The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Monday, we examine the new agreement between Israel and the PLO, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Haynes Johnson, Michael Beschloss, and Walter Williams look at the history of those disappearing things called "entitlements," and Margaret Warner talks with Republican Presidential Candidate Robert Dornan. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The Israeli PLO agreement to turn control of the West Bank to the Palestinians drew mixed reaction around the Middle East today. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat toured Arab capitals and said the agreement meant a new dawn for all Palestinians. The leaders of Egypt and Jordan praised the deal, but Syria, Libya, and Iran all denounced the accord and said it compromised the rights of Palestinians. In the West Bank town of Hebron, Palestinian and Israeli residents clashed today. People threw stones at each other. Israeli soldiers kept an eye on the demonstrations but did not directly intervene. President Clinton will host a signing ceremony at the White House Thursday. He said he will use the event to create more momentum for a comprehensive peace agreement. We'll have more on the agreement right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Bosnian government will participate in Bosnia peace talks in New York tomorrow. The Muslim-led government had threatened to boycott the talks. Both government and Bosnian Serb forces continued to maneuver for military advantage on the ground. We have more in this report from Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

NIK GOWING, ITN: Whatever pause in hostilities there was meant to be in Northern Bosnia, whether by arrangement or not, did not last. These Bosnian Serb forces are under daily pressure now from Bosnian government forces buoyed by 10 days of military success. These burning buildings on Mount Osrun bear witness to the Bosnian forces' determination to retake territory seized by Serb forces three years ago. These Serb positions in the Northeast have already lost some territory and are under unusually intense pressure. Meanwhile, the Bosnian government has abandoned its overnight tactical threat to boycott a meeting of the three principal foreign ministers tomorrow. This morning, two American diplomats flew to Sarajevo with considerable urgency to reassure the Bosnian government that the Serbs will not insist on partition or secession, and despite threats to the contrary in line with the Geneva framework document 17 days ago, the Serbs will recognize a single sovereign Bosnian state with merely Serb and Muslim-Croat entities.

MR. LEHRER: Secretary of State Christopher became personally involved in the negotiations today. He met with the foreign ministers of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia this afternoon in New York.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Based upon this meeting, I can tell you that the three foreign ministers will be meeting tomorrow as originally scheduled with representatives of the United States, the contact group, and the European Union. They'll be meeting to move forward in the political process, carrying Geneva, we hope, another step forward. Indeed, tomorrow's meeting will constitute, we think, an important step in the path to peace that was laid out by President Clinton last month.

MR. LEHRER: Earlier in the day, Christopher told the United Nations General Assembly that it's time to streamline. He said the UN bureaucracy and organization duplication needed trimming. He urged the UN to focus on its top priorities of peacekeeping and social and economic development.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton today directed the Energy Department to keep the nation's three major nuclear weapons research laboratories open. He said the labs were essential to ensure the reliability and safety of nuclear warheads without actually testing them. Earlier this year, a special commission appointed to review the future of the labs recommended they be consolidated. Energy Sec. Hazel O'Leary said today the labs will face budget cuts and a reduced work force.

MR. LEHRER: Elizabeth Delaney of the Delaney Sisters died today at the age of 104. She wrote the story of her and her sister Sadie's first one hundred years. It became a best-selling book and current Broadway hit, Having Your Say--Having Our Say, sorry. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Israeli PLO agreement, entitlements as history, and presidential candidate Robert Dornan. FOCUS - NEXT STEP

MR. MAC NEIL: We focus first tonight on the agreement of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization to take a second step towards resolving their many differences over territory and other issues. Our coverage begins with this background report on yesterday's signing ceremony from Robert Moore of Independent Television News.

ROBERT MOORE, ITN: The breakthrough came after a week of torturous negotiations. On almost no sleep, the Palestinians and the Israelis talked, argued, and shouted their way to an agreement. One of the few pauses had come when the PLO's top negotiator was rushed to hospital suffering from exhaustion. Just hours before the start of the Jewish New Year, the historic deal was finally clinched.

YASSER ARAFAT, Chairman, PLO: For this, we have spent all these nights and days. Look how many papers!

ROBERT MOORE: The documents and maps that were then initialed give self-rule to seven Arab cities and four hundred and fifty villages. Although the 28-year occupation of the West Bank is not over, for Israeli troops will still guard borders and Jewish settlements, the shape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been dramatically changed.

SHIMON PERES, Foreign Minister, Israel: It is history in the real meaning of the world.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now four views of the agreement and what it means for Palestinians and Israelis. Rita Hauser is an attorney. She chairs the International Peace Academy, a UN-affiliated organization which focuses on peacekeeping, training, and research. Edward Said is a former member of the Palestine National Council; he's a professor of Literature at Columbia University. Haim Shibi is Washington Bureau Chief for the Israeli newspaper "Yediot Ahronot", and Bishara Bahbah, associate director of the Middle East Institute of Harvard's Kennedy School; he's a member of the Palestinian delegation to the multilateral talks. There has been relatively little Jewish reaction or Israeli reaction because of the Jewish holiday today. Mr. Shibi, is this a good New Year's present for Israelis?

HAIM SHIBI, Yediot Ahronot Newspaper: Well, this is not peace yet, but it's certainly giving peace a chance. I think the Israelis and Palestinians will have to give--say a big prayer for this agreement to work, but if it doesn't work, we all know we gave it a chance. The main problem, the main issues, Jerusalem and settlements, are still out there waiting to be solved. We are going to enter a crucial testing period to know whether this can be transferred from papers into reality.

MR. MAC NEIL: Rita Hauser, how do you see this?

RITA HAUSER, Mideast Analyst: I think this is the logical next step from the first big step taken two years ago on the White House lawn. It makes eminent sense after a period of some testing and a lot of difficulties on the ground. The parties have now committed to trenching the most difficult issues before them now. The remaining issues are even more difficult, but at least it is a big first step. The Israeli forces will remove themselves from the major towns in the West Bank, including Nablus, Bethlehem, Ramallah. They will be--this will lead to the elections, which will take place next spring, and I believe the elections, I've always believed the elections are the crucible turning point in this whole drama between Israel and the PLO--

MR. MAC NEIL: Edward Said-- I'm sorry.

MS. HAUSER: --that's coming up.

MR. MAC NEIL: Edward Said, there's been much more reaction today from Palestinians--the Arab world. It's been called, this agreement, both courageous and a sell-out. Which is it, in your view?

EDWARD SAID, Former Member, Palestine National Council: Well, I think it does, as Rita says, continue what was signed in September of '93. And from my point of view, it is a continued Palestinian series of concessions to the, to the Israelis, consolidating the much stronger Israeli position. I'm afraid what is on the ground now is not really workable. It's not sensible for the following reasons: They withdraw from the towns, but they surround the towns. The army does not withdraw; it redeploys. Sixty-two new military bases are going to be established on the West Bank. Palestinians will not have sovereignty. They will be able to deliver municipal services to their citizens, but control of the roads, of the borders, of the cities, and of the territories are retained by the Israelis. The legislative council, which is going to have--is going to be brought forward by elections in some undetermined period in future, it has to submit its edicts to the veto or approval of the Israelis. Candidates have to be approved as not being racist, as not being terrorists, and so on and so forth. There's a special election to bring Arafat back. The main issues as Mr. Shibi says quite correctly have simply been postponed, and what they've created now is a crazy patchwork where settlers who live under Israeli law and have no responsibility towards Palestinian authority can do what they wish, as can the army. The situation of Hebron is the most drastic, the most catastrophic, because 400 Israeli settlers sit in the center of a town made of about 120,000 Palestinians, and these Israeli settlers are going to be protected by the armies, they're going to have free passage in and out of town to the nearest settlement, and they have threatened and have made it absolutely clear that they are going to wreak havoc on the Palestinians. So all in all, it's a settlement, in my opinion, that is without vision. I think the Israelis have gotten a very good deal for themselves. They postponed the main issues; they retained control; and as Robin and Peres have said, you know, telling their own people, what have we given up, we're still there, the army's still there, we'll remain there. The settlements--one has to also mention Jerusalem. Jerusalem is 25 percent of the West Bank, and what Palestinians have gotten--final point--what Palestinians have gotten is effectively 5 percent of the land without sovereignty, autonomy for the people but not for the land.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Bahbah, what is your view of it as a Palestinian negotiator, yourself? Is it just more concessions by Palestinians?

BISHARA BAHBAH, Harvard University: Well, one has to differentiate between what you can and what you would like. Ideally, it would be nice to see the end of Israel's occupation totally from both the West Bank and Gaza, the elimination of the settlements; however, realistically, that is not going to happen. The Palestinian Party is the weaker party, and as such, I believe that this agreement is a continuation of Oslo I toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. I have gone, and I go frequently to the area, and I see the tangible differences in Gaza. People are free in Gaza. This is the first time in history, or at least since Israel's occupation, that there is no curfew in Gaza after sundown. As such, this is a very good step. The elections, in and of itself, are very important, because it'll be the first time that the Palestinians will be able to elect their own leaders freely on their own land. And, and in that sense, there will be more legitimacy to the peace talks. At the same time, Palestinian prisoners will be released. Granted, it will be gradual. With regard to the issue of Hebron, the Israelis will withdraw from most parts of the city. My preference is for every single settler to get out; however, that is not going to happen. The Palestinian Party is the weaker party.

MR. MAC NEIL: Your point, this is as good as Arafat could get at the moment, is that your bottom line, Mr. Bahbah?

MR. BAHBAH: The bottom line is it's as good as it can get, and it's a very good beginning for the establishment of a Palestinian state. I believe that with time, the Israelis will be able to live with the idea of a neighboring Palestinian state.

MR. MAC NEIL: You don't think this as good--I'll come back to you in a moment--you don't think that--you don't believe Mr. Bahbah, this is as good as Arafat could have gotten now?

MR. SAID: Absolutely not, no, because if you followed the negotiation and know the style of negotiations, the Palestinians, the Palestinian negotiators, including Arafat, had to rely on the Israelis for maps; they didn't even have maps of the territory. The facts and the figures come from the Israelis. So what you have is the continuation not only of dependency, Palestinians as occupying the subordinate army, I don't see any need as a Palestinian to be under the thumb of Israel and to have a less good deal, to be less free, to have less good leaders than the Israelis do. What we now have in this agreement is, in effect, the continuation of occupation, with the consent of the Palestinians, who are going to participate in their own occupation. In those territories that they've gotten in the little towns, first of all, the towns are not connected to each other. They're connected by roads which the Israelis control. Mr. Bahbah says Gaza is much better off. Unemployment is still over 50 percent. The entrances and exits to Gaza are controlled by the Israelis. They've closed Gaza off for the last--they closed it this week during the negotiations, so they can do that at any time. So I, myself, feel [a] Palestinian incompetence and Arafat's habit of [a] unilaterally deciding everything, of having around him "yes" men and sycophants, not qualified people but people who will do his bidding, in fact, creating a state of--where he appeals to people's worst instincts, in other words, he can bribe people, I don't think the elections are free by any means. They're going to bring back his own party.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Hauser, you said this is the first step towards a Palestinian state. You nodded when Mr. Bahbah said that. Expand on that a little bit. How is this the first step towards a Palestinian state?

MS. HAUSER: This takes the present situation, which is one of autonomy, to something beyond autonomy, a measure of self- determination, a legislative council, which will be the incubus for an assembly of the people, whatever name it will take. It is clearly a giant step forward toward the end resolution. Had they not been able to trench this--these problems today and reach the, albeit compromised, positions they did, you could never begin to see the end game. I know Edward and I have argued this many times. He approaches with an idealistic view of what he would have liked, what he would have preferred, and while one can agree with the "would have," this is, indeed, all that was probably doable and feasible within the realities of Israeli politics and Palestinian politics.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Shibi, would many Israelis see this as the first step towards a Palestinian state?

MR. SHIBI: Yes, there is no sense of covering up the truth. This is a delivering room, and we're seeing a baby, a newborn baby, an entity there, but will it be a true partner in the Pax-Americana club in the region? Will it vote for democracy? What will happen? Who will be the ruler? Will it be a legitimate ruler? All these questions are not known at the moment. And let me remind you, Mr. Said, with all due respect, we started with much less on the road to our independence. What you get now is phasing out of your life. You will not see us there. You will not see the hated symbols of occupation anymore. You will have your own authority. You could exercise democracy for the first time, and we will be watching you very closely to see if you want to join into this club. We are enjoying ourself in the Pax-Americana club. Come aboard and let's see what's going to be there.

MR. SAID: Well, I mean, the idea that we--that our destiny is to be watched by the Israelis and not to be seen, not to see them, is exactly the principle, if you recall, that was set up in the Bantu stands of South Africa. The idea is that they were controlled indirectly on the outside by the occupying power, by the white people. On the inside, in the Casbahs, are the colored people, which is what we are. We're the Indians in the reservations, and if we behave ourselves, we'll get a little more. I think the whole principle behind this--and I agree with Rita, what I'm saying is a matter of principle, but I think that anybody in the position of a Palestinian ought to have today, ought to have the guts to say that despite the hoopla, despite the public relations, despite the media (Xpe, what we are now getting is an extended version of sort of local councils of autonomy based on municipal authority, not on the real authority which Israel continues to yield and is unlikely to give up according to this pattern. Now, it's one point about the state, and I'll stop, and that is, you get a state, but what's much more important about a state, if it's a real state, is what kind of a state is it, and what Israel and the United States has set in motion here is, in fact, a state controlled by a short of a Hastings Banda, you know, somebody who's going to be the father of the country forever. And I--I would say that that runs contrary to the instincts and the movements of democracy.

MR. MAC NEIL: A puppet state, in effect?

MR. SAID: Absolutely. And Arafat is their man.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Bahbah, is that the way you see this? Is Israel just allowing this to happen in order to create a puppet state with Mr. Arafat as their chosen man, as their puppet?

MR. BAHBAH: Well, I think it would be undemocratic on our part to prejudge the results of elections. We have not yet seen the elections. We have not seen how fairly they've been conducted. We have not seen whether people have been free in terms of nominating themselves and being elected, and as such, to say that it's going to be a stooge of a government, responsible to Israel and the United States, would be unfair and undemocratic at the same time. I don't believe--and I have heard Mr. Arafat say it--I don't--he does not intend to be the president of the Palestinian people forever. I believe that sometime next year, the Palestinians will go to the election polls and decide. And I think until then we should hold off on our judgment.

MR. MAC NEIL: The--Rita Hauser, the call for elections for this 82-member Palestinian council three weeks after the Israeli troops have vacated these towns, Hamas, the opposition group among the Palestinians which has claimed responsibility for many of the terrorist attacks in order to oppose this, said today it would not take part in those elections, but it would not prevent the elections. What is the significance of that?

MS. HAUSER: Well, if they don't prevent them, that's at least a big step forward, but I believe with the passage of some time, they will participate, or a large number of them will participate under whatever banner they give themselves, which is very important to get them into the process, rather than outside. I also think it's very important that Arafat have an elected opposition, that he has to deal with elected people who represent the will of the people, and he can't rule this place out of the back of his pocket. Edward said that's possible, but--

MR. SAID: No. You're speaking idealistically, I think.

MS. HAUSER: It will happen, and will happen because this is the momentum and the thrust of all that's gone on, and the democratic aspirations of the Palestinian people, which are enormous. I want to say further too that in this testing period that's gone on Arafat and the Israelis have formed a very close working relationship to deal with the security threats, to put this in place. They now have a relationship, a real trust, having started out with anything but that, so this is a gradual progress, step by step, and each, if I can use a metaphor, each petal of the flower keeps opening up, until finally, I believe, you will have a real rose at the end of the day.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Said, what do you think of the role of Hamas in this? I mean, they made no secret of their opposition. I suppose where they are is a very extreme further extension of your views on this.

MR. SAID: No, no, not at all. I actually would disassociate myself completely from them, because they want to establish an Islamic state, and I'm totally against them. I don't think they really represent much more than a kind of protest or--

MR. MAC NEIL: So you don't think they're saying they won't take part in these elections?

MR. SAID: Oh, I don't know, they might. They might. It's hard to tell.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is that a significant thing?

MR. SAID: Oh, it might be significant, but at this point I think what's going to be absolutely clear, as specified in the agreement, and that's why I'm much less sanguine than the other panelists about the elections, because the elections--don't forget--allow only candidates who are approved by another committee made up of Israelis and Palestinians as to their beliefs. They have to accept the peace process; they have to be non-terrorists; they have to make a lot of declarations. So it's not open in that respect. So I have this very strong feeling that the actions are, are dubious.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Shibi, speaking of elections, Israel has elections coming. Discuss the timing of this deal in that context.

MR. SHIBI: Well, this deal is giving Rabin's government enough time to show that they can deliver security. The Israel republic will not settle for division of labor where Arafat is signing agreement and the Hamas is attacking Jews. This will be the test of the new entity. Can Arafat coopt the Hamas into some sort of political arrangement, and can we get security out of this deal? We took a terrible risk in this deal, and it's not such a clearcut situation here. We will have to have security. If we do not have security by November '96, this bill can be destroyed.

MR. MAC NEIL: And Mr. Bahbah, how do you see the importance of this deal in, in terms of Mr. Rabin's approach to elections? I mean, if you'd waited much longer, could you have got this is my- -

MR. BAHBAH: I think Rabin wanted to see the breathing space between now and the election time; however, I'd like to raise a concern here, which is: What happens to this deal if in November of next year, a new Israeli government is elected that is not the labor government? And here I think that we could see a serious setback to the entire peace process. We've seen leaders today--

MR. MAC NEIL: Because the conservative opposition in Israel, notedly the Likud Party, has campaigned strongly against these negotiations.

MR. BAHBAH: Exactly. And if they get elected, then the entire peace process, including the implementation of this agreement, is going to be in jeopardy. And I think it is up to the Israelis right now to make this process a success, because I believe that on the security side the Palestinians are very committed to maintaining security on both sides of the border.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Shibi, what do you see as the possibility of the--of what will happen to this agreement if Likud wins, if the Likud-led coalition wins?

MR. SHIBI: Well, we have a tradition in Israel that governments respect the previous government international agreements, and I expect that Likud will respect that agreement; however, we are talking about reality on the ground, economic conditions, security conditions. If that will not work, the paper or the 300 or so pages that will be brought to the White House lawn Thursday, that will never do. We need a new reality, and if the new reality will be made by the people, the Likud government, if it win the elections, will adjust itself to the new reality.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does this agreement today make it likely that Rabin will win again, more likely that Robin will win again, Rita Hauser?

MS. HAUSER: I think that this is an imperative in his election campaign. It would have been a very serious setback for him had he not been able to get a second stage implementation. No one can make a clear assessment whether he'll win or not. It depends on a whole lot of factors. But without this, having brought the process to this stage and failing to carry it to the next stage, it would have been a very serious blow to him. I'm confident that the Labor Party in some coalition group will win, and that this process will continue forward to maturation.

MR. MAC NEIL: We have to leave it there. Rita Hauser and gentlemen, thank you all.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the history of entitlements and presidential candidate Robert Dornan. FOCUS - ENTITLEMENTS

MR. LEHRER: Now, another of our regular history discussions. Tonight it's about those government programs called entitlements: Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, among others. They were brought into being in the 30's and then in the 60's mostly by Democratic Presidents and Congresses and are now being brought into reform and possible elimination, mostly by the Republican Congress. Our three regulars are here: Presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and author/journalist Haynes Johnson. They are joined tonight by Walter Williams, author and professor of economics at George Mason University. Doris, a quick history lesson on how these entitlements came into being, please.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: [Amherst] Well, I think you have to go back to realize that it took two powerful forces to come together, say first in the 1930s, to overcome the American tradition of first believing that individuals should handle their own destiny, and second, that if you had to help them, you should help them with a local or state government or private charity. The Depression was the first of those powerful forces that shifted that. So many people were hurt, so many affected, that no longer could people believe it was the individual's fault, and then they tried private charity, they tried local state governments; it didn't work. So when Roosevelt came into office, he had that history behind him, and he was able to argue the second powerful force. He provided the leadership that only the federal government could assume responsibility for alleviating the destitution, and the majority of the people were ready to believe him, because they were feeling it. It's true that the Republicans on the top still fought him and called him a traitor to their class, but, nonetheless, he was able to succeed. And then you went along after that, up till the 1960s, when you took that foundation of federal responsibility, and interestingly, in a period of relative affluence, the rediscovery of poverty in the presidential campaign combined with the civil rights movement allowed yet another Democratic leader, Lyndon Johnson, to come along after Kennedy and argue that it was against the ideals of America to have these people so destitute within our system, even if they were a smaller number than during the Depression, and that generosity, that empathy, that sympathy, that sort of inspiration, moved people for a short period of time to expand those very programs that FDR had set up during the Depression. And then, of course, as you say, we come down to a very different mood today.

MR. LEHRER: Michael, when you look back at the history of this, and these entitlement programs, whether they were created in the 30's, as Doris said, or later in the 60's, was the purpose then to create them as permanent entitlements, or were they seen as temporary things till we get through the Depression, till we get through this problem, or whatever?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, President Historian: Well, it happened in a way by accident. FDR in the mid 1930's, as Doris has suggested, was very much motivated by the Depression to first relieve the suffering of Americans. But at the same time, I think, when you look back at--from all these years hence, the amazing thing is how radical in many ways Franklin Roosevelt really was. He was influenced to some extent by the 1928 Socialist party platform of Norman Thomas, of all things, and some of his private conversations suggest that even at that time, he would have liked to had a cradle-to-grave insurance system. In 1944, January, he gave a State of the Union address which was called the Economic Bill of Rights. Roosevelt's idea was that you go back to the preamble of the Constitution, that phrase, promoting the general welfare, and that should be interpreted very broadly. It suggested that the government should be doing this. He very quickly was criticized. He fell away from that, and gave later speeches suggesting that perhaps he was just talking about the private sector.

MR. LEHRER: But just--in other words, you're suggesting the Depression was key to it, but it was already in his head before that, is that right?

MR. BESCHLOSS: It was really germinating and he used the Depression as a way to at least make this an idea that could be a long-lived force in American society. In 1935, for instance, when he came through with Social Security, one of the things he insisted on was a separate Social Security tax so that in the future he said some damned politician--in his words--won't be the one who decides whether my Social Security program lasts or not.

MR. LEHRER: End quote.

MR. BESCHLOSS: End quote.

MR. LEHRER: Right. Walter Williams, when you look at the history, what do you see? How do you see the, the gradual coming of entitlements into the American system?

WALTER WILLIAMS, Economist: Well, I think mankind has always wanted to live at the expense of others. As a matter of fact, early on in our history, one fellow said that as soon as people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Now, it took--the Supreme Court resisted this on many occasions--and it took the government-created calamity of the 70's to, you know--and I say government-created calamity, but yet it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the Federal Reserve engaging in inappropriate behavior that created the Great Depression, and so it took the calamity of the Great Depression to establish legitimacy in the minds of many toward these-- for these handout programs, where Americans can use the force of government to take what belongs to one person and get it for themselves. And so there's no authorization in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, if you read the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, it specifies what the federal government can do, and if you look at that, if you look at the specification on Section 8 of Article I, that's no more than a third of our budget. That is 2/3 of the federal budget consist of activities where the government by force takes what belongs to one American and gives to another American to whom it does not belong. In other words, they engage in activities that if you and I engaged in those identical activities, we would be condemned as an ordinary, despicable common thief.

MR. LEHRER: So what's happening now, today, 1995, in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, you think, is a natural and legitimate correction of what--of--end of question, right?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think so. I think more and more Americans are recognizing that we are becoming a nation of thieves, that we each are trying to live at the expense of others. Now, not just poor people. I'm talking about Lockheed through the Export Import Bank; handouts to farmers; bailouts to savings & loans. We're--I believe that many Americans are recognizing that the attempt to live at each other's expense is destroying our great nation.

MR. LEHRER: And nobody's entitled to anything from the federal government, is that what you're saying?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. Well, see, the only way the government can give one American citizen a dollar is to first through intimidation and threats and coercion confiscate it from another America, i.e., those programs coming out of Washington, they don't represent Congressmen and Senators reaching in their own pockets, sending out the money, and there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them money. So the only way they get a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats, and coercion, if anybody out there thinks I'm being loose with the terminology "intimidation, threats, and coercion," they had April 15th to check me out. They could have told the agents of Congress I don't want my earnings going to bail out banks or Lockheed and Boeing. They could have seen all the intimidation, threats, and coercion they want to see.

MR. LEHRER: Haynes, how do you read the history and bring us up to how it fits into what's going on now.

HAYNES JOHNSON, Author: I have a really different view. It's true that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does the word "entitlement" appear. But before there was a Constitution, there was something called the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding charter upon which this democracy is created. When Mr. Jefferson wrote it, he talked in these kinds of terms, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and that governments, "governments are instituted among men to secure those rights." And that's a kind of different charter, but there's a role, in other words, for the society to help those that can't help themselves. And then you can argue about where the society is supposed to do it, what is the role of government?

MR. LEHRER: Where do you draw the line?

MR. JOHNSON: Where do you draw the line? How do you do it? And what Doris and Michael have said, and what you've just said is certainly true in the history of this back and forth. But from the beginning of this country, there has been this debate about what the role and responsibility of the society to its citizens should be. And those rights are continually increasing. Now, we're in this incredible period where we're rolling back the entitlements, if you want to call them that, that have been given for sixty years, seventy years, eight years.

MR. LEHRER: Where does that term come from? Do you know?

MR. JOHNSON: The entitlements? I don't know where. I was thinking about that today. Michael probably knows. Doris, Doris, I'm sure- -

MR. LEHRER: Michael and Doris know everything.

MR. JOHNSON: I don't know where it comes from.

MR. LEHRER: Where does it come from, Michael?

MR. BESCHLOSS: Economic theorists tended to use it in the post- war period.

MR. JOHNSON: There you are.

MR. BESCHLOSS: All of us post-World War II and all of us, I think, as undergraduates in economics courses probably saw it used an awful lot.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's a euphemism for legalized theft. That's what I think it is.

MR. JOHNSON: But if you take the idea of rights--

MS. GOODWIN: May I say something.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, Doris, go ahead. Hold on one second. Yes.

MS. GOODWIN: You know, what's so interesting is to realize the argument was made that the government actually created the calamity of the Depression just a few minutes ago which most economists, most historians would never agree with. And, in fact, during the 1930's, it was considered that it was business in the private sector that had unfairly distributed income in the 20's, the stock market had gone out of hand,and that's what created the Depression. The fascinating thing, however, is the conservative critics, like that argument that was just made then, though they had no sway in the 30's and were overwhelmed by the other forces that created these programs in the first place, are now running the country in a certain sense. The conservative critics have had the better part of the argument for the last decade, and that convinced people that the poor are the cause now of the calamities that we're facing, that it's government that's the problem. And unless liberal critics and liberals can get on the other side of that argument and speak with the same kind of passion that those conservatives have, the debate is going to be lost.

MR. LEHRER: That's where we were about to go. Haynes, as to what's caused this now.

MR. JOHNSON: That's right, Jim. And I think what Doris has said is exactly right. We're now in a period where people don't trust the government. They don't trust leaders, and they also are nervous and apprehensive that, that it's not fair, it's not equitable. You say it's a thievery society, where some people are getting what they don't deserve. And so there are now in this enormous transition period where these--I think this is the most exciting period for democracy in government and great issues we've had in at least 60 years.

MR. LEHRER: Michael, they say that what happened in the 30's, whatever else, whether you liked it or not, it was a huge social experiment. Does it not--what's happening today--also constitute a social experiment?

MR. BESCHLOSS: Sure it is. But in a way, as important a historical development that all--as all of this is, and I think all of us on this panel would agree with that, in a way it's not quite that draconian. No one is talking about abolishing, for instance, Medicare and Medicaid forever. No one is saying, aside from, you know, many critics such as the gentleman on my right, that there should be a situation in which government does not in any way interfere or intercede in the private sector to try to relieve the suffering of people. What we've got is a crisis of the old order that is in a way the mirror image of what we saw in the 30's. That crisis was that business uncontrolled had caused the Great Depression. There were certain imbalances. Government had to get involved. I think now in many quarters there's a consensus that perhaps some of the programs, particularly of the 1930's and the 1960's, although well-intentioned, are not working as well as they should, and perhaps cost too much. And you're seeing a correction of that but not an abolition.

MR. LEHRER: Your own views aside on this, Dr. Williams, what do you think has caused this to--as Doris said and Michael just agreed--to bring it out on the table right now on this action that's happening on Capitol Hill?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think many things. Just ask yourself a few questions. Were the cities better off before or after HUD, i.e., was there greater, was there greater protection of people, greater safety on the street, and it seems like it surely was before HUD. Could our kids read and write better before or after the creation of the Department of Education? Clearly, it was before. What was happening to poverty before we declared war on it. It was coming down, and it has not been as low since, even though we spent $4 trillion on poverty. So in many of these programs they have actually--well-intended, as you point out, they've created harm, i.e., the federal government, take for instance black families, the federal government has doneto black families what slavery could not have done, what Jim Crowism could not have done, and the raucous racism that has destroyed the black family. Look at education. If I were the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and I wanted to sabotage any achievement of academic success among black people, I could not think of a better way for accomplishing that than the current public schools in most cities. So I believe more and more people are recognizing that these programs have been failures--they not only have been failures, they've been actual harm to the very people that they wanted to help.

MR. LEHRER: Every other word you spoke Doris was shaking her head. Doris, why were you shaking your head?

MS. GOODWIN: Well, because I think what he's saying is what most people believe. But I think there's much falsity in what he's saying. First of all, taking the poverty level, statistics show that between the 60's, when the poverty program was started, and the mid 70's, late 70's, poverty actually went down. It was the economic conditions after that that we went into a funk that caused the problem of poverty after that. It is also true if you look at the situation the elderly are in today versus fifty years ago, they're better off today because of their, the kind of pensions they've got with Social Security and Medicare, which alleviated the basic insecurity of people in old age. But somehow, as I said before, the conservative critics have been so successful in turning this argument around--that's not to say there aren't failures, that's not to say that reform isn't necessary, but to argue that these huge forces in our society, the fragmentation in the cities, racism, what's happening in the ghettos are caused by the government programs, it's just absurd, but sadly, people look for scapegoats, and that underclass has become, and the government, the two scapegoats, and as long as we think that way we're never going to get any better.

MR. LEHRER: Haynes, why are the conservatives winning the argument on this right now?

MR. JOHNSON: Because they are convinced that they're right, No. 1. There's no disagreement among them. Basically what Dr. Williams has been saying you've been hearing with uniformity and really with a quite forceful opinion. The Democrats are scattered all over the place. They have had success. They re-made the society while they were in control of it. And now we're sort of coming through this shake-up, this transition period. I would argue Doris, I think, is correct, if you take health care, for instance, you surely can't argue that Americans today are worse off than they were 30 years ago with Medicare. I don't think you can make that case.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that.

MR. JOHNSON: But that's a government--

MR. WILLIAMS: I said education--

MR. JOHNSON: All right, but that's--

MR. WILLIAMS: I specifically gave some examples.

MR. JOHNSON: But that's an example of the largest--one of the largest entitlement programs, along with Social Security too, so that--

MR. WILLIAMS: And you just mentioned two examples of people with immense political power--i.e., a politician--he's going to be very careful when he fools with senior citizens--but to other people, it's another question.

MR. LEHRER: Doris, how would you answer the question I asked Michael a few moments ago, that--did the people like Franklin Roosevelt and the others, who set up these programs say in the 1930's, did they intend them to be a permanent part of American life now until the end of time?

MS. GOODWIN: I don't think so. I mean, I think Michael's right, that somewhere in Roosevelt's complex mind there was this desire to have certain fundamental rights that people would be protected for, but I think he almost backed into this whole system because of the failure of the private sector and because of the failure of local and state government. He was a fiscal conservative. He ran in '32 on balancing the budget, in fact. In fact, years later, when the Republicans got against him for that, he didn't know what he was going to do to answer his plea that he was going to balance the budget. So I don't think--I think it went against his grain, as it went against the American grain, except he saw the need out there, he saw the desperation, and he responded flexibly, and necessarily to what happened, and then, I think, inside of him, there was a desire to maybe make it more permanent. But I don't think he ever acted on that in any action-oriented way.

MR. BESCHLOSS: And also a modern counterpoint, which is that Roosevelt in many ways reformed the capitalist system, it has been said so often, in order to save it, bizarrely enough, years from now, Newt Gingrich's Republicans may be seen as the saviors of Medicare and of welfare in that they made certain mid- course corrections that ultimately preserved these programs in a way that if there had not been that kind of adjustment, there might have been much more radical demands for their abolition.

MR. LEHRER: And the kinds of reforms that the Democrats would never have made.

MR. BESCHLOSS: I think that is probably right. And one of the fascinating dogs that have not been barking is the fact that in the Democratic Party you have not seen what we probably would have seen, for instance, in the 1970's--Democratic leaders in great numbers demanding that these programs not be reformed, chief, the President of the United States.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. We have to leave it there. Doris, gentlemen, thank you very much. SERIES - THE CANDIDATES

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, another in a series of NewsHour interviews with the Presidential candidates. Last week, Margaret Warner talked with Republican Congressman Robert Dornan.

MS. WARNER: Robert K. Dornan threw his hat into the presidential ring during a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives earlier this year. A Republican from California, he's been a member of the House for nine terms. In 1953, he left Loyola University in Los Angeles to enlist in the Air Force. He became a fighter pilot. After his years on active duty, Dornan served with the International Guard and the Air Force Reserve. Before entering politics, he was a television talk show host in Los Angeles. He also worked as a civilian combat photographer during the Vietnam War. He was first elected to Congress in 1976 from the West side of Los Angeles. He now represents much of Orange County. In the House, he chairs subcommittees on both the Intelligence Committee and the National Security Committee. Welcome, Congressman.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Why are you running for President?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Well, I'm going to give you an exclusive, because you actually picked the correct date. Most people will say my formal throwing of the hat into the ring was on Jefferson's birthday at the National Law Enforcement Memorial. But I did declare on the 40th anniversary of my getting the larger version of those little wings, and I did it on the House floor, but it was because I read this paragraph in this religious magazine called "Catholic World" about two weeks before--it's the January issue. If I can put on my binoculars and quickly read one paragraph, you'll know--everybody will know why I'm in this race. It's by a man named Sidney Callahan--never met him--and it's called "Light in the Darkness." He says, "Making the case for the increase of moral decadence in the United States is the easiest task possible. What more evidence would you need than to enumerate the alarming statistics pointing to increases in violent crime, broken families, drug use, child abuse, adolescent pregnancy, abortion, rape, suicide, euthanasia, white collar crime, and a series of WaterGate-type betrayals in the highest government circles, a numb, a mind numbing list of negative indicators can be supplemented by other depressing signs of cultural decay: The spread of pornography, an increase in sexual promiscuity, epidemics of sexually-transmitted diseases, including the lethal plague of AIDS." Nobody in the race--not Dole, not Gramm, not Specter, not Lugar, not Lamar Alexander--is comfortable talking about this. The only two people that are, are the ones that have never been elected to anything: Buchanan and Keyes.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you what I asked Alan Keyes earlier this month when we had him on the show, which is: What really can--can a President do about moral decay in the country?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Everything. Pulpit is a religious term. And it was Teddy Roosevelt, an activist, morale-building, energetic, uplifting, father of six, one--Alice from his first marriage--a fighter pilot of his day. Nobody had broken--had lifted off the ground in powered flight when he charged up San Juan Hill, left the office at age 50, anxious to still do other things. He called it a bully pulpit. When Phil Gramm looked out at the audience in Dallas and said, "I will never inflict my values on you," meaning the American people, I was stunned. I know Phil's values are mosaic law. Fiscal responsibility, because of bankruptcy, is a moral issue when it comes to taxpayers, and I know that he believes in Christian principle, and believes in Jesus. I can't believe--and then he said, "I'm running for President, not preacher." Well, it's not preacher; the President is the ultimate role model. I believe we now have a negative role model in the White House. It should always be a positive role model.

MS. WARNER: But, as you know, many in your party think that there are many voters who are frightened of that very vision of a President.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: I know.

MS. WARNER: And that if you emphasize the social issues to the apparent exclusion of others or, or seem to overemphasize it, that you will scare away many of these independent voters who aren't comfortable with that.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: They polled bigger than the economic issues on November 8th last year. It was close, but social issues carried more import, brought more frightened parents to the polls, or engaged couples, that are wondering what kind of a world will we bring children into? We owe our chairmanships to that. How dare we drive them out of the party. The worried people in the end will always vote economic self-interest, which is okay. That used to be the No. 1 issue when you pulled the curtain: Who's going to tax me or wreck my business, or overregulate me? What kind of government is going to get in my face the most? They'd vote the other way. But not now. They have no right to drive believing Jews and Christians of conscience who are correctly terrified, giving the list I just read, of how we are abusing the innocence of the young people in this country, corrupting them, endangering their mortal souls.

MS. WARNER: Then how do you explain that those who are at least leading in the polls in your party for the presidential race aren't the ones like yourself and Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes who are making these issues the centerpiece of their campaign?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: As Shakespeare would say, there's the rub. It is fascinating how people come up to me--and I've seen them do it to Alan and to Pat--and say, "You are the ones who carried the message that I believe in. You are my sentimental favorite." I heard that all the time. I've heard it for years, and they said, "But we have to go with the practicality of who can get elected." And in my party particularly, because the Republican party puts great faith into loyalty and tradition, that's how Bush won, that's how Reagan won, and that's why Dole is the front-runner lapping the field. They want to be given a reason not to vote against the traditional loyal senior person. And Bob Dole is on his fourth go- around on this, so he's comfortable like an old shoe, but with some not-so-comfortable because he's not the hard-charging, core- oriented, solid-rudder, principled conservative that he was when he was a young congressman from Kansas. Some people say he's all over the place. I don't see him that off the reservation that often, but there are issues where he won't fight on the Senate floor. And the moral issues are those issues. He never speaks on abortion but talks about his perfect pro-life record.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me ask you very briefly, what would- -if you were elected, what would be the first three things you'd do?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Well, the first one--and anybody who doesn't say this is a phoney, but it's such a maudlin thing that they tend not to say it--you should say it--I'd pray. Everybody should pray. They should ask the whole nation to pray for them. Prayer has power. The second thing I'd do is a little simple symbolic thing. I'd get a big American flag, one that had flown over the capitol when I was inaugurated, get it down within the hour, and march down to the Vietnam Memorial and place it at the apex of the Vietnam Memorial to give it the same focus and beauty as the Korean Memorial that opened up a few weeks ago, that has as its center focus Old Glory, the symbol of liberty and freedom that eight women and fifty-eight thousand three hundred some men died or missing to fight communism. That's the second thing. And the third thing I'd do is to ask for some television time to speak to the grade school children and the high school children of America to tell them--and everybody else is welcome to listen in--how lucky they are to be Americans, naturalized Americans, or guests in this country, and that the sky is the limit. And I would quote one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, that we are Americans. God has given us so much bounty and beauty in this land. How can we ever get depressed when we can't turn around even the aforementioned list of horrible instances of moral decay?

MS. WARNER: All right. And you have certainly voted consistently with the Republican leadership in Congress, but if you were President, would you seek to reshape the Republican agenda at all in Congress?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Well, I'm glad you said that. Everybody says, oh, Bob Dornan is a hard-charging--he's wild, he's on the edge-- I'm one of the most mainstream Republicans there. When 11 Republicans went down to the White House--

MS. WARNER: But I'm asking you in the future--I hate to interrupt you--

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: No. In the future, I'm a reach-out guy. Margaret, I'm the one who marched with Martin Luther King. I'm the one who dropped my income and spent three years fighting child pornography in every state in the country. I only missed Alaska. I've got an amazing background that fits better than Colin Powell, better than he, a background in politics that's what the party is looking for, but they're thinking about millionaires, and everybody's a millionaire but me and Alan. Even Pat's a millionaire.

MS. WARNER: I don't usually ask someone about their style, but your style is so much a part of your political identity.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: True.

MS. WARNER: And many of your opponents say you are just so harsh in your rhetorical attacks on your opponents. You once even--I mean, not only the President--you once even outed a Republican Congressman on the floor of the House. Is that--do you consider that an important part of your political identity? And why?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: People would always like to say, well, I wish I could have been as gentle as Jesus in this situation, but Jesus took off the belt and beat the money changers out of the temple; one, historical fact. That congressman was not outed by me. He'd been going to homosexual bars in Alexandria, had a drink thrown-- his face was on the front page of the "Washington Post" Style Section. He'd gone to a huge dinner in Baltimore, spoken to 1300 homosexuals, announced his boyfriend, Rob, their dog, their getaway house in North Carolina; he outed himself. And he was speaking as a Christian on the floor. I did not out him.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying you don't think you're too harsh at all?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Well, that was only one specific case. On some of my opponents--and you'll have to check the history on this- -I've been tough after they've dumped all over me for months with foul slander, filthy talk, vicious lies they knew weren't true! I am a peacetime fighter pilot. I fought back.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about the criticism you level frequently at the President and on C-Span, many, many Americans have seen you do this, which is that he's a draft dodger, because he avoided military service.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: No, no. He had his induction date suppressed.

MS. WARNER: During the Vietnam War. Now, several of your rivals for the Republican nomination also did not serve during the Korean conflict. Are you critical of them?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Well, and the Vietnam. Yes, I am. I have been, and some of them are angry at me for it, but people who let high school kids go in their place knowingly, with a corrupt deferment system, and Clinton did that twice, or do what Clinton did the third time--get politically his induction date of July 28, 1969, reversed, crushed, and politically suppressed--that person has no right being the commander in chief, ordering more high school boys into combat. And it's Clinton's major problem. Look at Somalia. Look at Bosnia.

MS. WARNER: And do you think--I think I read somewhere that you criticized Phil Gramm on the same count?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Phil Gramm was teaching second lieutenants and sending them off to die in, in Texas A&M. Texas A&M is still trying to get me to come down there to do for me what they were forced to do for him. All I would say is that Phil should have thought about this if he ever dreamed about being a Democrat President. He was a Democrat then, if he ever thought about switching parties, and you know the other area, Margaret, is people should have a good excuse about divorce. If they ever dream about being President, they should weigh these crosses that God gives them when they're young and decide, okay, I can grow up to be Speaker, but am I ever going to order men into combat, I'd better think this through. And some of them, I guess, haven't thought about it since they were little kids, as I have.

MS. WARNER: We've got to go, but let me just ask you this. When you announced, when you formally announced, you said, whatever happened in this campaign, you were going to have fun. Are you having fun?

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: Absolutely. Because I'm affecting the message. I've got Phil using the word "virtue." I've got Lugar saying, "faith, family, and freedom," which is my motto. I've got Alan--well, alan has always been tough on strong--courageous on pro-life--but I've got others talking about pro-life. I think I affected Bob Dole to make his beautiful speech asking Hollywood executives: Is this what you meant to do with your lives, poison the minds of children? I've affected the message, and I really wondered if I could go this long, and now I can see that I can go probably the distance if I can do what Phil Gramm does, and that's run in my state and for President at the same time. If he can do it, why can't I?

MS. WARNER: Thanks very much. Thank you for being with us.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN: You bet. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, today's major stories: The Israeli-PLO agreement to return control of the West Bank to the Palestinians was praised today by Egypt and Jordan, denounced by Syria, Libya, and Iran. The agreement will be signed Thursday in Washington, and the Bosnian government said it will participate in peace talks in New York tomorrow after all. The announcement followed last-minute negotiations in Sarajevo and with Sec. of State Christopher in New York. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.