and that's what this is all about, is to thank them. People say it was a short war. Maybe so, but that's -- they put their lives on the line for seven months over there. Many of us thought a lot of them wouldn't come back alive. We have reason to celebrate what they did, and I'd just like to say one other thing, if I could, I think these people could do more than be honored in a parade. I think they'd be tremendous role models in our schools. We just heard yesterday these reports about mathematics and how many kids are failing mathematics in the schools now, the problems with alcohol. Let's take these people away -- when the parades are over, let's take them out to the schools and let them talk to the kids about the importance of finishing school, staying off drugs, staying off alcohol. They'd be terrific role models.

MR. LEHRER: One other -- a couple of other quick things. The appointment of Bob Strauss, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, did the President do the smart thing there?

MR. SHIELDS: I think he did the smart thing politically. It's the end of the cold war. I mean, as David said, he's moving to the right on the social questions. He certainly sent George Bush a sign to the right that ideologically the cold war is over. I mean, Bob Strauss is the ultimate pragmatist. Bob Strauss sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev is like P.T. Barnum meeting Bill Veck, you know, the colorful and lovably flamboyant baseball owner. I don't know. Who's going to watch the Wallacks? I mean, it's going to be a deal to watch.

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: It was an appointment that as you know, Jim, it stunned Washington, and I think it was a stunningly good appointment. Bob Strauss is an old pro. I think he's a wonderful fellow. He has the confidence both of President Baker -- President Bush and Sec. Baker --

MR. SHIELDS: Dr. Freud.

MR. GERGEN: Some people think that's Freudian, I don't. But he also has Gorbachev's confidence. Gorbachev has talked to him not only at a state dinner during the Reagan years. He's talked to him since. I think what it indicates is that the Bush administration is making a serious commitment to remain engaged with the Soviet Union over the next couple of years. Whether with Gorbachev or with someone else, they're putting a heavy hitter in there and that means they intend to do business, they intend to cut deals, they intend to move the relationship forward.

MR. MacNeil: Mark, what does that do to the Democrats who might want to criticize the President's policy towards the Soviet Union and helping the Soviets pull out of their economic disaster if they've got Mr. Democrat, himself, representing the United States and the President in Moscow?

MR. SHIELDS: I think it was a deft move in that sense and the President from insulating himself from criticism, although Bob Strauss was on record as saying I never voted for George Bush, I never will, I'm leaving as a Democrat and coming back as a Democrat, so his, his credentials remain intact.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Another political problem, George Mitchell, the Senate Majority Leader, has criticized Dick Thornburgh for announcing that he's going to run for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania but remaining attorney general until July. Is that a bad wrap?

MR. SHIELDS: Slightly disingenuous on both sides. I mean, Dick Thornburgh says he's not a candidate, yet, every Republican in Pennsylvania and every Democrat knows he is a candidate, so he isn't a candidate he says until he does leave, but it does raise questions about a Justice Department, whether, in fact, the man in charge is going to be making decisions, that people are going to be importuning him who may have a capacity to help his campaign later, but at the same time, of course, Republicans point out that Robert Kennedy when he decided to run for the Senate from New York remained attorney general even during that summer. So I think there is a slight disingenuousness in the argument.

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: Jim, the administration ought to move forward as quickly as possible. If he's running, he ought to move on in life, so he can raise money and be a candidate and let's get somebody else in place. He has been a fine attorney general but I think it raises the specter of politics affecting the quality of justice and for everyone's sake and for Dick Thornburgh's sake, this process ought now to move on quickly as possible.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of moving on, that's what we're going to do. Thank you both very much. See you next week.

MR. GERGEN: Thank you. ESSAY - THE BIG APPLE

MR. MacNeil: We close tonight with an essay from our regular essayist, Roger Rosenblatt, editor at large at Life Magazine. He has some thoughts on the meaning of the recession for New York City.

MR. ROSENBLATT: If you had to identify New York City by a single characteristic, it would be ambition. The city heaves with ambitious people. See them stride along fashionable Madison Avenue or the determined Avenue of the Americas -- the gait, the look, the clothing says it, I want, I want it now. The very buildings speak the word. They rise to the sky like immodest assertions. Everybody goes up. Everybody yearns to live high. In every office, on every floor of every office, the people strive. They have come to New York to strive. At night, look at the walls of offices lit up, workers in their selves driven like athletes in the Olympics, stronger, faster, higher. How deeply then it goes against the grain, the budget cutbacks threatened by New York's Mayor David Dinkins.

MAYOR DINKINS: Since I took office, we have had to close nearly $8 billion in budget gaps. That's a larger deficit than any prior mayor has had to confront in a full four year term.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Needing to close a $3.5 billion gap in the city's $28.7 billion budget, Dinkins has proposed a $579 million cut in education, including reducing kindergarten to a half day with enrollments up 18,000. The public library and museums will reduce services. The sanitation department will forfeit 2,000 jobs. Ten shelters for the homeless will be closed. The infant mortality program will be cut back. The Central Park Zoo may close down. So may many of the public swimming pools. In short, the entire life of the city, in all its phases, will be shrunken and squeezed dry. Such shrinkage would be hard enough on any city. It is especially hard on a place that defines itself in terms of growth and expansion. In that way, perhaps only in that way, New York is like execution as a whole. For all its faults and dangers, the city was invented for bigness, bigness down to its dreams. If the dreams of New Yorkers could be measured, they would outsize the population a thousand to one. Close the pools and you cannot swim an ocean. Close the museums and you can't become Van Gogh. Close the library and you can't be Jimmy Baldwin -- Baldwin, poor, black, small, looked at the public library and recognized heaven. As painful as it would be to take away the city's services and institutions, that would feel like nothing compared to taking away the city's soul, ambitious soul. The prospect frightens New Yorkers who talk these days in terms of specific losses and of course the politicians past and present are blamed, and of course, the federal government is blamed for not bailing the city out. And of course, everything is going to hell. What's new? But that's not what has most people down nowadays. It's the feeling perhaps shared by the country as a whole that the little store once started will not grow up to be Macy's after all, but may close for lack of rent next month. And the kid living in Far Rockaway won't even see a concert in Carnegie Hall, much less practice, practice. And the post office clerk will stay a post office clerk all his life if he's lucky. And the algebra teacher, if she's lucky, will hold onto her job for a year. When the political speeches have all been delivered and the dire predictions all been made, the recession will be read not in abstractions but in people's lives. New Yorkers are afraid for their lives, which were supposed to rise like the Empire State, a rocket, a dream, up and away. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again the main stories of this Friday, statements by U.S. officials appeared to dim the prospects of a June summit between President Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. And the nation's jobless rate rose to a four year high of 6.9 percent. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night with a report on opinions about sex that are dividing the Presbyterian Church in America. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.