The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MARGARET WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Jim Lehrer has the day off. On the NewsHour tonight, new fighting in Russia's troubled Caucasus; a report on how babies' brains develop; our historians, plus one, on celebrities in politics; and a David Gergen Dialogue with Ken Dychtwald, author of "Age Power." It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

MARGARET WARNER: Vice President Gore challenged Former Senator Bill Bradley to a series of debates today. He also announced he's moving his campaign headquarters to Tennessee, the state he represented in the House and Senate before becoming Vice President. Gore told a Washington news conference he wanted to get out into the heartland.

AL GORE: I want to try to set... I want to take this campaign for the presidency directly to the grassroots and directly to the American people. First of all, I'm announcing the beginning of a series of open meetings in the early states that have caucuses and primaries, where I will be speaking directly to the voters in small groups. When people get together to talk about the future of America, they have a debate and a discussion of what our options are and what the problems are, how we can solve them.

MARGARET WARNER: In a statement, Bradley, Gore's only rival for the Democratic nomination, "I haven't made it a habit to respond to every tactic by the vice president's campaign." He said he's already accepted a number of joint appearances with Gore, including an October 27 town meeting in New Hampshire. President Clinton said today the United States will forgive all the debt owed to it by the world's poorest countries. He made the announcement at the annual joint meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He said 100 percent of that debt would be erased if future repayments are spent instead on basic human needs. The President urged world financial leaders to back a similar plan. He said this.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If we do these things as nations, as international institutions, as a global community, then we can build a trading system that strengthens our economy and supports our values. We can build a global economy and a global society that leaves no one behind, that carries all countries into a new century, that we hope will be marked by greater peace and greater prosperity for all people.

MARGARET WARNER: Also today, Mr. Clinton met with the Syrian foreign minister to try to restart peace talks between Israel and Syria, and he paid off his $90,000 legal debt to Paula Jones' lawyers. He was fined for giving them a misleading deposition in Jones's sexual harassment suit against him. And he signed a bill doubling the salary of the next president to $400,000 a year. The bill also includes pay raises for the Vice President, cabinet officers, and members of Congress. Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured items rose .9 percent in August, higher than expected. The Commerce Department said the increase was driven by a demand for airplanes, automobiles and other transportation equipment. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 62 points, at 10,213. The NASDAQ was down 25 points at 2730. There was more rain again today in eastern North Carolina. Two inches, in addition to six inches that fell over the past few days. That caused more flooding in towns like Tarboro, which was already hard-hit by Hurricane Floyd. It dumped 20 inches of rain on the state two weeks ago. Forecasters predict drier weather ahead. Overseas today, Defense Secretary Cohen warned Indonesia to control its remaining troops in East Timor. They've been accused of encouraging pro-Indonesia militias in their campaign of violence against pro- independence East Timorese. More recently, the militias have issued threats against the international peacekeeping force. Cohen meets with President Habibie in Jakarta tomorrow. In Washington, State Department Spokesman James Foley addressed the same issue

JAMES FOLEY: We reiterate our call on the government of Indonesia to immediately take steps to restore order, to disarm and disband militia groups that continue to intimidate and threaten East Timorese on both sides of the border. We also call on the government ofIndonesia to enable safe and secure access by international humanitarian organizations to East Timorese in need, both in East and West Timor. Military-supported militia activity continues to restrict such access.

MARGARET WARNER: Foley also expressed concern about the escalation of hostilities between Russia and Chechnya. Russia leveled air strikes at the rebel region for the seventh straight day, and a Russian news agency reported today that Russian ground troops have started an offensive there. Thousands of refugees fleeing the bombing continued to pour into neighboring republics. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary -- also ahead, how babies learn to think, celebrity candidates, and a Gergen dialogue.

FOCUS - WAR IN THE CAUCASUS

MARGARET WARNER: The fighting in Chechnya. We start with this background report by Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: For seven straight days now, Russian warplanes have pounded Chechnya, scenes reminiscent of Russia's intervention five years ago in that disputed mountainous region of the Caucasus. The Chechen government says the attacks have killed more than 300 people and wounded 1,000 or more. At least one oil refinery has been taken out, and scores of homes have been destroyed. The Russian army says it's targeting Islamic rebels based in Chechnya-- rebels they blame for the latest outbreak of fighting in the next door Republic of Dagestan, and for a series of deadly apartment blasts in Russia.

IGOR SERGEYEV, Defense Minister, Russia: (Translated) Our aim is to destroy the bandits. We will continue our strikes to kill this plague once and for all.

SPENCER MICHELS: The attacks have sparked a mass exodus of Chechen refugees. In some border areas, the lines of humanity stretch ten miles long. Refugees are entering several adjacent republics of the Russian federation, including Ingushetia, where leaders call the situation there a humanitarian crisis.

PRESIDENT RUSLAN AUSHEV, Republic of Ingushetia: (Translated) The situation is alarming. I consider there are even elements of catastrophe. According to our figures, there are 61,000 refugees. If things continue like this, we'll have 200,000 refugees.

SPENCER MICHELS: Two key Muslim leaders targeted by the Russians are Shamil Basayev, a Chechen military commander, and a Jordanian man known simply as Khattab, who fought against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980's. The two men participated in the 20-month Chechen war against Russia, which claimed some 30,000 lives, by conservative estimates. The conflict ended in 1996 with a Russian withdrawal and a peace deal providing Chechens with de facto autonomy. Basayev and Khattab also helped lead last month's invasion into the nearby Russian Republic of Dagestan, where they reportedly seek to establish an Islamic state. The guerrillas were eventually driven back to Chechnya by Russian troops. Today, more than 10,000 Russian troops are stationed on the Russian-Chechen border, to make sure Chechen guerrillas don't enter Russia. A few thousand Chechen troops are manning their side of the border as well. In addition, Russian leaders accuse the Chechen fighters of being behind four deadly building explosions that killed more than 290 civilians earlier this month. All the blasts occurred in apartments in the early-morning with residents were in bed.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Prime Minister, Russia: (Translated) It's an attempt by international terrorists to frighten the people, stir up panic, paralyze the political leadership of the country.

SPENCER MICHELS: The most recent blast occurred 13 days ago in the city of Volgodonsk, 500 miles South of Moscow. An apartment building explosion killed 17. Three days before that, in Moscow, a blast went off in an eight-story apartment block; 118 people died. On the 9th, a similar explosion rocked a building four miles away, killing 93. And on the 4th, in Dagestan, 64 died when a car bomb went off at a Russian army residential building. In the last three weeks, police in Moscow have been on a heightened state of alert. They've combed crowded areas around town, checked identity papers, and confiscated more than 500 tons of explosives. So far, they've detained 30 suspects in connection with the bombings. In addition, some 15,000 non-native Muscovites have been denied permission to keep living there and told to return to their hometowns. Many Chechens in Russia are crying discrimination, saying they've been targeted because of their dark skin.

MARGARET WARNER: For more, we turn to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And with me to talk about the fighting in Chechnya are Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom and author of "After the Collapse: Russia Seeks its Place as a Great Power." He returned from Moscow Saturday. Yo'Av Karny, a journalist whose book about the Caucuses, "Highlanders," is to be published soon. And Stephen Cohen, Professor of Russian Studies at New York University and author of "Rethinking the Soviet Experience."

Dimitri Simes, please expand a little bit on what we just heard about Russian strategy in Chechnya right now. Is Russia headed toward another all-out war there?

DIMITRI SIMES: It's an interesting and difficult question. I wish I knew whether the Russian leadership had a strategy. Certainly, if their strategy is a ground invasion, full-scale ground invasion, they're asking for a lot of trouble. They don't have enough forces around Chechnya. Their forces are not well equipped; the morale is rather poor. Most Russians want to teach the Chechens to listen, but they are not prepared to pay for this lesson with a lot of blood and treasure, so my hope is that the Russians are posturing -- that they're using their air force, that they may want to occupy a couple of fields to position themselves better and to establish some kind of a buffer zone. But if they're trying to start a full-scale invasion, we make a lot of escalation and dangerous miscalculation.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Cohen, your view of Russian strategy at this point in relation to what Mr. Simes just said, Russia's Interfax News Agency did report today that Russian troops moving to Chechnya, occupying "peaks" overlooking two villages, there is no confirmation of that at all?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, strategy may be too grand a word for it, but militarily the Russian government, the Yeltsin regime, to be specific, is viewing Chechnya as a kind of cancer in the Russian Federation -- as a plague -- and it's attempting either to destroy it with military force or to utterly quarantine it from the rest of Russia by some sort of military buffer between the rest of the Russian Federation and Chechnya. Politically, the strategy would appear to be on the part of this very desperate Yeltsin regime, which is loathed by the Russian people, to do something in Chechnya that would gain itself some measure of popularity with the Russian people, or at least gain it a sense among the Russian people that it's a needed regime, that it can protect the people, it's not clear that they'll succeed in either strategy, but I think that's what the strategy is.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Karny, the bombing in Chechen villages, Chechen infrastructure, what's the relationship between official Chechnya, the government, and the rebels?

YO'AV KARNY: Well, in Russian mind the government is the rebels and has been so since November of 1991, when exactly eight years ago -- for independence. If I were a knowledgeable Russian tonight, I would be close to despair, because there isn't a way out. There might have been a considerable way out four, five, six years ago if only Russia had let Chechnya go at the time, before the bad blood, before 80,000-odd casualties, which incidentally, proportionately speaking is more than Britain and France suffered during the entire period of World War II. What happened between 1994 and 1996 is probably irreversible, and that is, the radicalization of the Chechen population. And the fact that the cause has been to a large extent surrendered to a militant, to some extent alien ideology that had never existed in the Caucasus before this war...

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Before you go on, expand on that. Are you talking about the Islamic ideology and religion that's being put forth by the rebels? What do you mean?

YO'AV KARNY: I do, indeed. The Northeast Caucasus, of which we are talking, is of course historically Muslim. But the Islam that prevailed in the Caucasus before 1994 had been largely eclectic, idiosyncratic, full of indigenous habits, customs and heritage. It was essentially tolerant. It was laid back, relaxed, steeped in Islamic mysticism, close to what Muslims call Sufism. What we are seeing now, the rise of fundamentalism, what is attributed to Wahabism, which is basically Saudi Arabia militant school of Islam is entirely new, should have never happened. The Russians have developed expertise in opening cans of worms in Islamic countries.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Karny, very briefly. I interrupted you before you got to answer the question whether there is a tight relationship between the Chechen official government and the rebels.

YO'AV KARNY: That's doubtful. The president of Chechnya -- who is a former Soviet army colonel -- wanted presumably to reach some sort of agreement with the Russians over de facto independence, perhaps an attempted state and nation-building. The warlords, as they are known, the fighters have nothing to do with that. Shamil Basayev who is the warlord who invaded Dagestan last month was offered the prime ministership in 1996. That was a clear attempt at allowing him to show his hand in construction. He turned it down.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Mr. Simes, is there consensus right now among the political leadership in Russian about how to deal with the rebels in Chechnya, and if so, if there is consensus about the bombing, why, given the terrible consequences of the last time that Russia was involved there?

DIMITRI SIMES: I think there is consensus in Russia now that Chechen rebels are pretty terrible people. Shamil Basayev, I have to say, is not just a rebel commander; he's a bandit, he's a terrorist, he has a record of hostage-taking. I think that anything the Russians can do against him is justified, not just strategically but morally. I also have to say that most Russians agree that President Maskatov doesn't control the situation, but that is besides the point because the same dilemma as the Israelis in Lebanon. If the government cannot control the situation, then you are being subjected to terrorist attacks, you have to do something. The trouble is, the trouble is that the Russians do not have good options. They know what they are against. They have consented that something has to be done, but they have no strategy. They have no forces which could implement an effective military strategy. And I think that they are trying to do whatever they can do to hold the situation, to manage the situation, but they don't have any real solutions. And the danger is that their attempts to intimidate the Chechens, these attempts may backfire and lead to a full-scale war.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Stephen Cohen, you touched on this, but how do you see the politics of this action and the effects on the politics of Russia?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, let me dissent from Dimitri just a bit. I don't know that we really disagree, but in fact the consensus among the Russian political class that he had mentioned existed until about 48 hours ago -- when a number of prominent members of parliament have called upon the government to stop the bombing of Chechnya because they're afraid it's going to preclude the possibility of any talks with the Chechens. The Kremlin responds, there are no possibility of talks with the Chechens, and that may be so. As for the political dynamic here, I believe that the basic dynamic is, from the Russian point of view, the desperate fear of the Yeltsin regime that the day will come, sooner rather than late other, when it will have to leave power, and that it will be held responsible inside Russia for what's happened inside Russia during the last seven or eight years. And this war gives it a chance, if that's the right formulation-- I'm not sure it's going to be a possible chance-- but a chance to do something that might win some of the allegiance of some of the people. I agree with Dimitri, the government does not have many possibilities. But this fear of retribution has led many very sensible people in Russia, people who are absolutely normal to ask the question of whether it was the Kremlin itself that set off those bombs inside Moscow. I mean what kind of government would be suspected of such a thing? And the answer is: With a government that has virtually no legitimacy with its own people. And that's the political context in which this terrible war is unfolding.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Simes, before I move on to Mr. Karny, do you want to respond to that?

DIMITRI SIMES: Well, I think it's pretty clear that the government in Moscow is very unpopular. It is pretty clear that Steve Cohen is absolutely right, people suspect this government of all kinds of possible things and indeed presidential contender Governor Lebed today said in an interview that he thinks the Kremlin is responsible for all these terrorist acts. I have to say, however, that if they had a different government, a more popular government, a more legitimate government, they would still have to deal with the Chechen terrorism. There is no option of ignoring this. The invasion of Dagestan was totally unprovoked, and it came from Chechnya. So the Russians have a dilemma: To let Chechnya go, or to continue this bloody nonsense.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Go ahead. Sorry.

DIMITRI SIMES: And I think that hopefully the Russians will come to a conclusion soon that full independence for Chechnya is the best possible alternative.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Karny, what about the effects on all this on the Chechens themselves? Are they able to resist this sort much bombing?

YO'AV KARNY: That's a good question because for a couple of moments, one might have thought that we are talking about domestic Russian politics. We are talking about a historical confrontation between an imperial Russia and the indigenous nations of the Caucasus, something that goes back to the 18th century. The Chechens, you see, are a rare phenomenon in a Russian contest. There isn't a single ethnic group in Russia which has been as persistent and as determined in resisting Russian occupation since the 1780's. The Russians have just bombed the Grozny airport named after a fellow by the name of Monsur. He was the first resistance leader executed by the Russians in the 1790's. Now, we must understand what happened here. The Chechens performed heroically in 1994 to 1996, but then their cause has started degenerating. It has been abducted. They forgot what they were fighting for. They were fighting for their own independence. Now it seems no longer to be the case. They are talking about, or some of them, are talking about an all-encompassing Islamic union of Dagestan and Chechnya. There fare-- therefore I disagree with Mr. Simes, in the sense that letting Chechnya go right now will no longer solve the problem. It's too late.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Cohen, we have a very little amount of time left. How is this all likely to affect U.S.-Russian relations?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it isn't going to do it any good. They're already at a low. I the thing that worries me is ---- and I may be alone in this - nobody seems to mention it -- but this terrible war, this civil war, the systematic terrorism is unfolding for the first time in history in a nuclearized country and none of us know what that means. I think the bell is tolling. I mean we've crossed from an era of reasonable predictability about nuclear weapons to utter unpredictability. I mean we can't be certain, God forbid, that a terrorist would launch a rocket at a nuclear reactor, for example. We are in new territory. We have crossed some kind of rubicund, and the implications are enormous.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Thank you all very much for being with us.

MARGARET WARNER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, brainy babies, celebrity candidates, and a Gergen Dialogue.

FOCUS - GOOD BEGINNINGS

MARGARET WARNER: Next tonight, just how critical are a child's first three years of development? Betty Ann Bowser has our report.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: At four years of age, Aspen Clark can count to ten in four languages.

ASPEN CLARK: (Counting in German)

JULIE AIGNER-CLARK: Good. How about Spanish?

ASPEN CLARK: (Counting in Spanish) Uno, dos, tres...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Several years ago, her mother, Julie Aigner Clark, became fascinated with new scientific research about the development of babies' brains.

JULIE AIGNER-CLARK: What color will I get if I mix blue and red paint?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The research she read said that the first three years of life may be the most crucial in a child's development. So the Clarks decided to expose both Aspen and her two-year-old sister, Sierra, to an enriched learning environment.

JULIE AIGNER-CLARK: Look at the snake. What does a snake say?

JULIE AIGNER-CLARK: (Hisses) oh, you scared me.

JULIE AIGNER-CLARK: I've read a lot of research, but I'm not a scientist in a lab. I'm a mom in a home. And so I think I can expose my kids to really wonderful things for a very short period of time before they are hit with a lot of things from the outside world and peers. And I like to believe that this exposure to classical music, poetry, and language will have an impact on them and hopefully help them to develop an appreciation for these kinds of things.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But now, a new book called "The Myth of the First Three Years" throws cold wateron what parents like Clark have been doing. Indeed, author John Bruer questions basic conclusions that have been made by early childhood development experts.

JOHN BRUER, "The Myth of the First Three Years:" The advice parents are getting based on neuroscience, they should be highly skeptical of. And although the first years are very important, they are not highly deterministic in the way the public understands. Simply by assuring a wonderful environment for a child, you're not going to inoculate it against all sorts of problems and bad experiences and bad outcomes later. Conversely, given what we know, bad experiences during the first years of life are not forever going to emotionally or mentally cripple a child.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Yale University child psychiatrist Kyle Pruett not only disagrees with Bruer, he thinks the book is dangerous. The father of a seven-month-old Olivia, and president of a child development organization called Zero to Three, he is furious with Bruer.

YALE PRUETT, Yale Child Psychiatrist: He chose a title that I think is toxic, because it confuses parents yet again, and says, you know, what you do really isn't all that important. You have plenty of time. Just give them reasonable daycare and you can read to your children or not. It's really not going to matter.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: For the past decade, the importance of zero-to-three brain development has been widely reported.

MOTHER: Oh, I don't think I could guess that, said Big Nut Brown Hair.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Massive media coverage inspired American parents by the hundreds of thousands to read to their young infants, and to enroll them in music classes. Some parents even play Mozart for their babies because of research that claimed people who listened to classical music increased their IQ's. While nobody really knows exactly how babies learn, neuroscientists have shown that a baby's brain makes important neurological connections at a furious rate. Those connections begin about a week after birth and continue for the first few years of life before tapering off.

HARRY CHUGANI, Wayne State Neurologist: The frontal lobe has filled in.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Dr. Harry Chugani is a pediatric neurologist and a leader in this field of research. Chugani uses a scan that measures brain activity in infants by measuring glucose consumption. The more activity, the more glucose consumed.

HARRY CHUGANI: By three, the child's brain is using over double the amount of glucose as an adult. And interestingly, those high levels are maintained from age three all the way to puberty. What we're looking at is the increased energy demands by the brain, because there are more connections in the brain. And then with puberty, we prune away connections.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Bruer doesn't deny that there is tremendous brain activity in young children. But he questions the conclusions drawn from that.

JOHN BRUER: Although this synaptic burst, this burst in brain connections does occur during the first three years of life, we're not at all clear what environmental input has to do with that. That seems to be primarily under genetic control, so the idea that by stimulating your baby more, you're going to make more connections go is really not supported by the science.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Chugani argues that not only is environmental input critical to babies, he says that without appropriate stimulation, young brains may be permanently affected.

HARRY CHUGANI: I would venture to say that in the areas of interaction and bonding, it probably is... I hate to use the word "over,"but I think significant damage has been done if by age three there hasn't been the appropriate kinds of interaction.

SPOKESMAN: Feels okay, Joel?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Dr. Jerome Kagan says that is bunk. The Harvard scientist has also done extensive research on the brains of young children, and he says Bruer is right, that a child's brain is much more resilient than zero-to-three proponents would have one believe. Kagan uses a hypothetical example.

JEROME KAGAN, Harvard Child Psychologist: So here's a child who's had an anxious two years. Maybe the mother was ill. Maybe there was some quarreling. Maybe the father was at war. And then the father comes back, and the mother recovers, and the child does well in school. And the girl is a great tennis player and the anxiety gets conquered and now she's 20 years old and she's perfect. That's why it's a myth.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Kagan, like Bruer, thinks the importance of the first three years has been oversold to American middle class parents, who have helped create an entire industry of early learning products. In fact, Julie Aigner-Clark was inspired by Chugani's work to form a company that makes videos for babies. First there was Baby Einstein, then there was Baby Mozart, and soon, coming to a TV set in your neighborhood, Baby Shakespeare. Clark's company has been so successful, that this year she expects sales of $4.2 million. Last year, her tapes were given the Video Magic Award by "Parents" Magazine. But Clark's company isn't the only one in the business of selling Mozart and Shakespeare to the parents of three-month- olds. Most record stores have an entire section devoted to CD's for babies. And the state of Georgia now gives every new mother a CD of classical music to play for her baby when she leaves the hospital. Kagan thinks parents are being fooled into thinking all of this is necessary.

JEROME KAGAN: The brain doesn't need Mozart. The brain doesn't need you to read to this child 20 hours a day. But our society has created artificial conditions, so that if you want your child to be in the top half in kindergarten and in the top third in eighth grade and in that top 20 percent in high school, so that child will go on to a good college, then reading to your child, playing Mozart, all of that will help calm

parents, but not because the brain needs it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Psychiatrist Pruett agrees there has been a lot of hype aimed at parents, but he's concerned that if parents believe the first years don't matter, they will stop being so involved with their babies. He also worries that ultimately it could have a negative impact on such public policy issues like funding for childcare and early Head Start programs.

KYLE PRUETT: There is no myth of the early years. And to suggest it is mythology is irresponsible scientifically; I'm afraid it's got the potential for some very destructive policy decisions and implications, and it is going to further confuse the mothers and fathers of America who are trying to do their very best for their particular son or daughter.

JOHN BRUER: My fear is that by reporting science inaccurately, abusing the results we have, that we can put policy and even investment in even greater danger. And we have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we're going to spend you know $4 billion or whatever on a new childcare program. ..what's the best way to spend it? And we should not just assume that the best way to spend it is earlier is better.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: While the debate over early childhood development continues, 42 states are experimenting with educational programs for pre-kindergartners, and one state, Georgia, offers universal pre-kindergarten schooling.

FOCUS - HOLLYWOOD - CELEBRITY CANDIDATES

MARGARET WARNER: Celebrity candidates. Media from all over the world will converge on Beverly Hills tonight to watch actor Warren Beatty accept an award from the Southern California Chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action. The reason? A surprising bit of political buzz.

MARGARET WARNER: It's not just Democrats and Republicans who are vying right now for their party's year 2000 presidential nomination. The top slot of the reform party, founded by Texas billionaire, Ross Perot, is also up for grabs. And this time around, the three most talked about potential contenders are all, above all, celebrities. They are actor Warren Beatty, real estate magnet Donald Trump, and television commentator Pat Buchanan, who's considering bolting the G.O.P. for the Reform Party. Their would-be sponsor, a celebrity who's already hit it big in politics, Minnesota governor and possible future presidential contender, Jesse Ventura. He was a television-famous professional wrestler before winning the governorship on the reform ticket last year. Another celebrity, actress Cybill Shepherd, is also rumored to be considering a run for president on a pro-choice platform. Buchanan parlayed his TV pundit celebrity image into serious challenges for the Republican presidential nominations in 1992 and 1996, and he's been at it again this year. Talk of the 62-year-old Beatty as a potential contender started at a summer dinner party given by conservative columnist Arianna Huffington, who then promoted the idea of a Beatty candidacy in her column. The mainstream media followed suit, and Beatty tantalized them further with a coy late August op-ed piece in the "New York Times." He bemoaned the Democratic Party's current choice between two capable, cautious centrists, Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Beatty has specialized in playing sexy heartthrobs, beginning with his 1961 film debut in "Splendor in the Grass." But some of his movies have had political themes, like the 1981 film "Reds"... (Cheers) ...and last year's "Bulworth," in which Beatty played a senator who talks bluntly to the political establishment.

WARREN BEATTY: (Rapping): You know, it ain't that funny, you contribute all my money. You make your contribution, then you get your solution. As long as you can pay, I'm gonna do it all your way. Yes, money talks and the people walk.

MARGARET WARNER: A liberal Democratic activist in his private life, Beatty campaigned for Senator George McGovern in 1972 and advised Senator Gary Hart's 1984 and 1988 presidential bids. Jesse Ventura wants a Reform Party nominee who will do well enough in 2000 to keep the party eligible for federal campaign funding in 2004, when he hopes to run. To that end, he sent an emissary to meet with Beatty and placed a phone call himself to the flamboyant, apparently interested Donald Trump.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on celebrities and politics we turn to three NewsHour regulars: Presidential Historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin and Journalist and Author Haynes Johnson. Joining them is Motion Picture Producer Gerald Rafshoon, the former media adviser and White House Communications Director for President Jimmy Carter. He's currently working on a movie about politics and Hollywood.

MARGARET WARNER: Gerry Rafshoon, you're out there. Is the hype over this Beatty boomlet really as big as it appears back here?

GERALD RAFSHOON: Oh, I think it is. I had a very surreal moment last night when I went to a Beverly Hills West Hollywood restaurant and at the next table we had George Stephanopoulos from ABC and Dee Dee Myer from Vanity Fair and Todd Pergam from the New York Times and Richard Burke from the New York Times and Dan Balz of the Washington Post, and, you know, if it wasn't for the good food I would have thought I was in Iowa and New Hampshire at the presidential campaign. They're all out here, and they're all going to be here tonight to see what happens when Warren makes his speech.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, now, Doris, this isn't really new, is it, celebrities drawn to politics and vice versa?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, it's certainly true that in the past people who were famous were drawn to politics, but I think it was different. It was their renown for great achievements like generals or like Glenn for his space achievement. Now I think the definition of celebrity is sort of being well known for being well known or somehow being talked about a lot. And the reason those people I think enter politics today or are allowed to enter politics is we've gone from a professional system where the bosses would choose the nominees, and they mostly want one of their own, unless they had one of these famous generals hanging around; whereas, now it's the people, it's the primaries, and television has a huge impact, so somebody who's good on television, who talks well, who walks well, who's marketable, who has fund-raising capacities in this world of conversation we've entered to -- that celebrity has the platform. And I think they've got an advantage today they didn't have in the past.

MARGARET WARNER: Is the advantage greater today, Haynes?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Oh, sure. Of course. I mean, I just love this boomlet you talked about for Beatty. I'm so excited by this, and Gerry describing that -- what a great country, what a great age, the media age -- just there it is -- it's all that red light -- go for the camera -- of course.

MARGARET WARNER: We in the press go for it, go for the glitz --

HAYNES JOHNSON: Oh - the moth and the flame -- hover around --

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Historians too.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Yes, yes. Name recognition, the face recognition, fame and money.

MARGARET WARNER: Gerry.

GERALD RAFSHOON: This is most exciting part of this campaign so far -- people are listening -- people are paying attention. I don't know what Warren Beatty is going to do, but he certainly is speaking seriously about some issues that are close to him.

MARGARET WARNER: Michael, how much is this too -- a reflection that the end of the Cold War - we may be looking for something different in politics --

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: We've got a much lower threshold for who can be considered plausibly as the President. Think about Ross Perot in 1992. For a period from about March of 1992 into the summer, if there had been a national election between Perot and George Bush, the elder, and Bill Clinton, Perot would have been elected President. That probably wouldn't have happened during the Cold War, because people would have said that someone with the idiosyncrasies of a Perot and the lack of foreign policy experience would be dangerous in a time in which you've got great issues of war and peace. But the other thing is that in a way we've sort of booby trapped ourselves. At the beginning of the 1970's, we as a country established a nominating process where money is so important, name identification, plus, we front-loaded these primaries that not only have you allowed a celebrity to sort of zoom in, get a lot of support, and possibly of walk away with the nomination, but in a way you've almost made that very likely.

MARGARET WARNER: So it says more, Haynes, about our culture --

HAYNES JOHNSON: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: -- as well as our politics - says a lot about our culture - as well as our politics.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Absolutely. It's a cultural phenomenon. I mean, the idea that an actor would be President was not seriously taken until Ronald Reagan made the gap -- and it really -- if you think about that, actors have wonderful careers and talent and so forth and they have all these abilities -- but they're not seen as serious philosopher kings of the country -- and Reagan changed that in a way -- John Kennedy changed -- when he came into the television age -- the celebrity -- it is about the culture, and also our short attention span.

MARGARET WARNER: Gerry Rafshoon, you're an image maker, both politically and in movies. Is there a big hurdle that a celebrity has to get over? How hard is it to get over that hurdle, to be taken plausibly as a candidate?

GERALD RAFSHOON: Well, we've always in campaigns said the first big hurdle is getting -- to the -- going over the plausibility threshold. And in the case of somebody like Warren Beatty, who has been involved for 30 years in politics, has worked in campaigns, I'm not sure that his plausibility threshold is any harder to hurdle than say Pat Buchanan's, who is really known -- his fame has come not from having worked in the White House -- but having been on "Crossfire" and other television appearances. Why would anybody not take Warren Beatty seriously, who is also a businessman, producing $50 million pictures, on budget and on schedule, and Steve Forbes, you know, who is a businessman who inherited a business from his father? I think the end of the Cold War makes it easier for Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, who was a White House staffer, and has an ideological constituency, so I don't think that, you know, we can discount and say that Warren Beatty is any less plausible than those people.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Doris, historically, who -- which kind of candidate -- obviously Ronald Reagan made the leap from actor to a plausible governor's candidate. What does it take?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think it takes once they get out there and they present themselves an ability to talk with a depth of conviction, to convince people that you are prepared. I mean, what the celebrity provides, it's almost like it's a platform or a threshold that gets you in there, but your real legitimacy will depend on how you conduct yourself. And I think what was said is right. I mean, Beatty's had a lifelong commitment to politics. It's not like he's suddenly floating in after "Bulworth" -- and saying, oh, this was sort of fun, I think I'll run for President. But you'll see, if he does do it, how he conducts himself, and that will determine his legitimacy. In the recent past it was mostly people starting out at the Governor's level or the Senator level, and I think that gave Reagan a legitimacy when he ran for President; he wasn't just Actor Reagan; he was Governor Reagan. Glenn was Senator Glenn running, not just Astronaut Glenn. Nowadays, it seems everything's speeded up in this process, so they don't even bother going to that lower level -- just run for President.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Michael, what do you think makes politicos and the press as fascinated though by celebrity candidates? I mean, there's no dearth of candidates out there, and yet, as Gerry Rafshoon just pointed out, you know, it was front page in the New York Times today about Warren Beatty and he hasn't said a word publicly.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. I think part of it, Margaret, is that I think even Warren Beatty doesn't expect to become President if he runs. And if you look at "Bulworth" and some of the other roles he's played, what he admires is a candidate who can actually have the freedom to speak the truth, and when you can run with a national platform without expecting to have to have to do the kind of things that it sometimes takes to become President, that's something that's very liberating, and I think that's one reason why we're excited about that this year, because this has not so far been a tremendously spontaneous campaign. Sorry to bring a news item to you.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Haynes, that does raise the question, why are the celebrities fascinated by this?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Well, they want the camera, they want the attention of the country, and they may have something to say very important to the country. I mean, I take it quite seriously; there's no reason why an actor can't also be a fine politician anymore than a journalist might be a President. You know, there's a possibility there too. But I'm serious -- this is a time when we're anti-politics, and I think it's very important; the people are disappointed in the political leaders that have come out of the two-party system traditionally, and that's why they're going to a Jesse Ventura, we can laugh about the wrestler -- and the body blocks and so forth -- and so on - and the boa coming around his neck that we saw on that screen -- but this says something about the country. They are looking for something that they think is authentic and that speaks to a different kind of political value.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Especially the corruption of the system by money, which is what I believe Beatty will be talking about. Nobody inside can really speak to that with deep conviction because they're stuck; they're caught in the web, and he cares so deeply about it, if he can make that part of the agenda, whatever happens to him, he will have succeeded.

MARGARET WARNER: Go ahead. I wanted to ask you something. Now, you know a lot of these people. I mean, why do you think -- if we sit in Washington and we look at people in Hollywood and you think they have celebrity already, they have money, they have fame -- why are they interested in politics?

GERALD RAFSHOON: Well, isn't it interesting that only two people who are being thought about as possible presidential candidates are talking about -- seriously talking about campaign finance reform? One is John McCain, who spent most of his life in the military, and, you know, was a prisoner of war, had other life experiences, besides being a politician, and Warren Beatty, and we all know and we talk about it, and we say there's not enough consensus for campaign finance reform -- look how important that is and these are the only two guys in the arena who are talking about that. So you know, they have interests, just like -- businessmen and other people, and they're articulating them, and they have a right to do that, and we ought to listen.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Michael, do you think we're going to see more of this?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think we're going to see more, and I hope that the people who are celebrities who do this are of the caliber of Warren Beatty. One thing we have to remember -- 1972, he was involved in the George McGovern campaign - the Hollywood figure who probably had been of greater stature in a presidential campaign than any earlier.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you, Michael. Thank you all four very much.

DIALOGUE

MARGARET WARNER: Next, a Gergen Dialogue. David Gergen engages psychologist and gerontologist Ken Dychtwald, author of, "Age Power: How the 21st Century will be Ruled by the New Old."

DAVID GERGEN: Ken, "Age Power." What do you mean by age power?

KEN DYCHTWALD, Author, "Age Power:" Well, the way it looks is that the 20th century was ruled by the young. This is the century of youth. But the 21st century is going to be ruled by the old, for a couple of reasons, David. First of all, the fastest growing segments of our population are people in their 50's and 60's and 90's. The group is growing demographically. Second, this is a segment of the population that's had an incredible reversal of fortune. You know, gone are the days where older people were poor and frail and living on the periphery of society. This group has now become the wealthiest segment in America. And third, they have unrivaled political might. And so what's happening is that we're becoming a gerontocracy. This is becoming an era in which age power will rule.

DAVID GERGEN: But Ken, for the last 25 years or so, you've been writing and speaking to audiences all over the country, indeed, all of the world, extolling the virtues of a society that's growing older -- very enthusiastic about prospects for a larger aging society. This book issues a lot of serious warnings. Why the change in emphasis?

KEN DYCHTWALD: I think, two reasons. Number one, I'm a little bit older myself. And, I think the more important reason is, I've now spent 25 years, in a sense, exploring the land of old, as a gerontologist. And I almost feel like I'm an age scout, and my job now is to come back to my own generation, and report on what I've seen. And the truth of it is, is that there are many wonders that will occur as a result of longevity: More time to be with family, go back to work, start new careers, reinvent oneself. But having spent so many years studying the aging process, there are also some disasters. There are some nightmares in aging. And there are some horrible dynamics that are occurring among today's elderly, that if the boomers migrate into them, indeed if they multiply those dynamics, we're going to have a series of train wrecks in the future. And I felt that now was the time that it was critical to sound a wake up call.

DAVID GERGEN: Well, you also went back to Greek mythology to give a name to one of these. You went back to the myth of Talthulnus. Tell us about Talthulnus and what that means today.

KEN DYCHTWALD: Well, it's a fascinating metaphor, in a sense, for what's happening in our world. There's a Greek fable in which the beautiful goddess Eos, who's immortal, of course, falls in love with a warrior. And she goes to Zeus, who begs of him one special favor, and the favor is that Tathulnus be able to live forever. And Zeus said, "are you sure that's what you want?" And she says, "Yes," and Zeus says, Then it's done." And as she was leaving Zeus's chamber, she realized she forgot to ask for health. So, as the fable goes, Talthulnus got older, and sicker, and his bones broke, and his skin rotted, and his brain became demented, but he couldn't die. And that's the version of aging that nobody wants.

DAVID GERGEN: You argue that medicine has been able to prolong life, but has not looked forward to ways to making healthy long life.

KEN DYCHTWALD: Yes. We've got it sort of half right. We're doing a better and better job at extending life expectancy, and keep in mind that throughout 99 percent of human history, the average life expectancy worldwide was less than 18 years. So the fact that the average American today is living to 76 is fabulous. But for too many people, the 70's and particularly the 80's are becoming a time of disease and pain and struggle. And so, what we need to do is to re-ignite our healthcare system to be much more effective at creating healthy longevity; not just longevity for the sake of extra years. We're going to have to train our physicians to be better at geriatrics, we're going to have to incentivize our insurance companies, to motivate their members and their patients more towards health and wellness. And I think we need to create a brand new initiative in this country to eliminate many of the horrible diseases of life's later years, so that we can wipe out diseases like Alzheimer's before they become pandemic.

DAVID GERGEN: You also argue that while a third of the baby boomers are well prepared financially for retirement, the other two thirds are not as well prepared, especially that bottom third.

KEN DYCHTWALD: The boomers have grown up in an era of prosperity, and far too many boomers haven't saved anything. In fact, I was seeing the other day that the boomers have created this sort of credit card madness. In 1970, a generation ago, the United States had $130 million of credit card debt. Right now, it's a trillion three. It's multiplied 10,000 times. And as you correctly point out, while about a third of the boomers are making a lot of money, their stocks are booming, they're driving fancy cars, the bottom third, 25 million boomers, have less than $1,000 in their household net assets. And this is a group that's maxed out on their credit cards, they're not probably going to be getting pensions, and they're not saving anything. That's a large number of people to be barreling towards their later years unprepared.

DAVID GERGEN: And even if we fix Social Security, that doesn't really fix the problem.

KEN DYCHTWALD: Exactly. In fact, I'm frustrated that most people... when you follow the media, it would seem that if Social Security gets shored up, then we don't need to worry. No. Social Security will help, even if it is shored up, and I think it's going to struggle for the boomers because of the demographic weight of this generation. But no, this 25 million segment of the boomers are going to have to be building their own savings program. They're going to have to be maxing out their 401K's and pensions because it's the combination of all of those elements that will create financial security in later years. We just can't rely on government entitlements. It won't be enough.

DAVID GERGEN: But how do we do that at a time when many corporations are cutting back from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, and many baby boomers that once you go to defined contributions, the amount of money that's there for you in that pot is going to be much smaller?

KEN DYCHTWALD: What's happened, in one generation, we've gone from a situation where employers basically guaranteed a benefit, and took care of it in kind of a paternalistic way, to a situation where employers tell the workers, "you're on your own." And sadly, about half of the baby boomers are not utilizing their 401K's. And then there's this dynamic called 401K leakage, which is that when boomers switch jobs, or it's time to roll over their accounts, they spend them. I think it's a potential disaster. I think that, for my own generation, and I'm a boomer, considering how well-educated and empowered we are, we're kind of financially illiterate. We're not acting with the kind of responsibility and forethought we ought to be to make sure that this longevity will be one that not only is vital and fun, but also has a financial basis of security to it. We're going to have to mobilize more financial responsibility among the boomers and the younger generations, or else that generation's going to struggle down the road.

DAVID GERGEN: I'd love to go deeper on both those issues but there is a third one that you raise that is even perhaps more fundamental and that is you argue that boomers are not as well prepared psychologically for what's ahead as they should be.

KEN DYCHTWALD: When you think about it, we've spent a lot of time and energy trying to produce longevity, literally making old people. But we haven't spent that much time figuring out what's the purpose of old age, what's a person to do? Right now, the average retiree watches 43 hours of television a week, and I can't imagine that that's a satisfying life. And if you imagine 100 million retirees sitting around playing golf and watching TV all day long, I don't think that's best for them or even best for society. Most research suggests that, for many retirees, what they miss is a feeling of usefulness, a feeling of productivity, a chance to give back, a chance to be worth something in the community. And I think we've got to do a better job at creating almost like an elder core, an opportunity for elder men and women, or even elder boomers in the future, David, to be able to contribute back to stay active, to stay productive and stay youthful and useful. I don't think it's simply a matter of doing away with recreation, which I think is a great reward for a life that's been a struggle and where people have worked hard. But I think we must begin to create new role models, you know, John Glenn going up into space at 78 excited everybody... Former President Carter who's contributing of himself to build homes for people less fortunate...You know, even Lena Horne back out on the road at 82 singing better than ever begin to create new role models and ideas for all of us for who we might become in our later years. And I think we need those new psychological impressions so that we can grow as we age, not just decline.

DAVID GERGEN: Ken Dychtwald, thank you.

RECAP

MARGARET WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday: Vice President Gore challenged his Democratic presidential rival, Bill Bradley, to a series of debates. Gore also announced he's moving his campaign headquarters to his home state, Tennessee. President Clinton said the United States will forgive all the debt owed it by the world's poorest countries, if they used the money for basic human needs. And a Russian news agency reported that ground troops began an offensive in Chechnya as Air Force jets launched more air strikes. Finally tonight, Jim Lehrer was one of eight recipients of a national humanities medal today at a ceremony in Washington's Constitution Hall. The recognition for contributions to America's cultural heritage was presented by the President on behalf of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Jim's fellow honorees included film director Steven Spielberg, playwright August Wilson, librarian Patricia Battin, New South Scholar Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, National Public Radio host and author Garrison Keillor, political philosopher John Rawls and journalist-historian Taylor Branch. Here's what the President said about Jim.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Novelist, playwright, journalist, moderator of presidential debates, asker of hard and probing questions in a deceptively civilized way. Jim Lehrer is a modern man of letters who has left us a gift of professionalism and civility, of true learning and the enlargement of our citizenship by his work. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: Jim will be back here tomorrow night. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Thank you and good night.