The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Russia formed an alliance. Azerbaijan became the eighth republic to declare its independence from the Soviet Union, and the Alabama prison siege ended when a federal swat team stormed the facility. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff's in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight we focus first on a new finding that there may be a biological explanation for male homosexuality. Then a Democrat who is running for President, Larry Agran, a former mayor of Irvine, California. Next, in the wake of the upheaval in the Soviet Union, we get three views, a hardliner there who says Communism isn't dead, from here Jim Fisher visits a small town in Missouri, plus the thoughts of Roger Rosenblatt.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The reshaping of the Soviet Union continued unabated today with Boris Yeltsin's Russian Republic taking the lead. Russia formed an alliance with the neighboring republic of Kazakhstan a day after a similar agreement with the Ukraine. Officials of the republic signed the accord in the Kazhak capital, Alma Otta. It calls for each republic to respect the other's border. It also says the two republics will work together to forge economic agreements to prevent the uncontrolled disintegration of the Soviet Union. Also today the republic of Azerbaijan became the eighth to declare itself independent. Its move means that more than half of the Soviet republics are now seeking independence from the Kremlin. And in Moscow, moves to punish those behind the coup and to forge a new government in its aftermath continued as well. We have more from Tim Ewart of Independent Television News.

MR. EWART: The humiliation of the Communist Party was complete today. These were the scenes at Central Committee headquarters in Moscow as Russian detectives pursued by newsmen burst into a building that was until 10 days ago one of the centers of Soviet power. Today files were opened and documents seized as part of the hunt for anyone indicated in the coup. In the Supreme Soviet, this morning there were angry accusations of a witch hunt. Several MPs have had their homes searched by Boris Yeltsin's new security services and say they're being harassed and their parliamentary immunity ignored. One claimed his flat had been raided while he was speaking in parliament, and the former Communist Party ideology chief said his wife had been taken into custody against her will.

ALEXANDER MAXIM YAKOVLEV, Member, Supreme Soviet: The lessons, the greatest lessons of every kind of revolution is after the tyrant is out of circulation, watch out.

MR. EWART: And there were more setbacks for Mr. Gorbachev today when he was again snubbed by men he wanted to put on his new security council. His former adviser, Alexander Yakovlev, said no, as did Gabriel Popov, the radical mayor of Moscow.

MR. MacNeil: In other developments, the speaker of the Soviet legislature was arrested today. According to the Tass News Agency, Alantoni Lukyanov will be charged in connection with his role in the coup. The new KGB chief pledged to fire the agency's informers and halt what he called "immoral espionage." And the new Soviet defense minister said each of the fifteen republics should be allowed to set up its own national guard to protect its sovereignty. He also said a united federal army remained necessary to guarantee a reliable system of defense. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Baltic republic of Lithuania wants an agreement with the KGB over control of its borders. The agreement calls for joint Soviet-Lithuanian patrols of the republic's border with Poland. It will also allow visitors to enter Baltic territory without a Soviet visa. Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrapped up a two day unofficial visit to the Baltic republic of Latvia today, the official Russian news agency, said that he met with the Latvian President. No details of the meeting were released.

MR. MacNeil: The hostage stand-off at the Teledega Prison in Alabama ended just before dawn today. A swat team detonated explosives and stormed the high security cell block where Cuban inmates held prison workers for nearly 10 days. Within three minutes, the nine hostages were rescued. Only one inmate was injured during the assault. Prison officials said they took action after learning that inmates have begun fighting among themselves and had randomly picked a hostage to kill. Acting Attorney Gen. William Barr held a news conference in Washington this morning.

WILLIAM BARR, Acting Attorney General: We could not make concessions to terrorists holding hostages. To do so would put the thousands of dedicated professionals working in our prisoners at constant risk. Moreover, there was considerable risk that the situation inside the prison would deteriorate, requiring an emergency response. Such an emergency response could increase the risk of harm to the hostages, rescue teams, and inmates.

MR. MacNeil: The uprising took place in a cell block housing 121 Cubans who committed crimes after coming to the U.S. in the 1980 Marielle boat lift. The prisoners were protesting the scheduled deportation of 32 inmates back to Cuba.

MS. WOODRUFF: There were two reports out today showing positive movement in the nation's economy. The Commerce Department's Index of Leading Indicators was up 1.2 percent in July, its sixth consecutive monthly gain and the biggest since June of 1988. In a separate report, the Commerce Department also said that orders to U.S. factories rose a strong 6.2 percent last month. That was the biggest increase in more than 20 years.

MR. MacNeil: That's our News Summary. Now it's on to a possible biological explanation for homosexuality, a Democrat who is running for President, the Soviet upheaval as seen by a hardline Communist, an American coffee Klatch and essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - SEX AND THE BRAIN

MS. WOODRUFF: First tonight a provocative new piece of scientific research which concludes that there may be a link between the structure of the brain and sexual orientation. The research is disclosed in today's issue of the Journal Science and what it found is that the brains of homosexual men differed in structure from those of heterosexual men. One portion of the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that regulates sexual drives, appears to be larger in heterosexual men than it is in homosexual men. Joining us now to explain the study is the man who conducted the research and who wrote today's article, Simon LeVay, Ph.D. LeVay, a neuroscientist, is an associate professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. Dr. LeVay, first of all, you've got, I think, a model of a brain there. Show us where the hypothalamus is exactly and what led you to look at this part of the brain in your research.

DR. LeVAY: Sure. The hypothalamus is at the base of the brain. It's a very small region, just about here, and it's a part of the brain that controls many different functions. But one of its function is to, apparently, to contribute to the regulation of our sex behavior. And I examined this region of the brain in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men in order to see whether I would find structural differences that might give one a clue as to, umm, as to the mechanisms that are responsible for generating our sexual orientation.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you specifically were looking at this part of the hypothalamus, is that right?

DR. LeVAY: Yes, this part of the hypothalamus, the front part, had previously been indicated to be especially involved in regulation of sex behavior by research in many other laboratories, especially UCLA Medical School.

MS. WOODRUFF: And the fact that that part may govern sexual orientation is not a surprise. It's just the size of that area that is new, is that right?

DR. LeVAY: Right. In fact, it's already been shown by these workers in Los Angeles that there are differences in this region of the brain between most men and most women, so there's -- if you like -- a general sex difference, so I went on to see whether there's a difference also of really sexual orientation, and that is, in fact, what I found.

MS. WOODRUFF: And when you say you found that this particular area is larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual, how much larger are we talking about?

DR. LeVAY: Well, there's quite a bit of variation between individuals, and there's some overlap between the two groups, but roughly speaking, it's about a threefold difference, so in most heterosexual men, this cluster of cells that I've been measuring is about the size, about a millimeter across, and in homosexual men it's much smaller. It's about a third of that size. Sometimes it's very hard to see at all.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are there any other differences, other than the size?

DR. LeVAY: That's all I've seen, just a size difference. There may very well be other differences, like chemical differences and so on, but that would be, you know, something for future research.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now you only look at men, is that correct?

DR. LeVAY: Well, I have confirmed that general sex difference, that this group of cells tends to be small in women also. But I haven't looked at the issue of whether there are differences related to sexual orientation in women because it's very difficult to get ahold of brains of women who are known to be lesbian.

MS. WOODRUFF: So -- and just to go on with the reports that I was reading today, you were dealing with material from people, from men who had died of AIDS, is that correct?

DR. LeVAY: That's correct. It's only the AIDS epidemic that has made it possible to study questions like this at the level of brain structure and so all the gay men whose brains are examined had, in fact, died of AIDS. And that of course introduces another problem, which is whether the differences that I have seen are really due to the men's sexual orientation or whether perhaps it's some kind of artifact due to the effect of the disease, itself.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because -- I was just going to say because the heterosexual men whose brains you've studied had also died of AIDS, is that right?

DR. LeVAY: Well, in fact, that's what I did. In order to reassure myself that this was not a disease effect, I examined a comparison group of brains from men who had also died of AIDS but were heterosexual. These were men who had acquired HIV infection by means of intravenous drug abuse. And in these individuals, this cluster of cells was as large as it was in heterosexual men who died of other causes. So I think that this difference I see is not a disease effect but one will never be completely sure on that point until one's been able to examine the brains of gay men who have died of other causes besides AIDS.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. LeVay, what does all this mean? What do you think?

DR. LeVAY: Well, I'd like to start off by emphasizing what this does not mean. It doesn't mean we know what causes people to be gay or straight. It doesn't mean necessarily that, that we were born with differences in our brains like I've seen in these adults. We know that the early parts of life when the brain is actually assembling itself is a very sensitive period for regulating the differentiation of the brain, but still changes can occur in the brain after birth and even during adult life. In fact, in my other field of research, which is in the visual system -- that's actually my main line of research -- I've shown and many other scientists have also shown that experience can cause very dramatic changes in the structure of the brain and even in adulthood, the brain isn't completely like fixed and frozen, so seeing a difference like this doesn't necessarily mean that it occurred during life in the womb or during early infancy.

MS. WOODRUFF: So those are things that it doesn't mean. What do you think it does mean?

DR. LeVAY: Well, I think the main significance, the finding, is that here we have a topic that's really kind of central to people's personalities really, their sexual orientation. It's a topic which has puzzled people for ages and mostly it's been studied by, basically by talking about it, by psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, and so on. And it may be that now it's time to actually weigh in there and see if we can check out the nuts and bolts of the system and see whether there's anything in the brain that might be playing a role. I again want to emphasize that just seeing this difference does not mean that this difference is what is regulating the sex behavior and sexual feelings of these individuals. It might be related in some completely tangential or incidental way.

MS. WOODRUFF: But as a neuroscientist, I gather you're saying this is a pretty significant finding, that there is any biological basis at all in terms of the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual men.

DR. LeVAY: Well, I think it's an exciting hint that this may be an area in which we can do fruitful research and that maybe eventually by following this up, by looking in more detail at the structure and its chemical organization in this part of the brain and how it develops, when it develops, these avenues eventually could lead to us really getting a handle on the questions that we really want to know, like what it is that causes us to be homosexual or heterosexual.

MS. WOODRUFF: I -- someone suggested to me a question which I think is a very good one. If this information shows up in -- by studying, in effect, the brains of people who died, could you make a determination by looking at the CAT scans that, of course, are now so commonly done of people who are, who are living?

DR. LeVAY: No, certainly not with current techniques. This cluster of cells, as I say, it's very small, and it's about the size of a grain of sand, and no imaging techniques that we have now or would likely be able to obtain within the foreseeable or near future would be able to pick up a structural difference of this kind. And I must say, I feel a little bit glad about that.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what you're saying is that at this point the only way you can pursue this research is to continue to use material or the brains or whatever of people who are no longer alive?

DR. LeVAY: That's correct.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you -- do you plan yourself to do more research in this area?

DR. LeVAY: Yes, I hope to if I can raise fundings to -- raise funds to do it. There are many avenues one can follow like particularly to look more carefully at the organization of this part of the brain to see what chemicals, what molecules might be also involved in regulating function in this region like neuro transmitters and receptors and so on. These can give one a clue about functional organization of this region that goes way beyond what you can learn from just looking at the structure. Another avenue though I might be able to pursue is if one could obtain the brains of much younger individuals to gain an idea of when this part of the brain develops, when it acquires its structure. That might give one some clue as to what periods of life would be most important for controlling the size of this structure and perhaps for determining our sexual orientation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Were you surprised, yourself, Dr. LeVay, by the result?

DR. LeVAY: I was somewhat surprised at how large and consistent the difference was, yes, but I wasn't entirely surprised to get a positive result, because, you know, I was testing a hypothesis that I would find something. If I thought it was very unlikely, I probably never would have done the study in the first place.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Dr. Simon LeVay, it's fascinating and we thank you for being with us.

DR. LeVAY: Thank you, Judy.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, a Democrat who wants to be President and a Communist hardliner, some small town Americans and essayist Roger Rosenblatt all look at events in the Soviet Union. NEWS MAKER

MR. MacNeil: We turn now to domestic politics and a News Maker interview with a man who recently came up with an unusual idea, running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He is Larry Agran, the former mayor of Irvine, California, and as Correspondent Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles reports, he's a man who's accustomed to swimming against the tide.

MR. KAYE: As he prepared for the rigors of a national campaign, the candidate confronted what is sure to be a recurring theme, his relative obscurity.

LARRY AGRAN, Democratic Presidential Candidate: My name, Larry Agran, is not exactly a household word, but I do hope --

MR. KAYE: Agran, a 46 year old activist lawyer, is hoping to overcome his lack of what the pollsters call name identification. He is trying to position himself as a voice for urban American.

LARRY AGRAN: Having served 12 years in local government, including 6 years as mayor of a city during the 1980s when cities were being systematically de-funded of resources, I had to as a chief executive official in our community grapple with all the problems that every American mayor has to grapple with, homelessness, even hunger in our own community, poverty, the absence of child care facilities, environmental problems that just won't quit, air quality, water quality problems, transportation problems. These are the problems that the country faces.

MR. KAYE: Agran grew up in Los Angeles. He was study body president in high school, then active in the anti-war movement at the University of California at Berkeley. His wife is a local pediatrician, their son a senior at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. As an Irvine city official, Larry Agran led a local government that in the words of the New York Times "turned the city into a crucible of municipal innovation."

LARRY AGRAN: The meeting will come to order.

MR. KAYE: Agran helped enact a social agenda that featured programs for child care, open space, and recycling. His government promoted slow growth and a low income housing policy.

SPOKESMAN: How much effect when Irvine, California, passes a law that bans CFCs, how much effect [a] is that going to have overall on the ozone layer -- because you just -- you've got a small town?

LARRY AGRAN: Well, first of all, it's not as small as you think. We're over --

MR. KAYE: Agran gained national attention in 1989 when he pushed through a law banning chemicals that deplete the earth's ozone layer. He involved his city in global politics pertaining to trade, as well as arms reductions and environmental issues. His success with liberal policies belie the fundamental conservativeness of his Orange County City. Irvine is an affluent, 74 percent white, "Leave It To Beaver" community. One hundred and ten thousand people leave in a city whose master plan provides for man made lakes, acres of manicured lawns, and tile roofed homes in tracts that residents call villages. So how did Larry Agran, a liberal Democrat, succeed for so long in a city where there are two Republicans for each Democrat? Irvine resident Robert Scheer, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, has one answer.

ROBERT SCHEER, Los Angeles Times Reporter: Agran's strength is that he knows people here do want planned growth, slow growth, they don't want the place overwhelmed. One of the contradictions in Irvine is that we have a great deal of social planning here of the kind that the Soviets should copy, effective social planning. We have community swimming pools and all sorts of facilities and laws about when you can leave your garage door open and when you can paint your house and so -- and people want that. They want planned growth that will increase their property value. And the main thing that they're concerned about in this community is that property values go up. And everything Agran advocated helped property values go up. It's a clean, safe town with good schools, a good police department, all the things that attract new home buyers. And in the main, I think people were overwhelmingly pleased with Agran.

ANNOUNCER: [1990 AGRAN CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL] This isn't Montana or Wyoming or Wisconsin; it's Irvine. That's right, Irvine.

MR. KAYE: In 1990, during a re-election bid, Agran trumpeted his environmental policies. But he lost the election in the wake of his support for a controversial gay rights law.

MR. AGRAN: Peggy, why don't you just tell us where this is going to be -- how this is going to be organized.

MR. KAYE: This year, Agran headed a committee to resurrect a George McGovern campaign for President, but McGovern pulled out. Now Agran, along with his campaign staff, believes he can raise enough money to qualify for federal matching funds for his own Presidential bid.

MR. MacNeil: Shortly before he officially announced his candidacy last week, Larry Agran talked with Roger Mudd.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Agran, I suppose most political reporters learned after Jimmy Carter became President to take all candidates seriously, but it does stretch credulity to think that a Jewish ex- mayor of a small suburban California town can make it. Does it stretch credulity?

MR. AGRAN: Well, I don't think it stretches it to the breaking point. I was, of course, mayor of Irvine, California, city of over a hundred thousand people. It's really one of the 200 largest cities in the United States of America, and had the opportunity to serve for twelve years, six of those years as mayor, learn a great deal not only about local government but about the devastating effects of misplaced priorities in this country.

MR. MUDD: But Irvine is not like most cities. I mean, it's not a very old city. It's a master planned city. It's an almost all white city. It's almost a spotless city. What is there about being mayor of Irvine that qualifies you to be President?

MR. AGRAN: Well, first of all, Irvine is not nearly all white. We have worked long and hard to integrate our housing stock and otherwise build a truly integrated community. On top of that, yes, it is a planned community and yes, wedo have many blessings, open space, a far reaching environmental protection program, but really I think Irvine is in many senses a microcosm of what is right and wrong with the country at large. That is to say that we are deprived in Irvine, as other communities are, of resources to truly improve the quality of life in terms of transportation, affordable housing, and all the other needs that exist in America largely because we are squandering resources on a cold war that is long since over.

MR. MUDD: I can't think of any other mayor who has been a Presidential hopeful -- maybe Sam Yougherty -- remember him?

MR. AGRAN: Yes.

MR. MUDD: And maybe John Lindsay. Sam Yougherty told me once the only reason he ran was so he could get hotel spaces at the convention. So tell me why you're running.

MR. AGRAN: I'm running because I want to be a voice for the cities and towns in America. The cities and towns have incurred devastating cutbacks over the course of the last ten or twelve years. The quality of life is diminishing by the day. Our cities are becoming sources of great insecurity, rather than security for the American people. And I think that this kind of experience in cities and towns will allow me to describe to the American people what I call the new American security based not on the force of arms but upon capitalizing upon the end of the cold war and redirecting those resources where they're so desperately needed.

MR. MUDD: So how would you redirect them?

MR. AGRAN: Well, first of all, I think the President of the United States ought to set a date, I propose December 31, 1994, as the date by which we not only reduce but actually remove all permanent U.S. forces from Western Europe as well as all forces from Japan. It's time to bring those troops home, to de- mobilize them to the maximum extent possible, and to cut military spending which now amounts to some $200 billion a year just for the defense of Western Europe and Japan and other outposts in Asia as well.

MR. MUDD: What would you do with the saving then?

MR. AGRAN: With those savings, I would articulate not only a program but underwrite it with real dollars to first and foremost send $25 billion to America's cities and towns, re-enacting the old general revenue sharing program so as to rescue our cities and towns from the appalling conditions that now exist. We know how to build child care centers and reopen libraries. I'd add another $15 billion in redirected resources to public education. We have school districts that do a fine job. We just need the resources that are now being spent in Western Europe and Japan.

MR. MUDD: How would you -- for what purpose would you spend the money in the school districts?

MR. AGRAN: I would urge them as the US Conference of Mayors did in a report that I organized in 1987 -- I would encourage them to get the money to the school districts so as to rehire teachers who are now being laid off.

MR. MUDD: So you've told me about maybe 75 billion of the savings. What would you do with the other 1 1/4 billion?

MR. AGRAN: Actually, I only told you about 40 billion.

MR. MUDD: All right. You've lost me already. Keep going.

MR. AGRAN: I would suggest that 40 billion additionally be part of underwriting an expanded Social Security program, not old age assistance but beyond that, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, and I think most important health security for people here in the United States of America. We have to begin building a public health and a national health insurance program that's going to cost a lot of money. AndI would say that 40 billion ought to be earmarked for those purposes. Another 20 billion I think ought to be earmarked for the environmental protection, restoration of our environment, cleaning up the toxic dumps, the nuclear waste sites, beginning to reforest the earth and do those things that we know are so desperately needed.

MR. MUDD: Were you against Desert Storm, Mr. Agran?

MR. AGRAN: I was against the offensive aspect of that campaign, yes. I felt that the President was correct when he dispatched U.S. troops to interpose them at the Saudi border so as to see to it that the Iraqi trans-border aggression didn't extend beyond Kuwait. I felt that move coupled with sanctions offered a program that under the umbrella of the United Nations had the chance of real success. In fact, the President, if you'll recall, said that this was an historic breakthrough in world history where we had applied sanctions on an international basis that had the hope and the promise of reversing aggression.

MR. MUDD: Well, then do you -- is it fair to say that you are a free spending liberal, anti-war Democrat, the type of which has been systematically rejected by the American voters for the last - - what -- 20 years?

MR. AGRAN: Well, I don't know how free spending you could characterize me. As mayor, we had a $100 million a year budget and more. We balanced our budgets every year. We managed to do so amid declining resources from the federal government. I know what it takes to balance a budget. But beyond that, I know what it takes to build a society here at home. And the kind of deficits that we are incurring, not only financial deficits but human deficits here at home, require an investment policy that we just don't have now. You know, it troubles a good many Americans as it troubles me deeply that we continue to spend on average $2,000 -- $2,000 per American household for the defense of Europeans in Western Europe, for the defense of Japanese in Japan, each and every year, and we aren't spending anywhere near that amount to defend the interests of American citizens right here in Seattle, in Detroit, in Chicago, and Los Angeles, and all around the country.

MR. MacNeil: What's the matter with the Democratic Party, Mr. Agran? The candidates are a one-term Senator from Massachusetts - - there is a governor of Arkansas perhaps going to announce. There is an ex-mayor of Irvine, California, about to announce. Why aren't there the big giants of the Democratic Party running this time?

MR. AGRAN: I think the party desperately needs to undertake the kind of soul searching that we're going to experience in this campaign. It's a party that had supported a cold war and cold war budgets for decades. And now that the cold war is over, the Democratic Party is going to have to decide whether we are going to take advantage of this opportunity, rebuild the country here at home by garnering those resources and redirecting them to our communities where traditional Democratic programs and yes, liberal Democratic programs have historically worked to make our communities better, but we can't do that without the resources.

MR. MUDD: Looking over your biography, I read that you are -- were a self-described Berkeley radical during the sixties. Is that an accurate description?

MR. AGRAN: Well, I --

MR. MUDD: What did you do in the sixties, Mr. Agran?

MR. AGRAN: I was a supporter of the free speech movement at Berkeley, which was incidentally a complete non-violent movement.

MR. MUDD: All right.

MR. AGRAN: I was a graduate of UC Berkeley and went to HarvardLaw School. I was a good student in every respect. And I was in many ways inspired by the struggles of the 1960s, the civil rights struggles which were I think one of the milestones in American history, and of course, beyond that, the anti-war struggles. I was very much opposed to the war in Vietnam.

MR. MUDD: I notice that you joined the army reserve when you were 17.

MR. AGRAN: Yes.

MR. MUDD: And stayed in it until after you got out of college. Vice President Quayle got unshirted hell for doing that. How -- did you use the reserve to avoid going to Vietnam?

MR. AGRAN: No, hardly. I didn't even know where Vietnam was when I joined the reserves. I joined in 1962.

MR. MUDD: Right.

MR. AGRAN: Reserve service was an alternative to the draft which was looming over everyone at that time. But it was a peacetime draft at that time. Vice President Quayle, of course, joined in an effort to avoid the draft, but to avoid it in time of war. I was quite frightened, I'll admit to you, during the '64 and '65 build up that the reserves would have been called up. Had I been called up, of course, I would have had to go.

MR. MUDD: To qualify for matching funds, you've got to raise $100,000 in 20 states, $5,000 per state minimum.

MR. AGRAN: Yes.

MR. MUDD: How are you doing? Are you going to make it?

MR. AGRAN: I think we'll make it.

MR. MUDD: Do you really?

MR. AGRAN: We're going to use the next sixty to ninety days to get over that particular hurdle and assure people that this is the kind of credible campaign that merits note.

MR. MUDD: Well, perhaps we'll see you in New York.

MR. AGRAN: I hope you will.

MR. MUDD: Thank you.

MR. AGRAN: Thank you. CONVERSATION - GOODBYE PARTY?

MS. WOODRUFF: At the end of two momentous weeks in the history of the Soviet Union and for the world, we get three reflections now on those events. The first is from a veteran Soviet Communist, Alexi Sergeyev. He headed the Workers Front, a prominent labor organization, and was on the Communist Party's Central Committee, which was disbanded and shut down a week ago by President Gorbachev. Charles Krause interviewed him today.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Sergeyev, thank you for joining us. There have been reports that some members of the Central Committee are meeting secretly underground to plan resistance to the order yesterday suspending Communist Party activities. Do you have any knowledge of this?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I have no information about any members of the Central Committee meeting secretly, planning a revenge. This is not within my vision of the estimation of the present day situation in this country. I know that voices I've heard about how this Communist Party is emerging underground in order to plot some sort of revenge, voices heard about how former chief of the Moscow Party Organization, Prokoviev, that has so far been able to escape his arrest and he is some underground movement. I would say that this, if it had been so, would be an even more stupid attempt than was the coup.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you believe the party should obey this order suspending its activities throughout the country?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I believe that the Communist movement has not been exterminated in this country and it will exist in the USSR further along, but at the present moment I believe that the Communists should sit and wait, wait until the political situation becomes more clear and I'm very much afraid that the attempt to reanimate the Communist Party today may result in harder measures of repressivecharacters that may happen in the society. The possibility of a witch hunt in this country is real - - purges for convictions rather than for actions. I believe that the cautious policy of the Communists may call the situation down but what I'm convinced in is that the Communist ideology would survive in the USSR and what's more will have lots of followers among the people and I'm convinced a million percent in that.

MR. KRAUSE: If there are millions of members of the party who remain loyal to the party, why haven't you called for demonstrations to show -- demonstrate your political strength?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I denounce the idea of an open protest today for one simple reason. This protest in the situation of today would inevitably provoke the counter measures and the escalation of repressions against Communists. That's why in the interest of preservation of the good names of honest Communists I suppose that we should sit and wait for a while, waiting until the political dust settles down.

MR. KRAUSE: Yours is a party that has advocated violent revolution throughout the world. How is it possible that now you as a lifelong Communist will sit by and allow your party to be decimated? What would Lenin say?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] You know, Lenin has once said during the period of the conclusion of the breast peace treaty -- you know, in 1918, Russia was forced to sign this peace treaty and there were a lot of opponents to it. Transky, for example, was pushing forward the idea of the revolutionary war. He was against the signing of this treaty, and what Lenin said was I'm very much afraid that the revolutionary phrase about the revolutionary war would kill the revolution. I believe today the situation is just like that -- when an appeal of the Communists to go out in the street with a protest may result in mass repressions against these Communists, that's why I'm saying to them sit quietly at home, do not go out in the streets. This is my position, despite the fact that others, other devoted Communists, may have doubts to the extent of the validity of this position. Today go out in the streets brandishing fists in the air means to get killed. I do not think that the revitalization of the Communist movement demands such a sacrifice.

MR. KRAUSE: Why do you think the coup was unsuccessful?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] With regards to my assessment of the actions of the plotters, I believe that they are both ridiculous and incompetent because they have shown the complete ignorance of the methodology of a coup de ta. They could have at least studied the experience of Pinochet. I'm sure that they have not even been able to do so. If they were to accomplish a successful coup, they should have isolated Yeltsin immediately, they should have cut off the connections with the building of the Russian parliament, isolated him, and this is not the only miscalculation of theirs. And the miscalculations were so grave that I cannot part with the feeling that all of that was some sort of a provocation, rather than a real coup de ta.

MR. KRAUSE: Are you suggesting that you think Gorbachev was in some involved with the coup?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I cannot state this. But in the course of the coup, there happen to have been so many strange things, so many things that simply cannot be explained with the common logic that the hypothesis of such kind, particularly remembering that a number of Democratic sources keep discussing this idea, this hypothesis demands some reflection.

MR. KRAUSE: There are reports that leaders of the party, members of the Central Committee, have moved billions of dollars' worth of rubles into secret Swiss bank accounts. Do you think there's any truth to those reports?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I happen to know nothing about this but I do not exclude this possibility because I would like to repeat that the highest ranks of the leadership of the Communist Party was corrupt and it has nothing to do with masses of grass and root members of the party. The grass and root members, had there been any attempts to transfer their own money, to transfer this money to the Swiss banks would have been opposed to it. At the same time, they have nothing to do with any of the operations of this type.

MR. KRAUSE: When the dust settles, as you've said, do you think there will be a Communist Party, or have we witnessed the end of Communism in this country?

MR. SERGEYEV: [Speaking through Interpreter] I can say that today the situation is not very pleasant for the Communists, but as they say, there is good, a little bit of good in every evil, and there is some sort of a positive outcome in the banning of the Communist Party today because today neither Yeltsin nor Gorbachev would be able to explain further deterioration of the economic situation in the country or the help of Communists plotting because Communists now have been removed from all the key positions in the economy, diplomacy, the armed forces, and all the other key positions. At the same time, I'm convinced that the economic situation will keep on deteriorating starting from this autumn. And I am afraid that it will become truly catastrophic by this spring. And I believe the people would start looking for whoever is to blame for it not among the Communists but among some other organizations.

MR. KRAUSE: Thank you very much for joining us. FOCUS - FROM THE HEARTLAND

MR. MacNeil: For Americans, the idea that Communists are no longer in charge of things in the Soviet Union takes some getting used to. That was obvious this week when essayist Jim Fisher visited a group of men in Warrensburg, Missouri. They've been getting together for morning coffee for almost 40 years.

MR. FISHER: Did you ever think in 40 years of this confrontation between Russia and the United States that you'd see this?

MAN IN GROUP: If someone even suggested the possibility that the law would come down and Communism would be thrown out of Russia, no one in their wildest dreams could have imagined that could possibly happen. And it has happened and it's chaos around the world, but you can imagine the chaos that it is in that country because it's like, you know, going from night to day. And there are a lot of scary things involved, the nuclear and who's in charge and just the freedom, itself, can tend to be scary when you've been a chained up dog all your life.

MAN IN GROUP: What's going to happen to the generation of people that have been told how to run their lives and have no idea of being individuals? I think that's the toughest problem they got there every coming day.

MAN IN GROUP: I agree, tremendous clash farther down the road with that group of people who are so structured in their living because they have been made to be structured that way, and a new group of people who have seen this new independence and are going to grow up with that new independence, and what's going to happen to them a few years down the road when the very liberal and outgoing and fast moving start butting heads with those who are still a part of the old party?

MAN IN GROUP: People are sent to do their harvests by the government and when the Communists collapsed nobody went, nobody told 'em to go, and the harvest is just layin' there and rotting.

MAN IN GROUP: Maybe they have crops there but they're not getting them to the cities to people that want 'em. Something's going to have to be done in that respect.

MAN IN GROUP: The people are finding out now where it's going. It's been going to the upper echelon there in the parliament. They've been getting it all themselves and living royally. Now the people have just began to learn a lot about that and they don't like it.

MAN IN GROUP: I could never dream that Gorbachev would have arisen five years ago. This seems to me to be the single most important thing that's happened in the Soviet Union. He may bite the dust soon but my gosh -- he's been a miracle.

MR. FISHER: How do you feel about Yeltsin?

MAN IN GROUP: I think he's a cowboy on a white house and they're always dangerous.

MAN IN GROUP: I think he's hungry for power.

MAN IN GROUP: I'd be afraid of him.

MAN IN GROUP: He's dangerous.

MAN IN GROUP: He was in the right place at the right time and he came riding in on the band wagon.

MR. FISHER: What about the nuclear threat, does that bother you?

MAN IN GROUP: Yeah.

MAN IN GROUP: Who's in control?

MAN IN GROUP: Who's got their finger on the trigger? Somebody's got the button. Who's going to control the new army?

MAN IN GROUP: That's what Bush is concerned about. Who controls the army and where do you send -- if you're going to send money to Russia, who do you send it to? Who's in control now? I don't think anybody knows to this day who's actually running Russia right now. I think it's going to be a problem. It's going to be -- like the nuclear, who's going to give the yes or no on whether to use nuclear?

MAN IN GROUP: And there could be civil wars just like there are in Yugoslavia, because in all these countries there's a good population of Russians there. Are they going to be satisfied with the way things turn out?

MAN IN GROUP: Someone has to be in control. McDonald's couldn't cut a contract in Moscow if somebody wasn't in control and didn't have the ability to say yes, you can do this and negotiate a deal. So there's got to be a -- a group of people or a person or a group that is in control and can help in -- in the building of the country.

MAN IN GROUP: That was on TV last night, manufacturers saying, well, if we want to go into Russia, who do we talk to now, and there's a big void now with so much bureaucracy involved there, who do we talk to now to try to get business in Russia, and I don't think anybody knows right now. It's a real problem.

MAN IN GROUP: But the elected President is still Gorbachev.

MAN IN GROUP: That's right.

MAN IN GROUP: What I can't understand is this program here the other evening that showed the farmers in the field with potatoes and everything, they said, well, we don't need that food, we've got plenty of food over here, why are we asking other countries to send us food when we've got it -- all we have to do is get it to the people.

MAN IN GROUP: Jim, they don't have the distribution system. That's their big problem. Our system is set up so that if people demand something, it'll be supplied; theirs isn't.

MAN IN GROUP: Well, why don't they use some of those big army trucks that they've got plenty of to haul it around and then get up a trucking system?

MAN IN GROUP: Have you ever tried to get a truck away from a general? [EVERYONEIN GROUP LAUGHING]

MAN IN GROUP: They need some of our truck drivers over there to show it how to do it.

MAN IN GROUP: Well, the paper sure showed empty, empty, you know, counters and so forth in all the stores and so I guess they're having some problems on getting food.

MAN IN GROUP: Obviously, Russia has existed all these years feeding their people and maybe not having the best of everything, but they've been able to farm and get buy and have food on the table and granted, we've gone through a great revolution there or change in politics at least, but what I don't understand is how they went so quickly from having some food on the table to the point they are now, to having almost nothing on the table.

MAN IN GROUP: It wasn't quick.

MAN IN GROUP: What we're going to have to do maybe a little bit, follow the lead that China -- China's beginning to break this over and leave the farmers to own their land --

MAN IN GROUP: Yeah.

MAN IN GROUP: -- and to sell their merchandise that they never had before.

MAN IN GROUP: Jim, they're not trying to do it overnight.

MAN IN GROUP: Look what Russia has done.

MAN IN GROUP: They're not trying to do it overnight and that's what's happening in Russia because people are expecting this to happen immediately and the system just isn't there for the distribution. You just -- it hasn't been there in the past and it's going to take a while to get that system built up.

MAN IN GROUP: I think the one thing we've seen over the past year is that we discovered the Russian people are a whole lot like American people. They want a home, they want food on the table, they want the things that we want, and over the years, you know, as I grew up and looking back to Eisenhower and so forth, the bomb scares and these are terrible people, you just turn your back and they're going to bomb us and so forth, we've discovered they're a lot like us. That's not their thing in life to run out and kill people. They want the same things that we want. They have an opportunity to have that now with the government changed, but there's going to have to be more than just shipping food in on the docks and sending them a check.

MAN IN GROUP: Well, who do you give it to?

MAN IN GROUP: I'd like to say one thing about these people that are seeking their independence, and there's a lot more to independence than staying in the street, waving a flag and a banner, so it's no wonder that Bush is sitting calmly by the side, waiting to see what's going to develop, because they've got to get their own judicial system, get their laws under control, get their borders settled, and there's a lot to be done. You can't just say I want my independence and there you are.

MR. FISHER: You all are surrounded by more nuclear weaponry because of Whiteman Air Force Base and the Minuteman II thermonuclear weapons. Do you think in months to come you'll see those missiles come out of the ground?

MAN IN GROUP: Yeah.

MAN IN GROUP: No, they should not go right now until this settles down over there. Why should we give up all of ours when they keep theirs? Let's wait till we see where the trend is and that they're participating in the curbing of the nuclear power. I think we ought to wait a while.

MAN IN GROUP: Years maybe.

MAN IN GROUP: Jim, don't we already have a phase-out schedule for 1996?

MAN IN GROUP: 1991.

MAN IN GROUP: 1995, 96?

MAN IN GROUP: 1995.

MAN IN GROUP: It's already in the works.

MAN IN GROUP: Well, they'd better change it.

MAN IN GROUP: That could be changed.

MR. FISHER: Who do you trust? Do you trust Yeltsin or do you trust Gorbachev?

MAN IN GROUP: Gorbachev has a track record.

MAN IN GROUP: Gorbachev.

MAN IN GROUP: Yeah. I trust Gorbachev.

MAN IN GROUP: Gorbachev.

MAN IN GROUP: He's a known commodity.

MAN IN GROUP: And we've got better relations established already. We got a good start.

MAN IN GROUP: Excellent.

MAN IN GROUP: Well, we know him. We don't know Yeltsin. We know Gorbachev. We feel that we do. We've watched him for the last ten, fifteen years.

MAN IN GROUP: He's the one that started all of this, perestroika.

MAN IN GROUP: I have a question. Who's going to pay for the coffee this morning? [EVERYONE IN GROUP LAUGHING]

MAN IN GROUP: The new member.

MAN IN GROUP: The new member. Yeah. [Applause] ESSAY - THE PEOPLE, YES

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt offers his observations on the recent events in the Soviet Union.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Nobody reads Carl Sandburg's poems in America these days -- too simple, too corny, too optimistic. But the poet could have a nice revival in the Soviet Union to go by last week's astonishing sequence of events. Of all the astonishments, clearly the most moving was the immediate response of the Soviet people to the coup. They simply wouldn't buy it. They massed in protest. They wrote and spoke out in contempt and defiance. They swarmed the tanks or ignored them. They -- the reputedly docile Russian surfs, who according to historical presumption, exist only to kneel to authority, stood up alongside the spokesman of their thoughts, Boris Yeltsin, and they said, however bad things are, however irritated we are with Gorbachev, however anarchic society is becoming, we will not knuckle under to the old familiar fist. No, the people, no. Or as Carl Sandburg put it in 1936 for the American people, "The people, yes." It was the same image of popular strength drawn by the artist Thomas Hart Benton in the 1930s. Sandburg wrote, "Between the finite limitations of the five senses and the endless yearnings of man for the beyond, the people hold to the hum drum bidding of work and food, while reaching out when it comes their way for lights beyond the prison of the five senses -- for keepsakes lasting beyond any hunger or death -- this reaching is alive. The panderers and liars have violated and smutted it. Yet this reaching is alive yet, for lights and keepsakes." Over 70 years under various Communist dictators, the Soviet people have known limitations beyond the five senses. And after a sufficient number of imprisonments from beatings, the yearnings of man for the beyond had to be dulled to almost nothing. Yet, the democratic awakenings of the past few years suggest there was life in the old place yet. The poets always said so. Yevtushenko and Boydensensky said so. Cheransky and Sakharov said so too. Still, it was hard to believe. Surely, Russians, children by nature, would always seek a thumb to be under when push came to shove or push came to Gorbachev. That did not happen this time. This time, the people surprised everyone, including, most likely, themselves. What may be most impressive about their outburst is that it occurred within a collapsing social structure because in a collapsing social structure, people usually grab for any form of order. The coup makers offered a most recognizable form of order. Yet, they were turned away. Maybe the Russians are not only enjoying their first taste of democracy but are learning how chaotic by nature democracy is. If they should achieve it, their lives will never be orderly again. They will be tested by a continuum of race wars and class wars and free speech arguments, and all the other forms of strife that Americans know too well. Yet, they will be free within the strife and more amazing still - - the strife will make them freer. If the Soviet people have picked up that essential fact of democracy, the creative disorderliness of the system, they are on their way to making it their own. "The people, yes," said Sandburg, holding his breath, of course. The old anvil laughs at many broken hammers. There are men who can't be bought. The fire born are at home in fire. The stars make no noise. You can't hinder the wind from blowing. Time is a great teacher. Who can live without hope? In the darkness, with a great bundle of grief, the people march. In the night, and overhead, a shovel of stars for keeps. The people march. Where to? What next? I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again the main stories of this Friday, the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan became the eighth to formally declare independence from the Kremlin. Russia formed an alliance with the neighboring republic of Kazakhstan one day after announcing a similar pact with the Ukraine. And in this country, the Alabama prison siege ended when a federal swat team stormed the facility and rescued all nine hostages. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good Labor Day weekend.