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 examine the worsening relations between the United States and China. Then we debate the growing demand that Americans exercise more personal responsibility, and finally Richard Rodriguez has an essay about Latin lovers. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Chinese-American activist Harry Wu said today he has not been mistreated by his Chinese captors. Wu met with American officials in Central China for the first time since his detention three weeks ago. Wu was formally arrested last Saturday and charged with espionage and trying to enter China illegally. He faces the death penalty if convicted. Wu went to China to document human rights violations. Wu spent 19 years in prison camps there before emigrating to the United States and becoming a citizen. State Department Nicholas Burns described today's meeting with Wu.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: I understand that the conversation had to take place through a glass partition. The conversation as monitored by four or five Chinese officials. In fact, they had to speak through a phone line. There was a Chinese official on the phone line. Our consul was not permitted to discuss the details of the legal case being brought against Mr. Wu with Mr. Wu. We had been informed by the Chinese government before the meeting that that would not be the case, that it was not going to be permissible for our consul to discuss any aspect of the legal proceedings with Mr. Wu.

MR. LEHRER: We'll look at U.S./China relations right after this News Summary. A long-time opponent of Burma's military government was freed from house arrest today. The six-year sentence of Nobel Prize Winner Ong San Sue Key would have ended later this month. Sue Key was placed under house arrest in 1989 for inciting unrest. Burma's government killed and imprisoned thousands during pro- democracy uprisings in 1988. Following her release, Sue Key immediately began talks in Rangoon with fellow democracy campaigners. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said today he was opposed to resuming full diplomatic ties with Vietnam at this time. Dole made the statement this afternoon as the Senate returned to work from its 4th of July recess.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: The Vietnamese government wants normalization very badly. Normalization is the strongest bargaining chip America has. As such, it should only be granted when we are convinced Vietnam has done all it can do. Vietnam has taken many steps, sites are being excavated, and some remains have been returned, but there are also signs that Vietnam may be willfully withholding information. Unless the President is absolutely convinced Vietnam has done all it can to resolve the POW/MIA issue and is willing to say so publicly and unequivocally, it would be a strategic, diplomatic, and moral mistake to grant Vietnam the stamp of approval from the United States government.

MR. MAC NEIL: The White House said today President Clinton would make an announcement regarding diplomatic relations with Vietnam during a Rose Garden ceremony tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton entered the debate about sex and violence in the media today. He said parents are ultimately responsible for what their children watch on television but he said they could use some help. He suggested the use of computer chips in TV sets to block out unwanted programming. The President spoke this morning at a family values conference in Nashville.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is a huge consensus in this country today that we need to do something that is responsible, that is constructive, that strengthens our families, and gives our kids a better future, and that celebrates the fact that this is the media center of the world, and we want it to be that way ten, twenty, fifty years from now, but we also want to be that way in a country that is less violent that has a more wholesome environment for our children to grow up in, where our children are strong in taking advantage of the dominant position the United States enjoys in the world media.

MR. LEHRER: The murder trial of Susan Smith began today in Union, South Carolina. Smith confessed to drowning her two young sons last October. She had originally claimed the boys were kidnapped by a carjacker who was black.

MR. MAC NEIL: Australia today temporarily recalled its ambassador to France. It was in reaction to France's raid on a Greenpeace ship in the south Pacific yesterday. The Rainbow Warrior was protesting French plans to conduct underground nuclear tests in the South Pacific. We have a report from Joe Andrews of Independent Television News.

JO ANDREWS, ITN: Daybreak just off Mururoa Atoll: TheRainbow Warrior has breached the 12-mile exclusion zone and is just two miles from France's nuclear test site. The French ships close in and then small inflatables carrying the assault team who are helmeted and dressed in black speed toward the Greenpeace boat. In a matter of seconds, the boarding ladder is in place, the commanders climb on deck and try to take control of the Rainbow Warrior. At this point, the Greenpeace crew and cameraman locked themselves in the wheel house and radio room. At one stage, tear gas was thrown by the assault team, and then the French supply ship rammed the Rainbow Warrior. As it happened, Greenpeace sent out this mayday call.

SPOKESMAN: [on Rainbow Warrior] This is Rainbow Warrior. We are being rammed. We are being rammed. Over.

ROGER MAYNARD, Journalist: The wheel house was locked. It was barred by welded iron bars and a lock. This frustrated them, quite clearly, and as a result of that, they, they started sledge hammering their way through the portholes and through the windows.

JO ANDREWS: The Rainbow Warrior was taken under tow to Mururoa Lagoon and the crew removed from the boat and taken for interrogation at the military base.

MR. MAC NEIL: French officials released the Greenpeace activists about 10 hours after they were first detained.

MR. LEHRER: UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali today threatened more air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. His threat came after the Serbs launched a weekend attack on a UN-designated safe haven in Eastern Bosnia. The UN also demanded the release of about 30 Dutch peacekeepers the Serbs are detaining there. Meanwhile, the Serbs kept up their offensive against Sarajevo. Several shells fell in the capital's center. Two hit an apartment building, injuring at least six civilians. President Clinton plans to discuss the Bosnia situation with congressional leaders this evening.

MR. MAC NEIL: Those are the top stories today. Now it's on to U.S./China relations, personal responsibility, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - ROCKY RELATIONS

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to the new troubles in the relationship between the United States and China. We start with some background from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The latest sparks are flying over a Chinese-born naturalized American citizen named Harry Wu. He's a prominent former Chinese dissident who has created controversy with allegations that China is using prison labor in its factories.

HARRY WU, Former Political Prisoner: [January 31, 1994] It is very common practice. Chinese have the biggest enterprises of slavery in our 20th century, because there's 10 million people in agricultural camps, in mining camps, in industry camps.

MR. HOLMAN: Wu was arrested last month trying to enter China from Kazakhstan. Now he's being held on espionage charges which could carry the death penalty. The U.S. has protested officially and expressed concern about the future of U.S./China relations.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: We are obviously in a period of some difficulty in U.S./China relations. We believe it's imperative that both the United States and China take steps to repair those difficulties. Certainly, Mr. Wu's case is an important case, because he's an American citizen traveling on a valid American passport. He had a valid Chinese visa. He was not aware upon entering China that any difficulties would ensue. It's a serious case, but there are a number of issues that remain on the agenda that are quite important that need to be resolved. There are a number of opportunities between the United States and China that speak to both of our national interests.

MR. HOLMAN: On their side, the Chinese feel angry and aggrieved over the visit of the president of Taiwan to the President of the United States a month ago. President Lee Teng-Hui asked for and received permission to make a speech at his alma mater, Cornell University in Upstate New York. At the time, the Clinton administration emphasized the unofficial nature of the Lee trip.

NICHOLAS BURNS: [May 22] It is important to reiterate that this is not an official visit. The granting of a visa in this case is consistent with U.S. policy of maintaining only unofficial relations with Taiwan. It does not convey any change in our relations with or policies toward the People's Republic of China, with which we maintain official relations and recognize as the sole legal government of China.

MR. HOLMAN: But the Chinese argued that U.S. policy in effect since President Nixon visited China in 1972 now has been breached. On Sunday, House Speaker Newt Gingrich joined the argument, urging a more sympathetic U.S. position toward Taiwan.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: ["Face the Nation"] I'd move to recognize Taiwan as a free country and tell the Chinese they're going to have to live with the reality that the people of Taiwan are a free people and deserve it, get it over with, because every time we do anything minor in behalf of Taiwan, it leads to a big blow up with China, and they overreact. I think we're better off to get that behind us and then to say to the Chinese, now, you want to negotiate and deal with each other fine, but we're not doing it on your terms, we're doing it on mutual terms.

MR. LEHRER: Now, four views of the U.S./China situation. James Lilley was U.S. Ambassador to China from 1989 to '91. He's now with the American Enterprise Institute. Stephen Solarz is a former Democratic congressman from New York and was chairman of the Asia/Pacific subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Nancy Berncoff Tucker is an Asia scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, and Kim Holmes is vice president and director of foreign policy and defense studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Mr. Ambassador, first, on the Harry Wu issue, should the United States make a big deal of this?

JAMES LILLEY, Former Ambassador, China: No. There are more important issues between the United States and China than Harry Wu. We have to do -- act according to principle on this one. We have to get Harry Wu out of there. I worked 13 months to get Fong Li- Zur out of there. We finally got him out and we kept his integrity intact. It takes time. It takes patience.

MR. LEHRER: This was a prior case similar to this.

AMB. LILLEY: This was from 1989 to 1990.

MR. LEHRER: What is it that they say Wu did that was so, so bad?

AMB. LILLEY: Well, they say he entered China previously. He carried out espionage. He stole documents. He visited places he shouldn't have gone to, and he used aliases to get in, which they say is a clear violation of the law and which is espionage.

MR. LEHRER: Why is this such a big thing to the Chinese?

NANCY TUCKER, Woodrow Wilson Center: The Harry Wu situation as such would be a big thing under any circumstances because they consider it a violation of sovereignty, but they're particularly concerned about it right now because of the situation with the United States. It's a way to punish the United States for the visit of Lee Teng-Hui to the U.S., which they objected to very strongly.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, it's kind of aquid pro quo symbolic thing in a way.

MS. TUCKER: There are clearly people in China who wanted to put an end to Harry Wu's activities in any case. He was apparently on a secret list of people not to be allowed into the country and to be arrested if he tried to enter again, and those people want to put an end to his activities and perhaps even carry out a trial with a death sentence. But under other circumstances, if U.S./China relations were better, one might expect that this would be a subject for negotiation, rather than for drastic action.

MR. LEHRER: How likely is it that they would execute Harry Wu?

STEPHEN SOLARZ, Former Democratic Representative: I certainly hope they won't execute him. I think that would be dreadful not only for Mr. Wu, first and foremost and his family, but also in terms of the whole Sino-American relationship. That would be a body blow to any hope of restoring some kind of constructive relationship between Washington and Beijing. I have to say I have enormous admiration for Harry Wu. I think he's a man of extraordinary courage, and I think we should do everything we reasonably can, as I believe we are, to secure his release. But I agree with Amb. Lilley that we ought not to hinge the entire Sino-American relationship on this one issue alone.

MR. LEHRER: Is it unavoidable though? I mean, if they try him and they threaten him with execution, I mean, isn't that kind of out - - would the public react here in the United States? Doesn't this thing become big, whether we want it to be or not?

MR. SOLARZ: I think it ultimately depends on what they do with Mr. Wu, and I certainly don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be executed, let alone sentenced to a prolonged term in prison. I think there are a lot of things we can do in discussions with the Chinese to facilitate his release, and I think that ought to be part of a larger strategy designed to arrest the downward cycle in Sino-American relations which unless we can begin to turn things around can have fateful and entirely negative consequences for fundamental American interests, not only in Asia but around the world.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Holmes, do you agree that the Wu issue is part of the bigger issue between the United States and China?

KIM HOLMES, Heritage Foundation: Absolutely. It comes on the heels not only of the Taiwan issue with the President of Lee Teng- Hui but also on the heels of a host of other issues. A few months or so ago, the Chinese interviewed in the Spratley Islands in a contravention of international agreements.

MR. LEHRER: Tell us about the Spratley Islands.

MR. HOLMES: They occupied a small atoll called the Mischief Reef which the Philippines claimed and by doing so, they violated the other agreements they had made in the past and the law of the sea treaty, for example, and other agreements they have made. They have also violated agreements of intellectual property rights and trading violations, and also, of course, they have been accused of violating some agreements with respect to sending missile technology to Pakistan and also of endangering our relations, or rather endangering our potential security relations with Iran with respect to getting them nuclear technology. So this is not just the first time this sort of thing happens.

MR. LEHRER: And it's not just the United States that's causing the problem is what you're suggesting?

MR. HOLMES: Of course not. I think this is a serious problem. I do believe that it is in the hands of the Chinese. They do not necessarily need to escalate this situation. I think that they need to calm down a bit. We need to have calmer heads, and we need to be talking about where our future relationship with be. I agree with Amb. Lilley and others who have said that we do have a larger strategic relationship to adhere to here, because we want to see China adhering to international rules of behavior and rules of the road where we can act more responsibly in the international arena.

MR. LEHRER: Let's talk about the Taiwan thing for a few moments. Mr. Ambassador, was that just a mistake on the part of the United States, or does the United States in a way have to let that man in here?

AMB. LILLEY: First, he's not that man. He's a very distinguished citizen who's brought democracy and prosperity to Taiwan. He's a graduate of an American university with a distinguished Ph.D..

MR. LEHRER: I didn't use that term as one of disparagement.

AMB. LILLEY: I just want to -- this is one of my very good friends.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, fine. I want to make sure the audience understands -- if you don't understand it -- that was not a term of disparagement.

AMB. LILLEY: Let me just put it this way. Can we read this wrong? Look, President Lee Teng-Hui had been to Singapore, had been met at the airport by the prime minister of Singapore, Go Cuch-Teng. Singapore recognized China as its sole legal government, Peking, sole legal government of China -- he saw President Suhara of Indonesia, he saw the king of Thailand, he saw the President of Philippines; he went to Jordan; he went to Uae. All these countries recognize China as the sole -- Peking -- as the sole government of China. Peking did not do a thing. Why do they pick on us? Why do they single us out? He goes to Cornell as alma mater. He sees no officials. He's in and out of here, no press reviews, nothing. And they blow their top. Isn't there a certain amount of inconsistency here? Aren't they treating us with a certain amount of disrespect? They have 2.7 million people of Singapore, and the prime minister goes to the airport to meet him. We -- I went to Los Angeles, an old extinguished diplomat, to tell him I was there, to show my respect for him. In 1985, when he was vice president, I went to New York to meet him as the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia & Pacific affairs, and he went to West Point as a VIP. Why all of the fuss now?

MR. LEHRER: What's the answer to that, Ms. Tucker?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I think I would take some exception to one thing that Amb. Lilley said, which is that --

MR. LEHRER: Just don't call him "that man." [laughter]

MS. TUCKER: -- which is that it seems to me it's not a sign of disrespect. In fact, it's probably a sign of great respect. China basically cares a lot less if Singapore or a handful of other governments welcome Lee Teng-Hui, but when Lee Teng-Hui comes to the United States, that's a serious statement, because the United States has great power, because China wants our respect, because by coming here, Lee gains much more international prestige than he does by going somewhere else, so from China's perspective, this is a much more serious proposition, and particularly since it follows a series of other actions on Taiwan - - for instance, President Bush's decision to sell Taiwan F-16 advanced fighter aircraft; the recent effort by the Clinton administration to carry out a Taiwan policy review, which though it didn't amount to much, from the Chinese perspective indicated a possible change in American policy, all of which is troubling to Beijing because it appears to promote the independence of Taiwan, and that's really the bottom line issue, should Taiwan reunify with the mainland, or will it become independent? And from Beijing's perspective, independence is impossible.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about this?

MR. SOLARZ: Feel about what?

MR. LEHRER: President Lee coming to the United States, what they've just been talking about, the Taiwan thing.

MR. SOLARZ: I think the Chinese have really overreacted to this invitation. They easily could have ignored it the way they did his visit to other countries, but I think we need to understand that the reason for their overreaction is probably due to the observable deterioration in Sino-American relations and a growing feeling on our part that we're not simply insensitive to their concerns but that we are actively embarked on an effort to contain them and to undo the accomplishments they believe of their revolution. Now I think that's a fundamental misinterpretation of American policy which is based not on containment but engagement, but nobody can I think seriously deny that that is how it is perceived by Beijing. Consequently, what needs to be done about it?

MR. LEHRER: But let's go back to the specific question. Did the United States make a mistake in allowing Lee to come into the United States?

MR. SOLARZ: I think the United States would have made a greater mistake, Jim, if it had not permitted the leader of a democratic country who had played a key role in facilitating the transition to democracy to come to our country for the purpose of attending the graduation exercises of his own alma mater, and there were virtually unanimous votes in both the House and the Senate urging the administration to grant him a visa. And under those circumstances, I don't see how President Clinton could have said no.

MR. LEHRER: Do you -- what do you think of Amb. Lilley's kind of double standard question here? I mean, they didn't object when similar things happened in other countries, but they did here, when he came here on an unofficial visit.

MR. SOLARZ: I think he's right, that there was in terms of the Chinese response a double standard, but I don't think their response was unpredictable or should have been unanticipated precisely because of the importance they attach to the United States and the perceptions in Beijing that we are embarked on a campaign against them. It was fairly obvious that giving him that visa and permitting him to come here would provoke a sharply negative reaction from Beijing. We should perhaps have taken steps prior to that time to have initiated the kind of broad-ranging dialogue which would have put the decision in perhaps a more understandable perspective. I think there's still time to do so, and I hope before we're finished, we'll have --

MR. LEHRER: I want to get to that in a moment, but I want to get --

MR. SOLARZ: -- an opportunity to discuss what can be done.

MR. LEHRER: Sure. I want to get to Mr. Holmes just on the specific question of the admission of Mr. Lee here. Was that the right thing to do?

MR. HOLMES: Yes, it was. The Republic of China is America's sixth largest trading partner. It's a dynamic economy that -- in Asia, and it has expanding economic relations around the globe. It's a democracy. We could not shun President Lee this way, and so I think we had no choice but to do it, and I think that the Chinese, the mainland Chinese are overreacting I think partly because in some ways the Clinton administration has mishandled our relationship in the past with, with the People's Republic of China, which has led to deteriorating relations to begin with but also --

MR. LEHRER: Wait. People who came in out of nowhere -- when you say Republic of China, you mean Taiwan.

MR. HOLMES: Taiwan, that's right.

MR. LEHRER: When you say People's Republic of China, you mean China.

MR. HOLMES: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. HOLMES: That's right. I think that the Clinton administration has mishandled the relationship over the last couple of years with mainland China, but also I believe there's a political struggle going on inside China, itself, the mainland China, which I think is causing the Chinese to take on a more aggressive foreign policy than they would otherwise take, and so I think probably that can be explained as well.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's go to your point, Congressman Solarz, about there's some underlying here. Okay. What are they and what can be done about it, because if you've got the Wu case, you have Taiwan, there could be something else tomorrow that seems to get much more attention than it would otherwise because of this underlying thing, what is it, what can be done about it?

MR. SOLARZ: Well, I think you've got to get the leaders on both sides to focus on the interests which unite us, rather than the disagreements which divide us, and I think we need to arrest this downward cycle through a scenario along the following lines. I think we should quietly approach the Chinese and say to them we'd like to get this relationship back on track, here's what we suggest. There's a possibility that the President of China, Xeng Zi-Men, may be coming to New York for the UN gathering in October. That would be an opportunity for a meeting with President Clinton. He certainly will be going -- the President of China that is -- to Osaka in Japan for an APEC meeting in November. That is another opportunity for a meeting between the two heads of state. We should say to them that in the context of those two meetings, we would anticipate and hope that Mr. Wu would be permitted to leave China, that China would also finally agree to let us send our ambassador- designate, former Senator Jim Sasser, to Beijing, and return their own ambassador, whom they've recalled to Washington, and that in that context, President Clinton following the APEC meeting in Osaka would go on to Beijing for several days of strategic discussions with the Chinese leaders with a view toward not simply reaffirming the three fundamental communiques, the Shanghai communique, the communique on normalization, and the communique on arms sales, but would also seek to see if we could get a new communique in which both sides simultaneously specified what areas we don't agree on but also went on to indicate what areas we do agree on, because, Jim, in the final analysis, our ability to advance fundamental American interest to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and around the world, to have access to the most dynamic economy in the world today depends on an understanding between the United States and China. And if we don't reverse this trend, we may find in several years that we are on the verge of military hostilities with China which would be an unacceptable catastrophe for the whole world.

MR. LEHRER: Is it that serious?

AMB. LILLEY: Well, I think in -- I agree with Congressman Solarz. We've got to get down to the real issues that we have to work together on -- North Korean nuclear weapons. We have to work -- we worked very effectively with China in the past on this. And the Bush breakthroughs came through as a result of working on it with China. Second, you have to work onthe South China Sea. Already they've acknowledged the sea lanes have to be protected. This is a vital interest of ours. We have to keep tranquility and peace and stability in the Taiwan straits. They bought SU-27's from Russia. We sold the F-16's to Taiwan. It was a balancing act. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we have to work with them very closely on that.

MR. LEHRER: So we got to make -- there's a lot at stake here?

AMB. LILLEY: But we have to do one thing. We have to stop this waltz of the hypocrites. The business of we going to China and saying constructive engagement, perish the thought of containment or encirclement, and the Chinese say, what are you doing from Vietnam to Japan, and Taiwan and Hong Kong and Spratlings, but encircling us? We say, oh, perish the thought. We also say to them, you're building up your military budget, you're getting planes from Russia, all this -- Kilo Class submarines, SA-10's, surface to air missiles, you're moving to the coast, all this equipment, you're threatening neighbors. The Chinese say, we want peace and stability, that's all, just friendship. We've got change the dialogue and make it more serious.

MR. LEHRER: Sounds scary, Ms. Tucker.

MS. TUCKER: Well, I think it is. My sense would be that we're at a low point in the relationship, certainly a low point since normalization, and we probably haven't seen a relationship as rocky as this since the 1960's.

MR. LEHRER: Are the risks as great as Mr. Solarz and Amb. Lilley say they are?

MS. TUCKER: I think the risks are enormous. China is a growing power, and China wants world recognition for that growth. China's economy is going to be huge. China's right now not a serious military threat, certainly not to the United States, and not to most of East Asia, but if it continues putting as much of its money into a military build-up as it seems to be doing, it will be a serious military challenger in the future.

MR. LEHRER: How do you see the seriousness of this, Mr. Holmes?

MR. HOLMES: It's very serious. We are, indeed, at a low point. The question for China in the future -- is it going to be emerging in the next 10 or so years as a power or as a country with global responsibilities that adheres to the international rules of the road like other countries with those aspirations adhere to? And the problem is, is that we need to lay down what the rules are, whether it's in missile technology control, whether it's in trade, whether it's in any of these other issues, we need to tell them very clearly what it is that the international community expects of them and then calibrate our response to them based upon those criteria.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thank you all four very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, a debate about personal responsibility and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, personal responsibility. It's a concept we're hearing more and more about in today's political discourse. Republicans and Democrats alike talk about it. President Clinton touched on it this morning in a speech in Nashville. Last week, Margaret Warner examined the politics behind the concept.

MARGARET WARNER: In back-to-back speeches last week, President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called on Americans to take more personal responsibility for their lives. Gingrich spoke Wednesday at the National Press Club. The President spoke Thursday at Georgetown University.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: [last week] I don't have any problem saying to every able-bodied adult, what did you do today, and if we give you money and you're staying at home on welfare, did you walk to the public library? If you didn't, shame on you. And if you get unemployment compensation, we ought to attach it to adult education. There's no reason we should give anybody a penny to go deer hunting and bass fishing. And if you need the money, we'll give you the money, and then you go work, but the idea that we give people money to do nothing is a violation of American tradition.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [last week] I think we have to create more opportunity and demand more responsibility. I think we have to give citizens more say and provide them a more responsive, less bureaucratic government. I think we have to do these things because we are literally a community, an American family that is going up or down together, whether we like it or not. If we're going to have middle class dreams and middle class values, we have to do things as private citizens and we have to do things in partnership through our public agencies and through our other associations.

MS. WARNER: Now, to explore why the notion of personal responsibility has become a hot political theme and where it might lead, we have four perspectives. Will Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research organization here in Washington. Bill Kristol is the editor of the forthcoming conservative weekly magazine "The Standard." He was the chief of staff to former Vice President Quayle. Eloise Anderson is director of the California Department of Social Services, a post she was appointed to by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. And Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, is Washington, D.C.'s delegate to the House of Representatives. Bill Kristol, why are we hearing so much about personal responsibility from both ends of the political spectrum?

BILL KRISTOL, Editor, The Standard: Well, I think because public policies that were based on the premise that you could ignore personal responsibility have so evidently failed. Even Democrats, even liberals, and Bill Clinton deserves credit for this, for saying something that might be politically incorrect in some liberal circles, by praising middle class values and middle class dreams. Everyone sees the liberal policies that assume one could put aside personal responsibility and somehow take care of people from Washington have failed. And I think there's now a new bipartisan consensus that we need public policies that encourage responsibility, and I would say more that allow citizens to take greater responsibility for their own lives, for educating their children, and for their communities.

MS. WARNER: So are you saying that really Democrats have come around to the Republican view?

MR. KRISTOL: Well, more or less. I mean, that oversimplifies a bit, but I think Newt Gingrich spoke Wednesday, Bill Clinton spoke Thursday. It's nice to see President Clinton echoing Speaker Gingrich. He seems to be doing a lot of that these days.

MS. WARNER: Congresswoman Norton, do you agree this is why we're hearing so much about it, because everyone agrees liberal policies have failed?

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, [D] Washington, D.C.: You know, that's just not the way to approach the President's speech, and in point of fact, what kept people believing in the old values had very little to do with government. I think that you hear more talk about personal responsibility today because all the old constraints and all the old disciplines have finally collapsed at once. It was church and community and family that kept us understanding how to talk civilly with one another, that we ought to always work, that you don't bring a child into this world and then not to support them. It never was the government. And to accuse the government of being responsible for the collapse in, in personal responsibility is not only to simplify but to falsify the complexity of forces that have left so many Americans feeling astray and asunder in today's modern world.

MS. WARNER: So do you think that Democrats and Republicans are both coming to a new view of what personal responsibility means, or what are you saying exactly?

DEL. NORTON: A perfect example is welfare reform, where there was a consensus in the United States, it was an amazing consensus, there was virtually no difference between Democrats and Republicans in the polls, there was virtually no difference between whites and blacks on the basic proposition that if you bring a child into this world, you ought to work, and that we've got to do something about welfare. There was also a consensus that we ought to make sure you don't hurt children. Where we went asunder and where the house divided, as it were, is at the how to do it, and the Republicans who essentially don't believe in government said, look, you're on your own, don't care what the -- what the circumstances were, that's it -- we don't care what happens to children, we don't care about the rest of it. It is there that the consensus broke down, but the analysis of what was wrong did not materially differ.

MS. WARNER: Ms. Anderson, where do you come down on this question of why we're hearing so much about this concept on both sides, from both sides of the spectrum?

ELOISE ANDERSON, California Dept. of Social Services: [Sacramento] Well, I think, No. 1, is that the people in Washington have finally caught up with the people in the rest of the country, around who ought to be responsible for things, and I think as people look out and they figure that, you know, they've tried the legal route, and we're the most litigious society there is, we keep suing because we don't want to take responsibility. That hasn't paid us off. We look for the government for everything. That isn't paying us off. I think we're going back to old fashioned traditions that if you want something out of life, you pay for it. I also think that the other thing that's going on here is that it's not about middle class values, it's about American values, because people who make a low income have the same set of values, so this middle class notion, I think, is something that we need to throw away, because what I think you're finding in the broad spectrum of the United States is that people are beginning to understand that you pay for your actions, you pay sooner or you pay later, and that it's not someone else that is going to be able to take up the slack. I think that falls right into welfare, where people are saying, gee, back in 1930, it actually made sense for us to keep a mom at home taking care of her kid, but in 1994, when most mothers work, we can't continue to do this, what makes no sense to us. And so I think what you hear is politicians voicing the people, not necessarily the politicians out there leading. I think they're following here, and they're following the American people, who are saying, we're tired of this; we want something that makes sense to us, and what makes sense to us is community, what makes sense to us is being responsible for our behavior, for our actions. That's truly the American way, and I don't think it has anything to do with class.

MS. WARNER: Will Marshall, do you think there has been truly a, a significant breakdown in personal responsibility among Americans today?

WILL MARSHALL, Progressive Policy Institute: [Norfolk] Well, I don't know if I'd put it that way, Margaret, but let me say that I think what's going on here is something broader than just a liberal versus conservative kind of debate. It is the reversal of about a century of political and economic centralization of power. It's not just a political story. It's also happened in our economy, where large organizations began to dominate the landscape. And what's happening is all those big institutions are breaking up, and power and responsibility and the ability to make decisions is flowing back down the line toward individuals and communities and away from the center. And that's happening all over the world and not just in the United States. So I think I really agree with Ms. Anderson. The American people are way ahead of their federal government in understanding the new possibilities that now exist for reclaiming responsibility from government and big institutions of all kinds and beginning to take a greater share of the control of one's own life, working out one's own problems, looking to the community at hand to work out problems, rather than looking to the remote agency of bureaucratic government to solve problems.

MS. WARNER: And you're saying there's a convergence here at least or emerging consensus in the American public that's quite separate from the political rhetoric or possibility of consensus?

MR. MARSHALL: Oh, I think so. Of course, I'm shocked that Bill would attempt to put a partisan cast on this. But what's happening is much more fundamental than --

MS. WARNER: To be fair to Bill, I think I suggested the partisan cast, but go ahead.

MR. MARSHALL: It's much more fundamental than a battle between the two parties. In fact, one of the most interesting battles going on in Washington today is within the Republican Party. Republicans have been talking a big game about devolution, about the centralizing power and responsibility, but now they've gotten themselves tangled up in the block grant idea which transfers power from one set of bureaucrats on the national level to fifty sets of bureaucrats at the state level, and a lot of Republicans and conservatives think, no, wait a minute, that's not what we mean by returning power to people and communities.

MS. WARNER: Well, Bill Kristol, doesn't Will Marshall have a point that though this may have been, in general, a Republican theme, that in trying to put it into practice, Republicans have some differences as well?

MR. KRISTOL: Sure, and I agree with Will, that there's a much broader social movement going on here, and I think it's a healthy movement, and it's a movement that many Republicans have been urging but that also many Democrats. I'm here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the governor is about to sign a bill that will give inner-city parents in Milwaukee much greater choice, much greater responsibility for selecting the school their kids go to. This bill was passed by a coalition of Republican legislators and inner-city black Democratic legislators. I hope that, you know, that foretells the future. I hope that happens elsewhere in the country, because I think giving parents more control over their kids' education, breaking up the kind of bureaucratic monopolies that Will talked about which do exist in the state capitols, just as much as they do in the national capitol, that's awfully important, but, again, I think for politicians to sort of exhort Americans to take more responsibility for themselves is appropriate, but it may not be quite fair, because an awful lot of big institutions and I do think especially governmental institutions have gotten in the way of citizens trying to take responsibility for their own lives and for educating their kids and for shaping the future of their communities. But to the degree there's an increasing bipartisan consensus on that, I think that's fine. Republicans are engaged in debates, as Democrats are, about how to make this happen, but I think all the momentum is on the side of real devolution, not just the state bureaucracies. It would be terrible if block grants just resulted in a transfer of power from bureaucrats in Washington to bureaucrats in Albany and Sacramento and Madison, Wisconsin, but real devolution of power back to communities, back to families, and back to citizens.

MS. WARNER: Ms. Norton, what counter pressures do you see to this -- we're hearing about this momentum, this convergence, this emerging consensus that we see, what, what are the counter pressures here, or do you think we're just on a road to a wonderful new kind of communitarian area in which everyone takes responsibility for themselves, except the least fortunate among us?

DEL. NORTON: Well, very often, as we react against a trend, a historic trend, we react back in a way that takes us in a direction that is not all positive and goodness, the notion of decentralization of power goes back very far, began in the 1960's, and certainly not with conservatives. But the real challenge is to retain or, indeed, to obtain a sense of community while we are all going off on our many different directions. What could easily happen if, in fact, the President didn't do what he's doing today, which is to try to have a conversation, is that you could get balkanization in the society, devolution, all right, but devolution to the least common denominator without the core holding the other. It's interesting that the President said he wanted to have a conversation, he wanted less combat and more conversation. He senses that there is -- that with devolution could come greater polarization, a greater balkanization, and somehow to get the right balance, the federal government, to point to just one of the institutions involved here, needs to, in fact, keep enough of, of the central authority that helps us to remember that we are one nation while at the same time giving back enough of it so that we, in fact, enhance individual choice. One gets the sense that the Republicans are simply about throwing it back and wherever it lands, that there isn't any need for the central core. Of course, I disagree with that, and I think most Americans who are addicted to moderation look for the sense -- that sense of balance, and I think the President in his, in his remarks today was using the presidency to help us get our moorings as we make this new search.

MS. WARNER: Ms. Anderson, what do you think it will take to get the right sense of balance, as Congresswoman Norton puts it?

MS. ANDERSON: Well, I think we are off balance, and I think we are polarized and balkanized, and I think what the movement --

MS. WARNER: You're thinking already we are?

MS. ANDERSON: Yeah, we are already there, and anyone who's not paying attention to what's going on in different communities is not really paying attention to that we're already shooting at each other, and that what we really need, and I think this is going to be from the ground up and it's not going to be from politicians down isa way to come together and see our common interests, and I believe that as we move out into a very different kind of economic system, one they call this new world place that we lived in that we're going where no man has ever gone before, I think we really ought to start looking at each other in very different ways, and I think in the communities, we know that we haven't quite figured out how to get there yet, and I think what the Republicans have been trying to say and I know it's been misinterpreted a lot is that trust the people, the people actually know how to do this, and that that may be scary when you say give it back, because at least I can look at it and I do not really like to throw things at people, but Democrats have actually never trusted the people, and I think what you see in the Republicans is right now when they say we want to send it back, we really don't have a plan, or what it looks like to them is because they're saying, hey, people know what's best for them. People have the capabilities to tell -- put a direction out there and get there and that the people will take us where we need to go. We don't need some central planner in D.C. or in Sacramento or in Madison, Wisconsin, or whatever the state government, leading us on, that if we can figure out, us bureaucrats, how to get out of the people's way, they will take us where we want to go, and it'll be okay, and that I think that's what I see missing. That's what I've seen missing for at least the past 30 years, is that there is a serious distrust in part of the federal government and most of the people who service it, both at the policy level and in the operational level, a serious distrust of the American people. And I don't think we can govern people who we distrust. It's just something fundamentally wrong with that to me. And I think the direction that I see us trying to move as a people and the Republicans are trying to do is to begin to get us to have that old-fashioned trust in each other and where we might go. And that doesn't mean we're not going to disagree. That doesn't mean that we're not going to have arguments on how to get there and where to get there, but at least I thought that's what democracy was all about, is having a discussion, having the disagreement, and coming down in the end to a direction that we can all sort of drag our feet going and getting there. And, again, that's about trusting the people.

MS. WARNER: Let me get Will Marshall in on this. Mr. Marshall, Newt Gingrich on this idea of get out of the way -- if government gets out of the way, people will take over -- he often says, umm, you know, Americans have to get over the notion that they can pay someone else to keep the peace in their neighborhood, go in, shut their door, and watch television all night, and pay the police to do it, that, that essentially, Americans in their community, as well as their own lives, have to take more responsibility. Do you think modern Americans are ready and willing to do that?

MR. MARSHALL: Of course, I do. I think they're demanding to be enabled and equipped to do it and for government in some cases to get out of the way. But let me make a point here. I think that the conservatives sometimes confuse the issue by talking about individual responsibility as if it were a choice. In other words, you have personal responsibility on the one hand, and government action on the other. I think that's a false choice. What's really happening now is people are trying to strike a new and better or sensible balance between their personal responsibilities to takecare of their families and their own lives, control their own fates, and that which they ask government to take responsibility for. And let me give you a concrete example. It's on welfare policy again. There are certain folks on the conservative side of the aisle who say basically that welfare is itself the problem, it's created endemic intergenerational poverty, and you've got to get rid of it; it certainly created illegitimacy, and you've got to radically cut it back and maybe cut certain categories of people off altogether. I think a reciprocal view of responsibility says government has a role to play; it's not to write checks, as Speaker Gingrich said, to people who aren't doing anything in return, but it is to -- as it requires people to work -- it is to enable people to work. And that's why President Clinton has harped on this idea not only of demanding more personal responsibility but twinning that with the notion of expanding opportunities for people who just don't have them today. That's the new balance we have to strike in this country, not trying to choose between private action and public action. That's a false choice.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree, Bill Kristol, that that is a false choice?

MR. KRISTOL: Well, sometimes it's a false choice. Sometimes it's a real choice. In education, we're either going to give parents greater choice of schools, or we're not. But there are in-between steps. You can have charter schools. You can have choice in the public schools. You could have full choice of all schools, and there are policy debates that we obviously have to have about that, but I am struck by the extent to which both Eleanor and Will accept the premise, it seems to me, that we need policies, that the main criterion perhaps for judging public policies is: Do they enable citizens and parents and families to exercise greater responsibility? I think that's an awfully healthy debate to have. I think it's a debate that will push towards less government, not towards no government, obviously, but towards less government and towards a real devolution of power to citizens and families.

MS. WARNER: And do you have any doubt, Ms. Norton, that people are really eager to take this one?

DEL. NORTON: Well, I really wonder what we're talking about. Most people are overburdened with responsibility. Women, for example, because of the American standard of living has stalled, indeed, regressed, have to go out and work, where their mothers did not, and all in a society that doesn't provide any day care. Ask them about personal responsibility. Ask the 75 percent of Americans who don't have college degrees and don't see their wages going up about responsibility, because they're working very hard and not getting where they're supposed to get. I don't think that, if anything, we write articles now about how Americans are overworked. People do not, I think, want for accepting responsibility.

MS. WARNER: Let me get Will Marshall quickly to answer on that point. What about Congresswoman Norton's point, that a lot of people don't have enough hours in the day as it is now?

MR. MARSHALL: Well, I entirely agree, that's my point. We're talking about a new bargain of reciprocal responsibility, where we reapportion things. There's still going to be a government role in this complicated post-industrial society, and so posing this choice I talked about doesn't seem to take us very far down the road. Ms. Norton mentions a very important challenge. A lot of workers are facing a very bewildering global economy. They don't know how to navigate in it. The jobs that they used to rely on for middle class living are not there anymore, and simply asking them to take more responsibility doesn't get to the point. The point is how we can equip them to be competitive, to get their share of the high wage, high skill jobs that this new economy has to offer.

MS. WARNER: Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there. Thanks so much, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Kristol, Ms. Anderson, Congresswoman Norton, thanks again. ESSAY - LATIN LOVERS

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, a second look at an essay about Latin images that first aired two years ago. Our essayist is Richard Rodriguez, editor of the Pacific News Service.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, Pacific News Service: These are the faces we used to love in the dark: Delores Del Rio; Gilbert Roland. These are the famous Latin Lovers: Rita Hayworth; Cesar Romero; Ramon Navarro. Many worked in film before sound, so Americans recognize them as faces rather than accents. We love their dark eyes. We love their silence. Recently, the Center for Media and Public Affairs published a report concerned with Hispanics on prime-time TV. The report, funded by the National Council of La Raza, arrived at a predictable conclusion: At a time when the Hispanic population is swelling, there are few Hispanics on prime time, fewer today than in the 1950's, when Americans watched Zorro and the Cisco Kid and Ricky Ricardo. [Theme Music from "I Love Lucy"] Americans loved Lucy in the 1950's, and she loved Ricky Ricardo, band leader extraordinare. The network executives wanted to change the script, wanted for Lucy a husband less ethnic. Lucille Ball insisted on her own life. Every Monday evening, she mocked her husband's accent, then swooned when he sang "Babaloo." Ricky Ricardo was arguably the last of the Latin lovers. Most often male, the Latin lover belonged to a time when Americans were innocent about Latin America. Latin America used to be a fantasy land of cactus or palm trees -- it didn't matter which. Rio and Havana could easily be confused with Naples or Madrid. Rosano Brazzi, an Italian, could as easily play an Hispanic as Anthony Quinn, a Mexican-Irishman, could play a Greek. The Latin lover could be an Arab sheikh in one movie, a cowboy in another. Always mysterious, he remained beyond definition, literally masked like Zorro or shrouded like Valentino. The sheikh -- tall, silent, dark. The report noted that in the last 30 years Hispanics largely have faded from the American TV screen. The few Hispanics on prime time are likely to be criminals or cutthroats. Hispanics in any case constitute around 1 percent of the characters one sees on prime time. At the same time, by contrast, black faces have grown more numerous. Spokesmen for the National Council of La Raza were to say they do not envy black success; they want to emulate it. Black success, such as it is, has been limited. Despite the white cop/black cop teams, despite black doctors and black sit-coms, Hollywood is not comfortable with black lives. Cosby seemed to idealized, the gangsta rapsters seem too gritty. Everyone complains that there are too few normal lives. Everyone forgets that Hollywood is in the fantasy business. In the late 1950's, Cuba became all too real. After the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro briefly played the part of a Latin lover. He even appeared smiling on "The Ed Sullivan Show." But as Castro turned into a monster, the Latin lover disappeared from the screen. We grew to fear Latin American Marxists, as today we fear Latin American migrants on rafts or running across the desert. They don't look anything like Rudolph Valentino. [Spanish-Language Television Announcer] In fact, Hispanics are numerous on prime time. You only need to change your TV channel. In many parts of the United States, there are two Spanish language networks: Telemundo and Univision. At any hour, you can watch a blond soap opera from Venezuela or seek rock singers from Mexico. U.S. advertising executives, when they are looking for Hispanic customers, put their TV dollars on Spanish language television. On English language TV, by contrast, you will see Italians playing Latin Americans playing drug lords. Ricardo Montalban has abandoned Fantasy Island. Americans are in no mood for his fantasy. Medellin, Colombia, and Havana are too real, more real than the New York brownstone where Ricky and Lucy Ricardo used to live. Precisely because Hispanics are so numerous in the real world, they have all but disappeared from the screen. Certainly, as illegal immigrants crowd into Los Angeles, work as bus boys at restaurants where TV executives eat, work as maids in Beverly Hills, cruise LA after dark in gangs, Hollywood is unable to come up with fantasy lovers. We are certainly not your Latin lovers, not anymore. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Chinese- American dissident Harry Wu told an American diplomat his Chinese captors have not harmed him. He was detained three weeks ago on espionage charges. He could face the death penalty if convicted. And in Washington, White House officials said President Clinton would make an announcement regarding diplomatic relations with Vietnam tomorrow. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. And we will see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.