The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we have a report on the Pope's visit and discuss what he means to American Catholics. Then Mark Shields and Paul Gigot analyze the week's political news, and we continue our series of presidential candidate interviews with Republican Arthur Fletcher. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton announced some easing of restrictions concerning Cuba today. Students, academics, clergy, and Cuban-Americans will now be allowed limited travel to Cuba and U.S. news organizations will be permitted to open bureaus there. President Kennedy imposed the restrictions in 1962, along with a trade embargo after the Communist takeover. Mr. Clinton said the new steps will help promote democracy in Cuba.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In our own hemisphere, only one country, Cuba, continues to resist the trend toward democracy. Today we are announcing new steps to encourage its peaceful transition to a free and open society. We will tighten the enforcement of our embargo to keep the pressure for reform on, but we will promote democracy and the free flow of ideas more actively.

MR. LEHRER: Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole criticized the President's move at a Capitol Hill news conference.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: The President has once again made a decision to ease sanctions on Cuba. All signs point toward normalization, secret negotiation with Castro, allowing Castro to visit the U.S., returning the Cuban refugees, and now easing travel restrictions. Cuba has one of the worst human rights records of any country in the world, and we believe that we ought to focus on that.

MR. LEHRER: Dole said the Senate may take up legislation next week to tighten the economic embargo against Cuba. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dole also clashed with the President today over sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. In his foreign policy address, Mr. Clinton said that as NATO's leader, the United States was obliged to help enforce a peace accord in the Balkans. He has pledged up to 25,000 troops to a NATO peacekeeping force. Senator Dole strongly criticized the President's policy, saying he's not yet made his case for intervention to the American people. The warring parties in Bosnia agreed to a cease-fire yesterday. It will go into effect Tuesday and be followed by peace talks in Washington October 30th.

MR. LEHRER: There was a strike today at Boeing aircraft plants in Seattle, Portland, and Wichita, Kansas. More than 32,000 machinists are involved. At issue are medical benefits, job security, and pay. In economic news today, the Labor Department reported the unemployment rate held steady in September at 5.6 percent. The number of new non-farm jobs grew by 121,000. Most were in lower wage retail and service industries.

MR. MAC NEIL: Pope John Paul II drew more than 75,000 exuberant spectators to the Aqueduct Race Track in the borough of Queens, New York today. The cheering crowd welcomed the Pontiff from the brimming stands in in-field. The Pope celebrated Mass from a giant altar in the center of the track. In his homily, he said Americans should not overlook the poor in this high-tech and affluent country. He said modern society must not forsake traditional family values. The Pope will celebrate Mass in Central Park on Saturday and in Baltimore on Sunday. He returns to the Vatican on Sunday night. We'll have more on the Catholic Church in America right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights heard testimony today about racism and sexism in police departments. More than a dozen officers from around the country told a Washington session the culture of police work often encourages a code of silence among officers. One witness cited the O.J. Simpson trial and the allegations of racism against former Los Angeles Detective Mark Fuhrman.

THOMAS LEE GLOVER, Sergeant, Dallas Police Department: People who turn in your Mark Fuhrmans, they don't make it in police departments. If you speak out and you break that code of silence, then you're expected to leave. And I, I tend to believe that every police department in this country has some form of code of silence simply because it starts at the top level with the police chief. He has a certain responsibility to keep his city out of court. He has a certain responsibility to keep the lawsuits down so sometimes an act that may produce liability to him and his officers is swept under the rug.

MR. LEHRER: An official said the Commission may hold a hearing in Los Angeles to review the performance of the LA police department.

MR. MAC NEIL: Hurricane-battered residents along the Florida panhandle faced a new threat today. The heavy rains Hurricane Opal dumped on Alabama and Georgia are now causing rivers downstream in Florida to overflow. Thousands who had fled northward returned to their homes to assess the damage and begin cleaning up. Forty-five hundred National Guardsmen are on todayto prevent looting. Thousands remained without electricity. At least 18 people in four states were killed. Damage estimates have reached nearly $2 billion.

MR. LEHRER: Firefighters gained more control today over the Northern California wildfires. Some 11,000 acres along the scenic coastline North of San Francisco have been consumed since the blaze roared out of control Tuesday. More than 2,000 firefighters have been working around the clock. Damage is estimated at more than $30 million. Officials said the fire is now 80 percent contained.

MR. MAC NEIL: NASA says it will try to launch the space shuttle Columbia tomorrow. The space launch was postponed today because of a mechanical problem. Two previous Columbia launches were scrubbed, first because of a fuel leak, then because of Hurricane Opal. That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to the Pope's visit, how American Catholics feel about him, Shields and Gigot, and presidential candidate Arthur Fletcher. FOCUS - CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA

MR. MAC NEIL: First tonight, the Pope and American Catholics. Pope John Paul II continued his visit to the United States today. He is now 75 years old, still traveling the globe, and still speaking out forcefully. Our coverage begins with a report from "Time" Magazine Correspondent Richard Ostling.

RICHARD OSTLING, Time Magazine: Just after his plane touched down Wednesday at Newark Airport, Pope John Paul delivered one of the major messages of this, his fourth visit to the U.S. He urged Americans to show compassion toward immigrants and the poor. The centerpiece of his visit was a speech yesterday to the general assembly of the United Nations. He offered encouragement to the beleaguered organization and presented a sweeping philosophy of human freedom.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: [speaking through interpreter] Freedom is the measure of man's dignity and greatness. Living the freedom sought by individuals and peoples is a great challenge to man's spiritual growth and to the moral vitality of nations. The basic question which we must all face today is the responsible use of freedom in both its personal and social dimensions.

MR. OSTLING: Last night, in an extraordinary spectacle, 82,000 people turned out in the driving rain for a Mass at Giants Stadium in New Jersey. The Pope developed his theme of compassion.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Is present-day America becoming less sensitive, less caring to towards the poor, the weak, the stranger, the needy? It must not. Today as before, the United States is called to be a hospitable, hospitable society, a welcoming culture. If America, were to turn inward itself, would this not be the beginning of the end of what constitutes the very essence of the American experience?

MR. OSTLING: This morning, the scene was a racetrack in Queens. There he turned to his other American theme, the need for the Catholic faithful to remain strong in their spiritual and moral commitments.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Catholic parents must learn to form a family as a domestic church, a church in the home as it were, where God is honored, His law is respected, prayer is a normal event, virtue is transmitted as an example, everyone shares hopes, the problems, the sufferings of everyone else.

MR. OSTLING: By most accounts, the Pope is concerned about the situation in the U.S. Church. Although total membership has reached an all time high of 60 million, due partly to an influx of immigrants, there are troubling signs. For the first time in history, significant numbers of Hispanic-Americans are leaving to become Protestants. The percentage of Catholics attending Mass started dropping in 1965, leveling off at 50 percent in the mid 1970's. Enrollment at Catholic elementary and high schools has declined substantially by more than half, although there's been a modest upturn in the past few years. Over the last three decades, the number of sisters in religious orders has dropped by nearly half. And there's a priest shortage as well, with a drop of 60 percent in candidates training for ordination. Another long-term trend troubles the hierarchy. Larger numbers of lay Catholics disagree with official teachings. A Time/CNN poll of Catholics showed only 15 percent think members should always obey official teachings on disputed matters like birth control or abortion. 80 percent said it's possible to disagree with the Pope on moral positions and still be a good Catholic. Sizeable majorities disagreed with Church policy against married priests, women in the priesthood, divorce, and birth control. Only 20 percent agreed with the teaching that it's always wrong for unmarried people to have sexual relations. All that might seem to portray a Church in disarray, but the poll also showed deep loyalty and widespread satisfaction among lay Catholics. Three out of four were somewhat or very favorable toward life in their parishes including education, worship, and overall pastoral care. By a margin of 85 percent, they said the Catholic faith is fairly important or very important to them. And 85 percent had a favorable impression of Pope John Paul. That's the Catholic paradox: This huge Church has suffered serious institutional decline in important areas and is unable to convince its flock on several disputes. Yet, parishioners turn out to be heavily and surprisingly loyal and satisfied with the Catholic faith that they experience and live out in parishes across the United States. Tomorrow, the Pope will celebrate Mass in New York's Central Park. He concludes his visit Sunday in Maryland, where American Catholicism originated more than three centuries ago.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now a discussion among Catholics about the Pope and Catholic America. George Weigel is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank on issues of religion and society. Andrew Greeley is a priest, sociologist, and professor at the University of Chicago. He's the author of numerous works of non-fiction and 27 novels. Sister Marine Fiedler is co-director of Catholic Speak Out. Linda Chavez is president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a think tank that focuses on race and ethnicity. Richard Rodriguez of the "Pacific News Service" is a regular essayist on the NewsHour. Father Greeley, given all the paradox that we've just heard in being an American Catholic today, describe your feelings about the Pope, this man, the Pope.

REV. ANDREW GREELEY, Author, Sociologist: Well, I--this last week I've been very enthused about him, because he's addressed himself to some major problems in American life, the mean-spiritedness, the hatred of immigrants, the xenophobia. It's going to be awfully hard to be a Catholic and still engage in immigrant-bashing. In fact, he equated care for the immigrants with care for the unborn, so I'm very pleased with him. He represents the authentic Catholic social teaching, and he's a remarkable man--gave that talk at the U.N. in seven languages, so I'm very high on him right now. I don't approve of the authoritarianism or the centralization of the Vatican. I think that's a deplorable practice, and it's hurting the Church, but as an individual and as a teacher of Catholic social justice, you know, I say, right on, Pope.

MR. MAC NEIL: Linda Chavez, what are your feelings about the Pope?

LINDA CHAVEZ, Center for Equal Opportunity: Well, I think this Pope has been an inspiration not just to Catholics here in the United States and throughout the world but also to others of other faiths and even to people of no faith at all. And in terms of the disagreements that exist among American Catholics on some of these issues, I think that the Catholic Church does stand as a rock in a very troubled sea, it seems to me, in the world. It stands for moral authority, and I think one of its great appeals is the fact that it stands for tradition and for authority and for that sort of rock-solidness that is so missing in so many other aspects of our lives.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sister Fiedler, what does the Pope represent to you?

SISTER MAUREEN FIEDLER, Catholics Speak Out: Well, I think in many ways the Pope is a paradox. I, like Andrew Greeley, am delighted with his stand calling for generosity for the poor, welcoming immigrants, and enhanced status for the United Nations, celebrating cultural and ethnic diversity. In this, I think in many ways he is a quintessentially political Pope, because in many ways this is a not-too-thinly-disguised repudiation of the right wing in this country and some of the stands that they have taken. On the other hand, in the church he has been a very authoritarian figure, and unfortunately, caused great pain for women by the continued refusal, for example, to ordain women, and the Catholics in the pew, who are very concerned about having access to the Eucharist and who know that the numbers of priests are declining steeply. The refusal to consider a married clergy, which would simply be a change in policy--after all, we had it for the first 11 centuries--and the ordination of women to meet those pastoral needs, I think that those kinds of questions are very sad for a lot of Catholics.

MR. MAC NEIL: Richard Rodriguez, your feelings about the Pope.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, Pacific News Service: [San Francisco] Respect and affection for this Pope, but I should say, especially to viewers of this program to whom I have already admitted publicly on several occasions both my homosexuality and my loyalty to the Church, that I'm a problem to--to this Pope. In some way, he's a problem to me too. I've always seen that the Catholic Church is having essentially two faces. There was always the male Church, the authoritarian Church, the Church of Popes and Cardinals. But there was also--and the way the Church talks about itself is as a feminine institution, as a "she," as an embracing institution. I think we have heard a great deal through this Pope from the male Church and very little from the feminine Church, which is to say the embracing Church, the forgiving Church, the tolerant Church.

MR. MAC NEIL: And George Weigel, your view of this Pope.

GEORGE WEIGEL, Ethics in Public Policy Center: First of all, I love the man and revere him as a father and brother in Christ. I think he represents the greatest witness to hope in the world today at the end of a century of incredible fear and hatred and slaughter and tyranny. When he identified himself that way at the UN yesterday, I think a ripple of, of great affection went out throughout the world. It's also the greatest offender of the universality of human rights in the world today, which is especially important at a time when Chinese Communists, East Asian autocrats, some Muslim activists, and Western de-constructionists are all denying that there is such a thing as a universal human nature. I think it's important to underline, Robin, that the Holy Father has not come to the United States to play chaplin to anybody's political program, left, right, center, Democrat or Republican. He's here to remind all Americans that inside every public policy issue is a moral core, a moral kernel, that has to be addressed. And since we are now, ourselves, in the midst of an enormous vigorous national debate on the relationship between virtue and democracy, character and democracy, I think his message is both welcome and much more capable of being heard today.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sister Fiedler, there is a woman quoted by the Associated Press today who opposes the Pope on abortion rights and women priests but said going to the outdoor Mass today was the dream of a lifetime fulfilled. Would that be the same for you?

SISTER FIEDLER: Well, going to the outdoor Mass being the dream of a lifetime?

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. Given, given--because I think probably from what I know about you, you share some of that women's views on women priests and on abortion rights,for example.

SISTER FIEDLER: Well, yes. Let me say going to the Eucharist and sharing equally in the celebration of the Eucharist with other people is always the dream of a lifetime for me. I certainly would be, you know, thrilled to meet the Pope. What I guess would really be the thrill of a lifetime for me would be the opportunity to sit down and dialogue with him about those issues. That's what I wish he would do with those of us who have different views on issues that so touch the heart of the Church and particularly the heart of women. That's my great disappointment.

MR. MAC NEIL: Linda Chavez, how do you react to that?

MS. CHAVEZ: I guess I'm somewhat troubled by that notion. I mean, one of the things I have always found most appealing about the Catholic Church is, is one of the things that makes it most difficult to be a part of, and that is the authority of the Church to speak on moral issues. I happen to believe in the doctrine of original sin. I think all of us human beings have to struggle constantly with moral issues and constantly struggle to live up to standards that the Church sets. And so we may have disagreements. We may sometimes not like the rules that are handed down. And we may have difficulty even in our own lives in living up to those expectations. But to me, the fact that the Church maintains a steadiness in terms of doctrine, maintains a steadiness in terms of the moral beliefs that are handed down is its greatest appeal. Again, in a world in which moral relativism, it seems to me, has, has reeked absolute havoc and tragedy in this century to have the authority of the Catholic Church is, I think, very comforting.

MR. MAC NEIL: Given the--Father Greeley, given the history of the Church as an authoritarian institution, is there a place for dialogue with those in the Church, as Sister Fiedler's described, who disagree on particular matters of doctrine?

REV. GREELEY: Of course, there is, Robert. If one says the Catholic Church is not a democracy, one's speaking the truth in the present structure of the Church. For the first thousand years, the Catholic Church was a democracy. The bishop of Rome and all the bishops were elected by the votes of the priests and people. Every official teaching of the Church ended with the phrase "with the consent of the Christian people." I mean, the Catholic Church brought democratic style into the Western world, and then as the world became increasingly democratic, the Church began to give up its democracy. Moreover, while the Church does--

MR. MAC NEIL: Just to make sure I understand you, you're saying that authoritarianism of the Church is relatively new?

REV. GREELEY: Well, a thousand years, but by saying I want to return to the democratic style, I'm being a traditionalist. Moreover, as for the Catholic Church being morally unchangeable, you know, in 1895, the Church finally said that slavery was wrong. I mean, the Church does change its opinion on all kinds of things. The Vatican Council has changed its opinion about Protestant religions.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, the world's leading democracy took until the 1860's to decide--

REV. GREELEY: Well, democracy beat the Church by a while, but the Church does change its moral teachings as it understands the human condition better. I think most people, most ordinary folks out in the parishes are Catholics because they like being Catholic. They like the stories; they like the imagery; they like the ceremonies; they like the rituals; and particularly they like the parish community. That's what holds them in, and that's why they're not going to give it up.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Weigel, given all the--what we've just heard, the paradoxes and the statistics that Richard Ostling reported, is this Pope weakening American Catholicism? Would the American Church be stronger with a Pope more in tune with the societal trends that are popular here?

MR. WEIGEL: The--

MR. MAC NEIL: Or would it not?

MR. WEIGEL: The Pope's critics often accuse him of living in another century. I think, Robin, they're half right. He is living in another century, except it's the 21st century he's living in. He's revitalized, I believe, Catholic belief and practice in the United States. The Church has always been full of argument and disagreement. Peter and Paul had real fights in the New Testament in the early days of the Church. I think what we see today that is so encouraging in my parish and many other parishes around the country is a great eagerness to get back in touch with the full tradition of the Church, with its doctrinal life, its sacramental life, its worship life, its moral life. We've had a kind of 25-year period of Catholic light, and I think the enormous success of the new catechism of the Catholic Church over the past year indicates a Catholic people that wants to be in touch with the fullness of its tradition. I think the Holy Father has encouraged that magnificently, and I expect that that will continue in the wake of this visit.

MR. MAC NEIL: Richard Rodriguez, do you agree that this Pope is revitalizing the Church in America? You have reported frequently on this program how very attractive evangelical Protestantism is to many American Catholics, particularly Hispanic ones.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. The demographics suggest that sometime in the next century, maybe by the year 2070, Latin America will be in its majority Protestant and low church evangelical Protestant at that. I do think that the Church has a great--the Vatican has a great problem with America, and in many--many cases, I've heard people in Rome write off America, look to Africa and Latin America as the hope for the future Church, precisely because the Vatican has never come to terms with what essentially are the Protestant characteristics of America, our stress on individualism, our suspicion of authority. In some cases, you know, the anxiety I feel as an American Catholic is that I was educated under two pronouns. As a Catholic, I was educated by Irish nuns to believe in the "we." We believe in God. We were a community of belief. As an American, I was educated to believe in the "I." I think; I feel; I want. Reconciling these two pronouns is basically the business of American Catholics, and I don't think Rome is sympathetic to that activity.

MR. MAC NEIL: Linda Chavez.

MS. CHAVEZ: Robin, could I just react to something Richard had said, because I think it's interesting that there is this movement among Hispanics who are the growing numbers in the American Catholic Church, largely due to immigration. There's a movement of Hispanic Catholics to evangelical Protestantism. But the notion that somehow this evangelical Protestantism has appealed, because it's less stringent in its moral views than the Catholic Church is I think is wrong, and it reminds me that there was a poll last year done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights that noted that in terms of both practicing and non-practicing Catholics that most were, in fact, not more likely to support the Church, if the Church changes positions even on those issues with which we disagree. About 90 percent of practicing Catholics who go to Church every Sunday said that they were as likely or more likely to favor the Church, if the Church stuck to its positions, and about 80 percent of those who did not go to Church said that they were as likely to be supportive of the Catholic Church if it were to remain firm on its positions.

MR. MAC NEIL: Richard, did you mean that the appeal of evangelical Protestantism is because of its relative moral permissiveness compared with the--

MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, not at all. And I agree with Linda. I didn't mean to imply that at all. I do find among evangelical Protestants in Latin America an anti-clericalism which is--which suggests a certain impatience with authority and a certain, a more profound discovery of the born-again promise. You know, Latin American Catholicism has dwelled for a long time on themes of suffering, on Good Friday, the eternal suffering of Christ on the cross. Suddenly, there is this born-again message coming mostly from North America, the notion that you can be born again, that you can change your life. The enthusiasm of the Latin-American Protestant is really quite astonishing, and I think ultimately very helpful to Catholicism.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sister Fiedler.

SISTER FIEDLER: Yes. I'd like to comment on this question of whether the Church has been revitalized by Pope John Paul II. I think certainly for the women of the Church, this is far from true, and it ignores the major crisis in the priesthood, which is the major decline in the ordination of priests, the kind of clubby clericalness which has driven a lot of men away from the priesthood, the pedophilia scandal which has tainted it and which for too long was swept under the rug, all of those kinds and the refusal to consider a married clergy and the ordination of women, those kinds of things are resulting in--10 percent of the parishes in this country are now without a resident pastor. Catholics are beginning to speak out about this, so I guess if you said that John Paul had revitalized the Church, he's driven many laity to now start to act as adults and to speak out for what they believe in the Church, including those kinds of changes in the priesthood, which they did just yesterday in the "Baltimore Sun." Twenty-six hundred Catholics spoke out, calling for a married clergy and for the ordination of women.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me use our last few minutes here to address something that both Father Greeley and Sister Fiedler mentioned, and it is such a burden of the Pope's message here, and that is the sort of political economic message to Americans that the Pope has conveyed. Mr. Weigel, what is the Pope's relevance to the political revolution now underway in Washington in the federal and state politics of this country?

MR. WEIGEL: I think the Holy Father has a message that challenges everybody, Robin. The Church has traditionally, and quite rightly, taught the necessity, the moral necessity of compassion for the poor. This Pope has added the theme of solidarity with the poor to that traditional teaching. At the same time, he has emphasized that the way you give effect to that compassion and that solidarity is not by turning people into dependents of the welfare state but by empowering them to become full participants in economic and political life. So that message, it seems to me, cuts right through the debate, and as I say, reminds us of the moral kernel that's at the heart of every public policy issue. It should also be noted in terms of last night's address at Giants Stadium that when the Pope talked about a hospitable society, an America open to the stranger, hospitable to the stranger, he was certainly talking about new Americans and poor Americans. But he was also talking about unborn children; he was talking about the elderly whom some people find inconvenient; he was talking about the severely handicapped. He was reminding us that the breadth of the boundaries of the community of those for whom we assume a common responsibility is an index of the moral character of our country.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you see, Father Greeley, as the Pope's role in the political debate in America right now on welfare programs?

REV. GREELEY: I find it impossible to believe that he wasn't challenging the kinds of anti-immigrant sentiments that the Dole- Gingrich Congress represents or the xenophobia of making English the official language, or the hatred for the Mexican-American that Pete Wilson ran on to get reelected governor of California. I mean, the Pope reads the papers; so did the Americans that drafted those talks for him. He knows--

MR. MAC NEIL: Who do you think drafted those talks for him?

REV. GREELEY: I presume people on the staff of the U.S. Catholic Conference. Moreover, Ms. Chavez is playing loose with statistics. Most of the people she quotes--over 60 percent--say they--it would make no difference to whether they would stay in the Church or not, whether the Church changes or doesn't change. But the important thing is American Catholics like being Catholic; they're loyal; they're not going. And in the parishes, you have the best kind of Catholicism and the most generous, many of the parishes, that the world has ever seen.

MR. MAC NEIL: Linda Chavez, give you the last word here as a conservative and a Republican, is the Pope against the Contract With America?

MS. CHAVEZ: I don't think the Pope has had--stated a position on the Contract With America. What I do find offensive, though, is that many liberals seem to think that those of us who want to reform the welfare laws in this country are not motivated by compassion. In fact, I think our welfare system has demoralized the poor, and while I absolutely agree with George Weigel that we do have an obligation to the poor and to be compassionate and to help the poor, how we do that is not a matter on which this Pope has spoken any more than he's spoken, by the way, on the subject of English as the official language. I think he did speak very clearly on immigrants, and I, for one, welcome very much what he said about immigrants.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, I must thank you all five very much for joining us this evening. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot and Presidential candidate Arthur Fletcher. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now, some end-of-the-week political analysis by Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Both of you gentlemen are Catholic. Let me just start with you, Mark. The same question that Robin just asked the other five guests: Does the Pope's message that he has been delivering here in the United States have political relevance?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Yes, it has--it has enormous political relevance. First of all, he has a message that makes both parties uncomfortable. His message to the conservatives in the Republican Party is you cannot abdicate the collective public responsibility for taking care of those less gifted, poorer, disabled. That was--that was clear and unequivocal. To the Democrats it was, abortion isn't going to go away as an issue. So neither party could take total comfort, and both parties got a reprimand from him. But I think, Jim, politically what is significant about it, here's a figure who's enormously popular, who takes terribly controversial positions on enormously controversial issues, and we have one party in our country that's led by a man who says, I'll be whatever you want to be, and the other party's led by a work-in-progress, who's kind of saying, well, I found out this about my job this week. And I really think there's a yearning for the passion of convictions, and I think that spills over into our own public life.

MR. LEHRER: Paul?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I agree with Mark's point about the passion of convictions. I mean, this is a man who is hopelessly out of date and anachronistic in some senses, because he stands for things that are not popular as the polls suggest, and yet, he's very popular. And I think it has a lot more to do with that sense that he believes something firmly and sticks to it and has a moral vision than it does with any personality traits or any personal charm. But I think the more important political point that the Pope--political relevance that the Pope has that underscores his message is that there is a deep, I think, sense in this country that somehow the national character is fraying, that the social contract is breaking down. And what, he comes in and offers real vision that says virtue is important, not just choice in the democratic sense but what kind of citizens we are. And I think that plays to people of both parties and is very significant.

MR. LEHRER: But does it play in a way that matters? In other words, is somebody who's listened to the Pope, either in person at one of these huge gatherings or on television, read it in their newspaper, whatever, likely to do something differently politically because of the Pope, what the Pope said?

MR. GIGOT: Maybe not tomorrow, but I think to the extent that there are some, a lot of people beginning to talk, that there's a religious revival going on in this country, not a Catholic revival, but just a broadly religious revival, it's been going on for sometime, and a lot of those people then get active in politics to the extent that they are concerned about moral questions, and a lot of those moral questions are on the table now in politics in a way that they weren't ten, fifteen years ago.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Jim, you watched 83,000 people stand in the rain in Giants Stadium last night, and these--

MR. LEHRER: They didn't even look like they were getting wet.

MR. SHIELDS: No. And there were people there filled with joy. It was an affecting experience, I mean, at a time when our political apathy, anomy, call it what you want, has reached epic proportions, and so does it--does it change? I think what it does, it probably makes the next amoral or immoral approach to any question more uncomfortable for the person who's viewed it. I think it intrudes the moral dimension into public question.

MR. LEHRER: But it doesn't carry authority with it. In other words, no Catholic is going to say oh, oh, well, the Pope said this, so now I'm politically going to have to change my position?

MR. SHIELDS: It forces--it forces to confront. I mean, the indictment that has been made of Catholics is that they are cafeteria Catholics now, that they go in and they say, well, I'll take this, I'll take the--the Pope's teaching or the Church's teaching on the poor, but I'm going to slide right by abortion, or I'll take abortion, but they--you know, this poor stuff, it isn't good for their character to get help. And he really forces you to look at the whole menu and say, this is it.

MR. GIGOT: He's forcing you to take a look at character, not merely whether or not government can deliver a cafeteria of benefits, but whether individual--how can we empower poor people to do better.

MR. SHIELDS: I disagree, Paul, because his message--his message was unclear. It wasn't personal acts of charity. He said there's a collective public responsibility.

MR. GIGOT: That's right, but, but how that collective responsibility is, is implemented is really the crux of the debate in the United States right now. And I didn't see the Pope say, I'm- -you know, I'm defending HUD the way it works now, or I'm defending the welfare state.

MR. SHIELDS: He wasn't saying cutting the capital gains tax is going to feed people who are homeless.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of capital gains tax, let's go to those mundane matters here. Tax cuts--Dole vs. Gramm--Dole says hang in there and do it, no, I'm sorry--Gramm says hang in there and do it, and Dole says maybe it's not possible. What's going on here?

MR. GIGOT: Well--

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of capital gains--that's called a segway.

MR. SHIELDS: Nice segway.

MR. GIGOT: What you have here is you have Phil Gramm and Bob Dole, both of whom are running for President, both of whom are saying, I'm closer to Newt Gingrich than you are to the Republican- -than the other guy is to the Republican electorate, because you have--Phil Gramm's trying to say, first of all, I'm going to implement the contract that Newt Gingrich brought in. Bob Dole, he doesn't really believe in it. So what you have is Bob Dole saying- -moving up and saying wait a minute, what I really want at the end of the day is to pass a bill, tax and spending cuts, that Newt Gingrich and I can raise our hands together with and say Newt thinks it's a good deal. That blunts Phil Gramm's attack.

MR. LEHRER: He's got to have Gingrich buying it, though, right?

MR. GIGOT: That's exactly what he needs.

MR. LEHRER: --the Dole plan.

MR. GIGOT: It has to be the Dole-Gingrich plan, and that's his ultimate insurance against Phil Gramm and others on the Republican presidential field.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think it's quite that complicated. Phil Gramm--Bob Dole runs for President on the simple premise, straightforward premise, I've been there, I know the job, I can get the job done. If you want somebody who's effective, I'm the guy. He's the guy that passes bills,gets laws written, effects compromises, fashions out of apparent chaos an effective legislative product. Phil Gramm, by contrast, is none of the above. Phil Gramm is running and saying, I'm a purist. He's appealing straightforwardly to the Marie Antoinette, Daddy Warbucks wing of the Republican Party, and that's where his appeal is. He doesn't have to worry about passing a bill. He doesn't have to worry about passing--I mean, Phil Gramm couldn't get an agreement to adjourn past the Senate right now, and--but Bob Dole has to do that to preserve not only his reputation and his strength within the institution, but the public message of his candidacy, which is, I'm a guy that gets things done.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now, where does that--just this exchange this last week then, who's ahead on this one?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think Dole is frankly in the better position right now, because Dole is moving something through the Senate.

MR. LEHRER: He's doing something, as Mark said.

MR. GIGOT: But his ultimate--ultimately this will be decided by whether or not Bob Dole can deliver something that Gingrich endorses and they can put on the President's desk. That's the real- -

MR. LEHRER: He has to deliver something, or he's just like Gramm, is that--

MR. SHIELDS: Well, he has to deliver something, you know, or he's worse than Gramm, because Gramm then has said, I'm the pure guy, I made the good fight and lost. Bob Dole is saying, I'm the guy that has to tinker at the edges maybe in a couple of compromises.

MR. LEHRER: And still lost.

MR. SHIELDS: If he loses, then it's really a--

MR. GIGOT: But if Gingrich endorses, what is Phil Gramm going to say, you know, Newt Gingrich is giving into liberals? I mean, that's just not likely to work.

MR. LEHRER: The polls--both Post, ABC, and Newsweek polls show President Clinton's ratings up, general approval as well as his chances for reelection. Read some meaning into that for us at this point.

MR. SHIELDS: Polls at this point in any campaign, Jim, have a predictive value of close to zero as to the outcome. In March of 1980, the campaign that I did cover, Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 31 percent points. Jimmy Carter--

MR. LEHRER: At this stage?

MR. SHIELDS: At the incumbent President in March of 1980--

MR. LEHRER: March of 1980.

MR. SHIELDS: Closer to the election.

MR. LEHRER: Closer to the election.

MR. SHIELDS: He was the commander-in-chief. He was in battle commander-in-chief, the Iranian hostage crisis was on, and Reagan was sort of the fringe leader of a movement within the party. The- -what--where they do work is they work in the internals of politics, and right now, Bob Dole's argument has been, I'm the guy that can not only get things done, I'm the guy that can beat Bill Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: Beat Bill Clinton.

MR. SHIELDS: And so that becomes a problem for him.

MR. LEHRER: Internally--

MR. SHIELDS: Internally--

MR. LEHRER: --with his own party.

MR. SHIELDS: --as he goes to appeal--as he goes to appeal to Republican primary voters. Unlike Ronald Reagan, he isn't the guy that says I'm going to lead you to the promised land, I've--I've fought this fight for 25 years, I believe these three things, I'm going to change the world, he's going to make the world better for Republicans, but, gee, if he isn't going to win, then all of a sudden that becomes a problem.

MR. LEHRER: Paul.

MR. GIGOT: Well, I don't want to--I want to crow a little bit here about a disagreement the sage to my left here had before. Remember when Dick Morris, the President's new guru, advised--made advice to say associate yourself with the Republican goals on the budget, welfare and so on, even if you disagree with some of the details--big shift, big debate about that shift. I thought it was a good idea. I think that is part of the problem--part of the reason that he is doing as well as he is in the polls. He's popped up a little bit because no longer is he seen to be saying, I disagree with the direction these people are going. He's allowed himself to get out of the fray, stand above it, and say, let Congress do all this dirty work, I'm going to come down and sort of round the edges, I'm going to come down and stop them from going too far. But he--but he is--you know, I think that's helped him enormously, that strategic shift.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask--beginning with you, Paul--pick up on what Mark said. Give us kind of a consumer beware, a consumer report on how to read the polls, not--those of us who are not involved in the internal things of the party, what does a poll mean? How should we read these things? Because there was all kinds of things about Colin Powell, up and down, and all this thing, Perot's thing, what does it all mean now? What context should they be read in now?

MR. GIGOT: Maybe we should ignore them for a couple of months. I know there are some Republicans who say, let's just forget about it, let's not look at another one until we pass this budget, for example, because otherwise they're going to get in our way. But I think a poll is, is like a temperature, a thermometer. It's taking a temperature at any particular time. It's--sometimes it's hotter, and sometimes it's cooler. What you look for--what I look for anyway, are kind of the deeper themes, particularly at this time, where we don't have a hot election going. I look for what the country thinks about government, what it thinks broadly about the Republican agenda, about the main--

MR. LEHRER: And that's been going down in these polls.

MR. GIGOT: And that's been suffering a bit.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. GIGOT: But what does it think about the main--which party is better equipped to handle certain things like welfare and budget and so on?

MR. LEHRER: What are you looking for when you read a poll, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: What you're looking for, Jim, a poll is, the cliche goes, a snapshot in time. So you're going to snap these snapshots and stack 'em up. What you've seen is that lowering support for the Republican policies starting effectively last March or April, which is the high mark, and it's been going down steadily ever since, which makes an anxiety in the ranks of Republicans, okay, who are starting to get nervous about reelection. But the key, the biggest mistake that is made is twofold. First, they are written in the water's edge--Peter Hart's phrase--as the tide is coming in. That's all the permanence they have in the sand. I mean, they're just there, and they're washed away. But the biggest mistake that is made is that people look at the top line--they say, gee, Clinton's up seven, he's down six, or whatever. The key is what are people looking for if, in fact, after the Simpson incredible experience, this wrenching, this universal, national experience, where Americans found that they viewed it entirely differently through the prism of race. If, in face, we are looking for a racial healer- -okay, if that becomes an important--

MR. LEHRER: "The" No. 1 thing.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. In 1996, America can't--we're splitting apart--we can't be balkanized, then who can do that, then Colin Powell all of a sudden his candidacy hasa certain momentum.

MR. LEHRER: And tax cuts become less important and everything else becomes less important, you would agree with that.

MR. GIGOT: Possibly. Yeah, you can make that argument. If Colin Powell emerged with that kind of campaign and that kind of a message, then it could have some salience, yeah.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. All right. Thank you both very much. See you next week. SERIES - THE CANDIDATES

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally, another in our series of NewsHour interviews with the Presidential candidate. Elizabeth Farnsworth talked with Republican Arthur Fletcher yesterday.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Arthur Fletcher has been a longtime Republican activist and has served four Republican Presidents. Seventy years old, he's a graduate of Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas; he served in the U.S. Army during World War II. Before entering politics, he played professional football for the former Baltimore Colts and the Los Angeles Rams. His political career began in Kansas. He was vice-chairman of the state Republican Party from 1954 to 1956. He was also active in state and local politics in California and Washington State before Richard Nixon tapped him to be Assistant Secretary of Labor in 1969. At the Labor Department, he designed the first successful affirmative action plan for employers doing business with the federal government. He served as President Ford's Deputy Assistant for Urban Affairs. Ronald Reagan appointed him to the federal project to revitalize Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.. During the Bush administration, he served as chairman of the Civil Rights Commission. He remains a member. Thank you for being with us.

ARTHUR FLETCHER, Republican Presidential Candidate: Thank you for the invitation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why did you decide to enter the race?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Well, I decided that my--you just read the resume--and I decided that my experiences on the domestic scene and the future President, including the present one, future Presidents are going to have to deal with domestic issues. This is one of the first times, probably since the first quarter of this century, when the main issues that the White House will be confronted with are domestic issues. You mentioned one that I was--urban affairs-- deputy urban affairs adviser to President Ford. In that capacity, I might add, my job was to study the bankruptcies that were caused by federal policy, if I could identify those. And I just might quickly add the ones identified was the interstate highway system and I learned about that in the Kansas legislature, and the Kansas Highway Department, and the other was revenue sharing, when they decided to abandon that approach, and finally, the other was urban renewal programs. And I learned what happened to cities when they lost their tax base, and the extent to which it impacted the mission of city government, fire department, education, et cetera. I learned those things. And those, as you well know, when you pick up a paper today, that's what at the top of the agenda. So I feel that I'm fully qualified to participate now in that area of government as anyone who's running today.

MS. FARNSWORTH: When you first announced that you were running last spring, you emphasized affirmative action. You've been called the father of affirmative action.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Tell us why, and tell us what you're worried about in affirmative action now. What are you worried that's being, that's happening in affirmative action?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: My, my concern is--hasn't diminished yet, but it's beginning to. Bob Dole and other leaders, Newt Gingrich, have decided that they will put their attack on affirmative action on the shelf for a while. That means that I've accomplished objective No. 1. When I decided to get in this race--among other things-- I made up my mind that I would force the party to take a hard look at the benefits of affirmative action, and once they've learned them, back away and probably find a way to improve rather than discard it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You mean, back away from getting rid of affirmative action?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: That's right. And as of this conversation, I feel that I've accomplished that. The other thing I wanted to accomplish that I came to want to accomplish, and that was to get after Pete Wilson and his attack on affirmative action, and so now Pete has dropped out of the race, and Bob is talking about backing away, and so is Newt, so now we can talk about what really ails America.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But why do you think it's become such a hot button issue, something that everybody's been talking about?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Well, I hate to bring up the Simpson trial, but the, the--we--at the commission--let me say it this way. In 19-- just before the King riot, the Civil Rights Commission issued a letter to President Bush asking that we hold a national summit to deal with the nation's race problem. And we sent the letter to Bush, and we sent it to Bob Michels in the House and Foley in the House and to Bob Dole and to former Sen. Mitchell, suggesting that race was such a, a debilitating issue at this critical hour in our country that we ought to have the national political leaders hold a national summit and deal with the issue so that we could get it out, and they didn't do it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you think that's true now too?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Well, it's worse--it's worse now than it was then, but I think the trial, the outcome of that trial has people admitting that this thing is debilitating, and maybe--and I'm pushing on--part of my campaign is to push for a national summit on race relations, and this just might be the opportunity to get that done.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You've even spoken about the danger of a race war in this country.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: That's true. That's true.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why do you? Where do you see that danger?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Well, I, I--as more and more African-Americans in particular begin to lose confidence in the process--you see, we put a lot of confidence--getting voting rights, housing rights, employment, public accommodation, and those five statutes on the books, we put a lot of confidence in that. And we felt that once those laws are in place, the resistance to increasing our participation in this culture and this society would diminish. It really hasn't. It's become more sophisticated, more difficult, but it really--and folks are getting frustrated, and just as we said, just as we said just before the, the Rodney King thing, we said that that timber out there, all it takes is a spark, and that timber out there will go up. Well, as, as the economy begins to, to wind down and it's really not winding down--in fact, we've got the best economy we've ever seen--but what is happening is efforts are being made to limit African-American participation in that economy, Hispanics as well, and restrict the limitation of women. But African-Americans feel that the nation has come back, you know, when we had 5 percent unemployment, down along at the 5 percent level, it's come back, it's about as good as it's going to get. And they're feeling now that they're shut out for good. And they're watching the building of jails and various other things and saying, somebody, somewhere has planned us out of it. So I see the same kind of stress in the African-American community in particular, and I see the kind of fear, you know, when women living in the suburbs are buying guns by the millions, then, you know--

MS. FARNSWORTH: You're talking about white women.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: That's right. We--

MS. FARNSWORTH: You've spoken about the dangers of so many people being armed in the suburbs.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: That's right. That's right. It wouldn't take much--and I insist that it couldn't--it wouldn't take very much and we find ourselves in that same mess. That's why I'm hoping we'll take advantage of this climate as a result of the O.J. Simpson decision. I'm hoping we can take advantage of that climate and realize that the masses of people in the middle want a remedy. And I might say I think that asking African-Americans, among others, put your remedy on the table. Don't put the problem on the table by itself. Put the remedy on the table.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But you said that Sen. Dole, who I gather is an old friend of yours--

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --and a political associate for many years--

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --being from Kansas too, you said that he, he was willing to sell his soul, I believe were the words you used, to get the nomination, and you were speaking about his being against affirmative action after many years of being for it. Do you still think he's willing to sell his soul?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Maybe I overstated the selling soul piece. Bob is--Bob in his heart of hearts, Bob is a very decent person. I've known him ever since Washburn University's--University paper has both of our pictures on it saying we're the only university in the country that has two guys running for President [laughing]. But he's so ambitious. Let me put it on those terms. He's so ambitious to be the President, and I can understand, having been the kind of legislator he's been, but he's letting that right wing element--Phil Gramm and others--carry him so far to the right that if he's not careful, even if he won the nomination, that mass in the middle is not going to--not going to vote for him, and if I win the nomination, I'd have a tough time putting him on the ticket.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, we have a very few minutes left. What about what the Republicans are doing to Medicare? Since it's in the news right now, what do you think about that?

ARTHUR FLETCHER: You know, my concern with those particular issues--I'll name two of them--but my concern with Medicare right now is it's become such a political football that I would like to see both President Clinton and the Republican leadership do what we did when we didn't know what to do about Social Security. We appointed a citizens committee, and we made sure that that citizen committee represented the breadth of the nation. You gave 'em the amount of time they needed to come back with recommendations that made it possible to say this is not necessarily a political party's remedy, this is a citizen's remedy. I will like--I think that's where this issue is, and I can speak on it, because I'm 70 years old, and I'm not necessarily pleased with what the Republicans or the Democrats are doing, and we're not--I don't feel we're really hearing from the people who are the problem. And so I would strongly recommend a citizens committee, even though they're going to move with some legislation, I would push for a citizens committee to sit down and take their time and come back and say, this is what we feel you ought to use our taxpayer dollars for to give us the remedy in health that we need.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And finally, how are you going to finance your campaign? This is a hugely expensive undertaking.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Well, I've done a couple of things. One, I have a little slogan that says, "Send five and keep our Fletcher campaign alive." The other--and this is very interesting--I cut a video--"The Truth About Affirmative Action"--it's a 30-minute presentation by the original source. The market anticipates-- they're anticipating that there is a market for that video that ranges in the range of a million to a million and a half. It's put out by Fletcher's Learning System, which is a little company I own. I made up my mind that if we do sell 'em at that rate--and I'm introducing it in the state of Washington next week--if we do sell 'em at that rate, then I'll be able to finance my own campaign.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, that's very interesting.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: And stay in the race right down to the wire.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you so much for being with us, and good luck.

ARTHUR FLETCHER: Thank you very much. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story this Friday was President Clinton's easing of restrictions on Cuba; travel by some student clergy and other groups would be permitted, so would the opening of bureaus by U.S. news organizations. Senate Majority Leader Dole criticized the action, saying a tightening of the land-standing economic embargo would be more productive. This afternoon, 60 executives of major U.S. corporations flew to Havana for a fact- finding trip and dinner with Cuban President Fidel Castro. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. And we will see you again on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.