The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner explores the Republican establishment's anguish over Bush versus McCain; Susan Dentzer reports on treating children for attention deficit disorder; Ray Suarez talks to four European journalists about the Austria problem; and author Steve Waksman explains the electric guitar magic of Carlos Santana. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Albright urged America's NATO allies to send more troops to Kosovo. NATO Commander Clark asked yesterday for reinforcements to deal with ethnic violence. But Albright said the Europeans should take the first step. She spoke in Washington.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: We at this stage, the United States has the largest number of troops in the area. So we do believe, or in Kosovo as a whole, that we are definitely doing our part. But I don't exclude the fact that there may have to be some Americans, but I think in the first instance, we are looking to others to plus up their forces.

JIM LEHRER: France said yesterday it's sending at least 700 more soldiers. 5,300 American troops are already there, and some leading members of Congress voiced concern today about sending more. Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner said he's worried about expanding U.S. involvement. The U.N. Security Council voted today to send 5,500 troops to the Congo. They will oversee a cease-fire in the central African nation. They'll be phased in, and the warring parties have to guarantee their safety. The force will not include U.S. ground troops. Fighting between rebels and soldiers loyal to Congo's president has drawn in a half- dozen neighboring countries. More oil may be on the way to the United States. Officials in the Persian Gulf states said today they've agreed to increase production to stabilize world markets. In the last year, the price of oil has surged to the highest levels since the Gulf War. In Washington today, an Energy Department official told Congress to expect even higher gasoline prices this spring because of low reserves. President Clinton warned Congress today not to reject long-term trade benefits for China. It's part of an agreement to admit China to the World Trade Organization. Mr. Clinton said Beijing's threats against Taiwan and its poor record on human rights shouldn't stand in the way. He spoke to business leaders meeting in Washington.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe to set this up as a, as a choice between economic rights and humanity rights or economic security and national security is a false choice. I believe that this agreement is vital to our national security, and that every single concern we have will grow greater and the problems will be worse if we do not bring China into the WTO.

JIM LEHRER: The trade deal faces opposition in Congress. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped below 10,000 several times, but late bargain-hunting rescued it from its worst showing in months. It ended up losing 133 points to close at 10,092. The NASDAQ Index gained 67, at 4,617. Veteran rock guitarist Carlos Santana won eight Grammy Awards last night. That tied a record set by Michael Jackson in 1983. The awards included best record and album of the year for his hit release "Supernatural." We'll have more on Carlos Santana and the electric guitar at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then, the Republican leadership's Bush versus McCain problem; treating attention deficit disorder; and Europe versus Austria.

FOCUS - IDENTITY CRISIS?

JIM LEHRER: More Republican presidential politics, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: The Republican establishment rallied around Texas Governor George W. Bush early and in great numbers. He's supported by 26 of his fellow Republican governors, 39 GOP Senators, and 175 House members. The picture is quite different for his rival. Senator John McCain has been endorsed by no governors, by just four GOP Senators, and only seven House members. But now the party establishment has an insurgency on its hands. And we have four perspectives on this, from two Bush supporters-- Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and Missouri Senator Kit Bond-- and two McCain supporters, California Secretary of State Bill Jones, and former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber. Welcome, gentlemen.

Govern Keating, why is the Republican establishment so solidly behind Governor Bush?

GOV. FRANK KEATING: I never knew I was a part of the Republican establishment but now that you promoted me, I feel good about it. The reality is over a year ago I signed on to George Bush's campaign a vast majority as you noted of my colleagues have done as well, and it's because we like him. We admire him. He's flinty. He's independent. He is tough. He has been an extraordinarily successful executive and we want him to be our nominee and our president. It has nothing to do with anything except personal admiration and friendship.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Bond, how about you?

SEN. KIT BOND: Well, again, I agree with Governor Keating. I didn't know we had an establishment. I ran against the Republican establishment in '72 in Missouri. They said it wasn't my turn. I beat him, I was elected governor, and we haven't had one since. But as a former governor and one who listens to the grassroots and the rank and file of the Republican Party, I and they came to a conclusion last year that Governor George W. Bush had a demonstrated record of reform and accomplishment in Texas. He is the kind of American who has the vision that we believe can leads the Republican party to victory in November. And that's why we're solidly behind him. And we think he not only has a great record but he has the right message. He has the right medium for winning in November, and serving well as our next President.

MARGARET WARNER: Vin Weber, you are one ever the earlier McCain advisors. And presumably, you all would have liked some of these endorsements from Republican office holders.

VIN WEBER: Or even one.

MARGARET WARNER: Or even one. What is your perception of why and I won't use the word establishment I'll use office holders went so solidly for Bush?

VIN WEBER: First of all there is nothing wrong with it, Senator Bond and Frank Keating are people I've known for a long time -- I respect tremendously. There is nothing wrong with them or anybody else endorsing. I think there was an early rush to judgment by the political establishment of the Republican Party, the financial infrastructure of the Republican Party and the organizational structure of the Republican Party to get behind the candidate very early. We had lost the last two elections badly -- about 40% of the vote. There was a strong thought that we would have an attractive governor in Governor Bush of Texas and all of his Republican support -- and everybody should get behind him real quick. I don't -- I don't criticize anybody for making that decision. I simply think it wasn't necessarily in retrospect the right thing to do. As Senator Bond just said, he was an insurgent of types when he first ran. I know Frank - well, Frank's a good friend. Frank when you run for President, I'm ready to be there for you. Frank was not anointed by anybody in Oklahoma. It has not helped Governor Bush to be anointed by virtually everybody in the Republican establishment politically and financially in this campaign. And that's one of the reasons John McCain is doing well. And that is one of the reasons John McCain is today better able to say he can beat Al Gore than George Bush is.

MARGARET WARNER: So, you mean, you think actually some of the vote for McCain is an anti-establishment vote?

VIN WEBER: I believe the country - understand where I come from. I sat on election day in Minnesota with my candidate, Governor Norm Coleman, and I watched Jesse Ventura win the governorship of Minnesota. The country is in a very independent move. The country does not want the party - the country is deeply skeptical of special interests. The party that's going to succeed is the one that can tap into this sentiment of independence, of defiance, of looseness from the two political parties. Unfortunately, Governor Bush reinforced all the bad images on that early in this campaign. John McCain has a chance, as he has proven in this campaign in Michigan and in New Hampshire, to reach out and win the votes you have to win as a Republican to do better than our last two nominees have and win the White House.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Bill Jones, you are the most high-level level I might call you defector from the Bush camp to the McCain camp. Why were you originally in the Bush camp? Why did you defect and what is your view of whether this is really an establishment versus an insurgent contest that we're seeing?

BILL JONES: Well, I have great respect for Governor Bush; he's a fine individual -- as I do for Senator Bond and Governor Keating. The fact of the matter is, is that campaigns matter. And, as they progress, different programs and difference processes take shape and different evaluations are made. I looked at the reaction of the public, as Vin Weber said, to John McCain not just the crossovers. Republicans in California -- we've been losing. We've been not getting our base out for elections. I'm concerned about that. Our Republican Party should be concerned. John McCain is able to get a plurality of Republicans in New Hampshire. He consistently gets the Republicans in Arizona, and he just got them the other night. And so I looked at that plus his message, you know, reduce the debt, strong defense and also campaign finance reform, which I desperately need in California, and I've been a long time supporter of. Plus John McCain's unique personal life story, while not qualifying him to be President, what it does, it allows him to when he delivers the message to pierce that level of cynicism among the electorate that all of us fight to try and deliver a message it to the broader universe of voters -- he has been able to do that because that call from John McCain for service above self really resonates when you know his personal life story and history. All those items together in California matter because California is a candidate-driven state more than a party- driven state. You got to have a messenger and the message is good. And I think McCain is the right messenger at the right time.

MARGARET WARNER: Governor Keating, do you find any of these arguments persuasive? And also there are a lot of stories in the newspapers the last two days about the Bush supporters being shell shocked is the way the "New York Times" described it, been critical of the way the campaign has been run, that there are second thoughts. Are there second thoughts at all?

GOV. FRANK KEATING: Well, let me say this. I'm going to support Vin Weber when he runs for President. Whenever Bill wants to run for, I'm for him too, but let me say that the reality is in New Hampshire Bush carried a majority the Republican vote. The reality is in Michigan he carried 75% of the Republican vote -- the same thing in South Carolina - some 70 percent. It's true that candidacies matter. Candidates matter. What is your message? What is your background? What do you stand for? John McCain is a hero; there's no question he's a man on a horse -- but George Bush has been heroic. As governor of Texas, he took on the Ann Richards establishment, an extraordinarily difficult political establishment south of my border, traditionally Democrat, the land of Lyndon John son. He lowered taxes, he stopped social promotion in education, he cut the welfare rolls, he did it in a bipartisan environment. He got a very significant vote -- 70% of the reelection vote -- including large number of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. That is a pretty terrific candidate. And that is a pretty terrific candidacy. I think this is good for the party. To be honest with you, I think he'll come out and I think George will be the nominee -much more muscular. He will have a focused message. He'll be tough; he'll be tenacious. He will be a very effective candidate and I think a much better candidate against Al Gore as a result of this hardening process.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Vin Weber, you must of course think this is good for the party?

VIN WEBER: Absolutely, let me make a point on that. Insurgencies, of course, make all of us in the party who have been active for a long time a little bit nervous. But the fact is historically the only way you really grow a party substantially is through an insurgency or a good deal of internal friction. The Republican Party became the national majority through a civil war. I mean understand that. Teddy Roosevelt helped build the national majority for this party in the early part of the century. That was so fractious that he formed a separate party at one point. Ronald Reagan when he first ran in 1980 was not the choice of the "Republican establishment." He had to take him on and beat him and win a lot of primaries. And it's always a little uncomfortable but at the end of the day that's the only way that you reach out and broaden the party and build the party. And that's what we're doing here.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Bond, do you think that one, do you agree that this insurgency or this challenge is good for the party, and, two, do you think the party is still and the establish, the office holders, however you want to describe them, in the end would support either of these men?

SEN. KIT BOND: First, when you say elected officials, establishment, I think that's the problem. You are to falling into a little campaign slogan there. A lot of elected officials do support Governor Bush because we knowhow he works. We are familiar with him. We have had an opportunity to deal with him. That's one of the reasons that we think he is very good. But there is no question that this great fight that's coming up in Missouri on March 7 is one of the best things that's happened to our political system in the state in a long time. We haven't had a primary since 1988. Traditionally, Missouri has had caucuses way late in the spring after it's all over. We are now getting to participate and our big challenge is to get all of the voters in Missouri who may not follow MacNeil-Lehrer every night, who nay mot be totally tuned in politics, to realize that we have a choice. This fight, this contest gives us an opportunity to get our message out, focus attention and I think both candidates in South Carolina and in Michigan polled more than -- had been voted in a Republican primary in the past. That means there are more Republicans turning out because in overwhelming numbers, Republicans want to end the Clinton/Gore era. And there is no question that if John McCain were to win, I would join my friends, Vin Weber and Bill Jones and do all I can to help John McCain. And I certainly is expect that -- as I think will happen, when George Bush wits the nomination, I would think they would join us and make sure that we achieve what I think is the overwhelming goal in this country, and that is to get the country back on the right track with the person one can respect in the White House and I believe it's George Bush or John McCain.

MARGARET WARNER: Bill Jones, of course as we've been discussing all week, John McCain is moving into a lot of primaries where he is going to have to really win Republican votes, which he has not done very successfully up till now. How do you stay the see of the land in that respect -- for instance in California, where to win delegates he must win the majority of Republican votes?

BILL JONES: Well, I think that John McCain needs to talk about the fact that his record on defense, his tax cutting plan to reduce the debt, have a tax cut, work and save Social Security, he needs to talk about his record as a Reagan Republican which he is. I think one of the things that's happened in South Carolina and also to some extent in Michigan, is an awful lot of money was spent by a lot of people to tell people that John McCain was something other than what he is, which is a strong Reagan Republican. Plus, in Michigan, my understanding is that 25% of the first time voters never voted in a primary before, came out, identified themselves as Republicans. You know this is not about necessarily just bringing crossovers. This is about getting Republicans to come back -- and I saw energy in Sacramento today -- 1,500 people coming in to listen to John this morning in Sacramento -- 5,000 in Washington last night standing in the rain in Washington State. There is some energy there. And I think that's how you get Republicans to come back because he is the won that is 10 to 15, 20 points ahead of Al Gore at this point for November.

MARGARET WARNER: But you are saying you think he can do that, whether or not any senior California Republicans join you in endorsing him?

BILL JONES: Well, let me say I would love company. That wouldn't bother me a bit. And I'm taking offers. But the point is, is that Californians are independent. Prop 13 tax fighting starts here. People will make up their own mind. They don't need people telling them to what to think - me or anyone else. I would just encourage every Californian to make sure and take advantage, as Senator Bond said, right on target - the first time in California we're going to make a difference in 30 years just like Missouri. I want all Californians voting, and regardless of who they vote for - and I also would say we are about winning in November and retiring Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and I think all of are in agreement on that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you four gentlemen very much. This is all the time we have.

FOCUS - MEDICATING CHILDREN

JIM LEHRER: There was a study in yesterday's "Journal of the American Medical Association" about psychiatric drug use by children. It said there had been a rapid rise in the use of Ritalin and other drugs by pre-school age children. It's related to the treatment of children diagnosed with attention deficit and related problems. Susan Dentzer of our health unit has been looking into the subject. The unit is a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

SUSAN DENTZER: Seven-year old Evan Lassiter is an active second-grader-- an especially active one, at that.

TEACHER: Evan, look at me. Listen to me, sweetie. That's not the type of talk we need in here. Thank you.

SUSAN DENTZER: To help curb his often agitated behavior, Evan sees a special education counselor each day here at his public elementary school in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

COUNSELOR: The reading rug? Did you have trouble on that yesterday?

EVAN: Umm, no.

SUSAN DENTZER: The counseling is only one of the special interventions Evan receives at school each day. At about 1:00 P.M., He also visits the school nurse, who gives him a so-called psycho- stimulant medication called Adderall, and another drug, Risperdal, which is used to treat thought disorders.

NURSE: Okay. Here we go, Evan. Here is your medicine. And the water's right here, ready for you.

SUSAN DENTZER: The medications were prescribed by Evan's physician for treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD Dr. Peter Jensen is a leading child psychiatrist at Columbia University, where he directs a center on children's mental health. He says that ADHD is a disorder characterized by high levels of inattention, hyperactivity, or both.

DR. PETER JENSEN: The child may have difficulty waiting turns, or standing in line, may have difficulty staying seated for dinner. Some of these children, when it's very severe, can't really keep their mind or eye on the game when they're playing soccer or baseball.

SUSAN DENTZER: Although the cause is poorly understood, the evidence suggests ADHD has biological roots, in part, because it is often passed down through families. One theory is that it may stem from under active brain activity in an area of that organ known as the pre-frontal cortex. That in turn may disrupt communications with other parts of the brain, and undermine the sophisticated neural network that produces what we think of as "attention." For reasons that also aren't well understood, psycho- stimulant medications help -- drugs like Adderall, and the well-known Ritalin, which are similar to amphetamines. They help to rein in impulsive behavior and boost the attention network into higher gear. Evan Lassiter's mother, Denise, says her son's case is proof that the medication works.

DENISE LASSITER, Evan Lassiter's Mother: If he didn't take medicine, he would struggle every day, not only at school, but with his self-esteem. He would not understand why he was always in trouble. So he takes medicine so that he has a better quality of life, and so that he can function from day to day.

SUSAN DENTZER: The Federal Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, says more than two million American children and adolescents have ADHD. Some estimates suggest that the number may be substantially higher. A growing number of both children and adults are actively undergoing treatment for the disorder, a fact that is driving an explosion in use of psycho-stimulants. That troubles even some health care providers who routinely prescribe these medications. One is Dr. Lawrence Diller, who practices behavioral pediatrics in California.

DR. LAWRENCE DILLER, University of California, San Francisco: I prescribed 700 prescriptions of Ritalin or Dexedrine or Adderall this year, so it's not like I don't prescribe medication. But we use 85% of the world's Ritalin. Our Ritalin use rates have skyrocketed in the last nine or ten years. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society, "is this a good thing?" And I do have my concerns.

SUSAN DENTZER: Even more concerned are people like Maryland psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, who opposes all use of medication to treat ADHD.

DR. PETER BREGGIN, Psychiatrist: That we are doing this, I believe, is ethically and scientifically wrong. We're the only country in the world, along with Canada, that is doing this to such massive numbers of our children. It's a reflection not on our children, but on ourselves as parents and as teachers.

SUSAN DENTZER: Breggin rejects the view that ADHD is a biological or behavioral disorder. His opinion widely dismissed by many in the mental health profession, yet there is a growing debate over just how prevalent ADHD really is and once the syndrome is properly diagnosed, what are the best ways of treating it. Recently, the controversy grew further with the publication of results from the first federally funded study of ADHD treatment in children. The study involved nearly 600 children in the U.S. and Canada, all of whom were diagnosed with severe ADHD. Researchers tested four different approaches. One group got only carefully monitored psycho-stimulant medication. Another got so-called "psychosocial" treatment, including intensive training classes for parents, and a special summer camp for the kids. Still another group of children got both medication and the psychosocial treatment. And a fourth was referred back to their own family physicians for "routine care." Jensen says all four groups of children improved, but the group that received both medication and behavioral treatment improved the most.

DR. PETER JENSEN: If you were to talk just about the ADHD symptoms, you'd have to say that medicine really carried the day. For other areas, like social skills, or getting along with mom and dad, doing better in school, being liked by peers, having fewer anxiety and worries, those kinds of symptoms, the combined treatment, adding that behavior component in, seemed to make a difference.

KATIE DILLON: I love that study. It was... It was a very satisfying piece of research to see, to read, to give some credibility to what I felt all along.

SUSAN DENTZER: 44-year old Katie Dillon, also of Virginia Beach, has been diagnosed with ADHD, as have three of her four school-age children. She says the study's findings only reinforced what she had learned from direct experience, especially with her hyperactive 11-year-old son, Steven. He was diagnosed with ADHD and depression at age six, and has been on Adderall and undergoing psychotherapy for several years.

KATIE DILLON: Steven gets up in the morning, and you know he's up. He gets up, and he is running. He comes down the stairs, he's happy, he is singing, he makes a lot of noise. He climbs on the couches. He plays with the dogs. He rolls under the table. He is a lot of energy, and a lot of noise.

SUSAN DENTZER: So he takes the medication in the morning? What happens?

KATIE DILLON: And it's interesting to watch because he'll go, within 20 minutes of climbing on the back of the couch, to sitting down and eating his breakfast; the silly comments go away. He sits and reads the comics, and then he can get on with his day, get his backpack loaded, get his lunch taken care of, and go out the door.

SUSAN DENTZER: The study's findings about the effectiveness of medication square with the experience of the Dillons, yet some experts, worry that people may derive only one erroneous lesson: That high doses of medication are the only effective treatments for ADHD.

DR. LAWRENCE DILLER: I fear very much that the media, the general public, and managed-care companies will see this as a major green light for a medication-only strategy for children.

SUSAN DENTZER: At the same time, Diller and other experts also are concerned about growing disparities in ADHD diagnosis and treatment. They say the disorder can be over-diagnosed in some communities, while under- diagnosed in others.

DR. LAWRENCE DILLER: So there are some communities-- rural communities, the African American community, the Asian American community-- where Ritalin use rates are much, much less, or some approaching zero, and you've got to wonder, what, they have no ADD there?

SUSAN DENTZER: And at the other extreme are cities, or suburban areas, where as many as one in ten or even one in five school-age children is on Ritalin. And in fact, among those high- use areas is Virginia Beach, home to Evan Lassiter, Katie Dillon, and their families. Consider a study published last year in the "American Journal of Public Health." It found that a high proportion of elementary school students in both Virginia Beach and the nearby city of Portsmouth were receiving medication at school for ADHD. Gretchen LeFever, a clinical psychologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School, was lead author of that study.

GRETCHEN LeFEVER, Eastern Virginia Medical School: We found, in fact, that 8% to 10% of the elementary school students were receiving a dose of ADHD medication in school. And mind you, this is looking at 30,000 students. It was a very large sample.

SUSAN DENTZER: That's more than two to three times the estimated rate of ADHD in the general U.S. Population of children. In a follow-up study, LeFever found even higher rates in another area school district. There, 17% of the parents of elementary school children reported that their child had been diagnosed with ADHD. And LeFever says that in some private schools, medication use may be sharply higher still. It isn't clear just why the use of ADHD medication is so high in this part of southeastern Virginia. But LeFever says it may be a case where two forces overlap. One is the inclination of local pediatricians and mental health providers to diagnose ADHD. The second is parents' eagerness to ensure their children's top performance in school. The trend appears to be national in scope.

GRETCHEN LeFEVER: The Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, reports now that every state in the country has at least one region that looks comparable to Southeastern Virginia, in terms of the per-capita methylphenidate, or Ritalin, distribution rates. When we have communities-- and I think there are a number of them-- where we have so many children being labeled with ADHD and treated pharmacologically for this disorder, we have a major public health issue.

SUSAN DENTZER: More and more experts are inclined to agree with LeFever, and, like her, they are calling for more research. Above all, they think it's increasingly important to distinguish among children. There may be millions with mild performance or behavior problems that can and should be managed without medication. And on the other hand, there are children are like Evan Lassiter, with severe ADHD that carefully managed medication really helps.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Europe versus Austria, and Santana and the electric guitar.

UPDATE - AUSTRIA VS. EUROPE

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the Austria story.

RAY SUAREZ: On Saturday, the streets of Vienna were filled with an estimated 150,000 protesters. Their target was Austria's far- right leader, Joerg Haider, whose freedom party has joined the government's ruling coalition. Some chanted "no to racism" in protest of Haider's anti- immigrant statements. Others compared Haider to Adolf Hitler, after he's made, and then apologized for, comments considered sympathetic to the Nazis. (Boos) Haider himself is not a member of the new Austrian cabinet, but remains Freedom Party leader. And the party, which won a best- ever 27% of the vote in last fall's parliamentary elections, now controls half of the cabinet posts. The new government has drawn the ire of Austria's fellow members of the European Union. They downgraded relations with Vienna, and last week EU ministers snubbed Austria by skipping the customary photo and handshake sessions.

LOUIS MICHEL: (speaking through interpreter) Austria is fully in its right to choose its government, and it is the EU's right and obligation to take a position when a country is not within the principles of the union.

RAY SUAREZ: Official American displeasure was voiced by Secretary of State Albright.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: There is clearly no place inside the governments who make up the Euro-Atlantic community in a healthy democracy for a party that does clearly not distance itself from the atrocities of the nazi era and the politics of hate.

RAY SUAREZ: Throughout the controversy Haider has been unrepentant.

JEORG HAIDER, Austrian Freedom party: And it is stupid to imagine that the whole world is afraid of Mr. Haider. He is the leader of a 27% party in Austria. It's unbelievable that the whole world is afraid. Mr. Clinton is afraid of Mr. Haider? Perhaps he is afraid that I take a competition with him at the marathon in New York. Then he has to be afraid, because I am much quicker than he.

RAY SUAREZ: Haider has taken to the European press to bolster his democratic credentials. In an editorial Tuesday in a British newspaper, Haider claimed "amazing similarities" between himself and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Beyond diplomatic sanctions, European leaders are divided over what to do next about Haider and Austria.

RAY SUAREZ: We get four European views on Haider and Europe. Anneliese Rohrer is the domestic affairs editor for the Austrian newspapers Die Presse; Hugo Young is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper in Britain -- his new book on Britain's relationship with Europe, "This Blessed Plot," was recently released in the United States; Dominique Moisi is deputy director of the French Institute for International Relations -- he also writes for the Financial Times; and Stefan Kornelius is Deputy Berlin Bureau Chief for the Munich newspaper Suddeuetsche Zeitung.

Anneliese Rohrer, how is that reaction being seen inside Austria?

ANNELIESE ROHRER: It's being seen as an overreaction which it really was, and in the end we have to say that it's, it has been counterproductive. The two parties, the conservatives and the Freedom Party came to an agreement much faster because of this outside pressure than they normally would have done. And, quite apart, I think there is a realization in Austria that this reaction of the other 14 EU member states makes Haider bigger than he and it blows up his ego. So really as far as development in Austria is concerned it's counterproductive and people realize that.

RAY SUAREZ: Dominique Moisi, is the reaction considered proportionate in France?

DOMINIQUE MOISI: Yes, on the whole. I mean I think what we are creating is a essential of moral, political unity in Europe. I mean what it is about is not so much about Austria, but about ourselves. It's about our identity as a democratic entity. And in a way, what we are saying to the Austrians is that you are part of us, and you have violated some kind of contracts. And by saying that, we are also saying a contradiction. How can we isolate some element of us? That is really the basis of the European dilemma today.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, when you say that the reaction was proportionate, was there ever any real fear that Austria could spin out of the orbit of European democracies?

DOMINIQUE MOISI: No, but there was a feeling that of course the comparison between Haider and Hitler is extremely negative - counterproductive; I would agree. In a way it is an insult to those who have suffered from Hitler. But what we are saying that the revisionism in historical terms which is practiced by Haider is eroding the very core of the European project which was based on Franco-German reconciliation. Haider is saying, well, of course, the Jews have suffered, they have suffered. But the Germans, the Austrians have suffered too and by equating the two kinds of suffering is really irking the very heart of the European project which was based on the fact that the Germans of course had suffered - had been victims -- but victims of themselves.

RAY SUAREZ: Stefan Kornelius, your country is next door neighbor with an intertwined history. You heard Dominique Moisi. Is it because it's Austria and because of Austria's particular history in the last 50, 60 years that this development has gotten such a strong reaction?

STEFAN KORNELIUS: It definitely is one of the reasons, but one other reason is that you have emerging far right powers within Europe, which might be threatening to the whole European project. And as the German conservative side is disintegrating these days anyway, there was a growing concern that this virus might spread. That is why they put a stop to it or at least tried to put political pressure on Austria and isolate the country diplomatically. But, however, the country, the German government now has realized that they might have overtoned it a little bit and what they are trying now is to ease tensions by stressing that these measures taken against Austria have to be put into proportion and that Austria's rights and Austria's ability to act within European Union is not limited at all.

RAY SUAREZ: Hugo Young, Joerg Haider has compared himself to Tony Blair. Has that story been getting a lot of coverage, been followed closely in Britain?

HUGO YOUNG: It's been given coverage in the right wing press, which is where Joerg Haider made his most distinctive statement of this coincidence of values. I don't think it's much appreciated by Tony Blair. The British were the slowest of the European countries to react to the Haider business -- I think one of two reasons: One was that we don't have a far right party, unlike France, unlike Belgium and unlike other places, which would make us aware of what began as a fragment could become a really significant political force. And secondly it is a reflection of the underdeveloped sense in this country of what Europe means. I mean the idea that there could be a sort of political virus in Europe as a whole which we as a member of the European Union should pay the closest attention to is somewhat difficult to grasp. The government has after a bit of a delay, the government really got into this and made strong statements -- Foreign Secretary Cook - and we are very much proud of that. But I think that the fear which probably there is here is quite how we get out of it. What happens next? How do the Austrians make themselves, put themselves in good odor with the European Union? How do we show, how do we know that Europe can now accept Austria? How many years will this go on for? These are problems for diplomats and politicians which I think in none of our countries have we really thought through.

RAY SUAREZ: Anneliese Rohrer, are they asking that same question in Austria itself?

ANNELIESE ROHRER: Yes, a little bit rephrased. The question that is being asked here is how do you get down from the tree you climbed up so far? But it means the same thing. Could I just slightly disagree with Dominique in Paris - because he said Austria had violated European principles -- can I remind him that the sanctions and the reaction was in place -- we didn't have a government yet which could violate anything. And we now have a government that, you know, still hasn't violated anything because it hasn't done anything yet. The real question-- and you know I'm sort of moved by the concern of one of the other panelists about that Austria might threaten Europe, I ask him to consider that the real question is what does all this mean for European integration? Some of you might have heard about Poland saying okay. This is how Brussels treats small countries. We might reconsider our application. So in actual fact, this sort of reaction and the quality of reaction might, you know, slow down the European integration process. I think that is nor detrimental than having a democratically elected government being watched by the others. And see what it does. So I see personally, I see a real dangers for European integration, not so much for any fascist movement coming out of Austria.

RAY SUAREZ: Dominique Moisi.

DOMINIQUE MOISI: Well, I find it slightly ironic because in a way, Austria is one of the last countries to have entered the European Union. And if you were listening to Austrian officials and diplomats, they were quite ready to close the door behind them and to let the other parts of their former entire stay outside of the European union - and I find in a way, I'll repeat, ironic, that today Austrians could say if do you that main other people will not come very soon in the European Union. I think to return to the sense of the discussion, I mean there is a moral constitution of Europe which is slightly appearing thanks in a way to the Haider crisis. And we don't have the legal institution but there are elements of a moral institution within a democratic Europe, you don't accept in power people who are not clearly condemning some elements of the past and who are keeping repeating outrageous things about history.

RAY SUAREZ: Stefan Kornelius, how do you answer the question that has come up where does this end? Does Europe have to put up with an Austrian government including the freedom party, a short of another election, how does this all end?

STEFAN KORNELIUS: I think it will actually increase the awareness in the rest of Europe about the importance of that -- and this is where I don't agree with Anneliese, I think it will actually increase the speed of integration because for the first time now especially in Germany the public is debating about the nature of this Europe Union and people are getting aware that the union has become very different especially within the last year where we introduced the common currency, the euro and agreed on a common defense identity which might result in common troops. We are now talking about giving up sovereign rights to a far greater extent than would have been imagined. From that perspective it actually strengthens the awareness of how important Europe has become and how important enlargement to the East has become to find a new balance on the continent where Germany was always in the middle - always isolated, always sort of forced into this position against all its neighbors. Now this is a continent which has to work together, and this poison Haider might set off by playing off each nation against others is too dangerous and this is why the staff was correct and I think Austria has to change and Haider has to prove he is not a dangers to the union otherwise those diplomatic sanctions which have to be upheld.

RAY SUAREZ: Last thoughts, Hugo Young.

HUGO YOUNG: I think a lot depends on what the Austrian government does. Whether Haider and his colleagues in the government, he is outside the government, have taken a message from this which does assert -- and I agree with both my French and German colleagues here -- is asserting a moral order for Europe which to those of us who want to advance the idea of Europe is very encouraging -- the idea that here, for once in a political dimension the voices have spoken. I think Haider's objective is to try and divide the European Union. And it seems to me that the demonstrations going on in Vienna and the sense one has that a significant part of the political clout in Austria is pretty appalled at that semi ostracism - to use a most appropriate word perhaps - the effect of that is bad. And we will now watch I suppose for how this coalition with its minority Freedom Party actually reacts to that.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Anneliese, in response to Hugo's thoughts who speaks for Austria? Should we be paying attention to the protesters in the streets or the people who sit in the seats in parliament right now?

ANNELIESE ROHRER: Could I just bring this whole thing down from the moral level to the more practical level? I completely disagree with my colleague in Berlin. Have you thought this through? If Austria is isolated and under European leader, still it will be asked to take the decisions that are necessary for Europe. But the information to take these decisions are withheld from the country. I mean, all of this is totally impractical and I think Brussels and Vienna will have to find a way to get out of this because you can't ask the country or you have to kick Austria out. But you can't ask the country to take part in decisions about which you don't give the information. So all of this is, you know, it is a blind alley if people don't sit down and try to find a way out of it.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all for being with us.

FINALLY - INSTRUMENTS OF DESIRE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the allure of the electric guitar. Carlos Santana's big Grammy- winning night capped a remarkable comeback for one of rock's most famous guitarists. Here's a clip from his performance at the Grammy event in Los Angeles. The song is called "Smooth," with singer Rob Thomas.

(GRAMMY SEGMENT)

SINGING: It's just like the ocean under the moon, it's the same sea and emotion that I get from you, you got the kind of loving that can be so smooth now give me heart, make it real or else forget about it.

JIM LEHRER: There's a new book which charts the history and influence of the electric guitar. It's called "Instruments of Desire." The author, an amateur guitarist, is Steve Waksman. He's a Professor of History and American Studies at Miami University of Ohio.

Mr. Waksman, welcome.

STEVE WAKSMAN: Thank you, it's good to be here.

JIM LEHRER: First, what is it that Carlos Santana does with an electricity guitar that makes him so great?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Well, Santana is a great player who comes from an era of great guitar heroes, and I think he is one of a number of guitarists like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Paige who really made the guitar into a great symbol in popular music of individual expression by drawing upon some of the earlier traditions that had been coming up through American popular music, especially the blues, which had a great influence on that generation of musicians. And I think part of Santana's greatness nowadays is that he represents a set of values in popular music around the high quality of musicianship around virtuosity of electric guitar performance that a lot of listeners think has been lost in a lot of the music of the day when you hear music like Britney Spears and such - I don't want to say too much about that. But I think a lot of listeners are looking for something different, something that goes back to an older set of values of musicianship and craftsmanship and inspiration that they're not hearing in a lot of the music today. And that's what Santana brings.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, technically he is a superb musician, is that what you're saying? The way he plays the guitar he does it better than most if not better than anybody else?

STEVE WAKSMAN: I wouldn't say better than anybody else. I mean, a lot of guitarists get tired with the impulse to rank as though it's a sport. There is a lot of competition around playing the guitar better than whoever it is, but guitarists themselves tend not to want to look at things in those terms and I know Santana is a man with a great sense ever humility would not want to position himself as such. But, yes, the technical skill is definitely a big part of that but it's more than that, I think. The blues impulse that underlies Santana's music, that underlies so much of the music of that generation, also speaks to a deeper reservoir -- a feeling among these musicians that when blended with the technical skill makes for something special. And I think that's what the electric guitar has been. That's been its main contribution is that combination of elements in the music of today.

JIM LEHRER: What happened to Santana? He made this tremendous comeback. That's, of course, the headline of the day after last night. He was big in the 60's, and then nobody paid any attention to him. Now here he is. What brought him back?

STEVE WAKSMAN: I think he is riding on a couple of difference waves. First of all, as I said, I think the fact that he is a musician that in some ways represents the values of an earlier era, a lot of young people, I know students of mine look to Santana as representing values that they don't hear --

JIM LEHRER: You are talking about musical values, technical musical values?

STEVE WAKSMAN: I'm talking about allof that. I think that the music itself expresses certain values about what good music is, about how someone expresses themselves through music, but I think that also branches out into something that's not just about music. It's about taking something seriously, putting yourself into it, and trying to create something that really speaks to people.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Give us -- let's go through some history here on the electricity guitar for those of us who won't know anything about this. Who invented it when did it happen?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Well, the invention is one of those things that's a little bit of a contested term. Best guess is that it was invented around 1930 and probably by some inventors in California. There was a pair of brothers named the Dapiera Brothers who were building musical instruments out in California, a couple of immigrants from Eastern Europe. And they started trying to experiment with making guitars that could project more so that they could be heard --

JIM LEHRER: Make the sound louder, that's what prompted it, right?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: That was their motivation?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Oh, yeah, definitely, but as musicians started taking it up, it wasn't just about the pragmatics of making it louder. It was also about getting a different sound. And that's where someone like Santana, for instance, I think really stands out. One of the things that is so unique about his guitar style is his sound -- that he really knows how to master that sound.

JIM LEHRER: Well, now, the squares in the audience, including myself, here, would, the first one that we ever heard of was Les Paul in the 1950's, what did he do to the electric guitar?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Les Paul did a whole lot for the electric guitar. He was a great inventor regarding the instrument. And that's not to say he invented the instrument. But he made some modifications to the design of the electric guitar that had a great influence. The guitar I'm holding in my hand right now is what's called a solid body electric guitar. And it's different from the earlier models in that the earlier models were basically hollowed out acoustic instruments that had electronics put on them for amplifications. This kind of guitar has no hollow parts to it. It's all based on the electronics. And that also means you get a different kind of sound --

JIM LEHRER: Is that the kind Les Paul developed.?

STEVE WAKSMAN: That is the kind that Les Paul developed.

JIM LEHRER: Can you play "How High is the Moon?"

STEVE WAKSMAN: Sure. I can try to. Let me say that the sound he got was something that I call a pure electric tone -- one that was trying to eliminate all the distortion and the noise that later guitarists actually took as being the basis for what they wanted to do. So Paul's pure electric tone he put into use on song like "How High is the Moon." (playing) So it's that clean tone of the electric guitar that Les Paul was most working on with his innovations in electric guitar design around the solid body guitar.

JIM LEHRER: Now, then Jimi Hendrix, he played the electric guitar.

STEVE WAKSMAN: Oh, he sure did. Carlos Santana can tell you something about that, because Carlos took a lot from Jimme in inspiration and in technique and everything.

JIM LEHRER: Who else should we know in modern day times?

STEVE WAKSMAN: In modern day times you mean like today?

JIM LEHRER: No. In the last -- from Les Paul on in all kinds of different kinds of music, people who took the instrument that you are holding and did something special with it.

STEVE WAKSMAN: Well,the folks that I like to emphasize, a lot of black musicians who really moved the instrument forward and really tried to get a different sound, for instance, the Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and the whole school of Chicago Blues musicians who came up in the 1940's and 50's and who got away from the pure sound --

JIM LEHRER: What was their sound like? How did it differ say.

STEVE WAKSMAN: It was a little more dirty. It wasn't quite like Hendrix but they were kind of the bridge to the dirtier, more distorted --

JIM LEHRER: What do you mean dirty?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Well dirty -- I can plug in here and get something going on.

JIM LEHRER: Do it

(WAKSMAN PLAYING)

STEVE WAKSMAN: That kind of sound is something that's a little more extreme than what the musicians in the 1950's were doing, but they were laying the groundwork for making the electric guitar into an instrument that could express something different, that could express something that was more of a confrontation with mainstream values; whereas Paul's sound I think was more of an accommodation to mainstream values. Jimi Hendrix took it to the next level and really took things far.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you - yeah -- go ahead, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to interrupt -

STEVE WAKSMAN: With the sound that he got which is more like what I just created and putting that into practice in a piece like the Star Spangled Banner or in pieces that were more strictly blues influenced but yet had that extreme approach to the music.

JIM LEHRER: Is it hard to play an electric guitar?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Well, it is as hard or easy as any. I think some purists who are really into classical music think that an electric guitar is too easy, because you've got the volume on your side; you don't have to work as hard to make the --

JIM LEHRER: Are the finger manipulations and the knowledge of music that it requires the same that it would require for a regular guitar?

STEVE WAKSMAN: Yes, definitely, and there is the added complication of having to also know how to deal with the sound of the instrument. Electric guitars -- to my mind -- are most significant for paying attention to that sound and for making popular music itself sound differently through things like those different sounds I was just trying to play out there.

JIM LEHRER: All right. I hear you and I appreciate your coming and being with us tonight. Thank you very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: Secretary of State Albright urged America's NATO allies to send more troops to Kosovo. The U.N. Security Council voted to send 5,500 troops to the Congo to oversee a cease-fire. And officials in the Persian Gulf states said they've agreed to increase oil production to stabilize markets. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.