The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the Soviet parliament approved the Gorbachev plan for a stronger Presidency and a multi-party system. President Bush lifted the economic embargo against Nicaragua, and Israel's coalition government fell apart. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we make the changes in the Soviet government our major focus [FOCUS - SUPER PRESIDENCY]. We'll get the assessments of Oleg Derkovsky, a diplomat at the Soviet embassy in Washington, and of three Americans, Arthur Hartman, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, James Billington, a Soviet scholar and the Librarian of Congress, and Peter Reddaway, a professor of Soviet Studies at George Washington University. Then [CONVERSATION] Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with history making theater director Lloyd Richards of the Yale School of Drama, and finally [ESSAY - VANISHING VIRTUE] essayist Anne Taylor Fleming looks at what's behind some of our current national scandals. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Soviet government today took what Mikhail Gorbachev called the greatest step in its history. The Soviet parliament agreed to his plan to sharply expand the powers of the President. It also voted overwhelmingly for a multi-party system and private ownership of factories. The action ends the 70 year power monopoly crafted by Lenin for the Communist Party. We have a report narrated by Tom Brown of Worldwide Television News.

MR. BROWN: What began as an ordinary gray day in Moscow ended as a watershed in Soviet history. It was a personal victory for Mikhail Gorbachev who at last won approval for the strong Presidency he says is needed to hold the country together and pursue reform. The Congress of people's deputies heralded a new era, casting their ballots into a modern computerized voting system. They also reversed 70 years of Soviet tradition by approving a multi-party political system and legalizing private ownership of factories. The measure creating a Presidency with broader powers was approved by a vote of 1,817 to 133, with 61 abstentions. Gorbachev congratulated the deputies, telling them that they were standing on the brink of the greatest step in the history of the government. Gorbachev's success came after he abandoned his most dramatic proposals to the new Presidency, including the right to suspend regional parliaments and declare a state of emergency. The final outcome, however, was a major victory for the leader and his program of reform.

MR. LEHRER: And the parliament is expected to elect Gorbachev to the new and powerful Presidency. The term would run four years and then be filled by popular election. Gorbachev also had more words today about Lithuania. He called its declaration of independence invalid, but he said Moscow's relations with the Baltic republic would remain unchanged for now. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush today lifted the five year old economic embargo against Nicaragua. He also proposed an aid package for that country. He said Nicaragua and Panama needed swift U.S. action to help secure their new democracies. The President outlined his plan this morning at a White House news conference.

PRES. BUSH: I'm proposing the creation of a fund for democracy to assist in the reconstruction and development of these two countries. And I'm requesting the Congress to approve by April 5th a package of assistance of $800 million for these two countries using funds from the defense budget. This package consists of $500 million for Panama already requested in that January 25th proposal to Congress, along with 70 million for refugees, and an additional 300 million for Nicaragua.

MS. WOODRUFF: At his news conference, the President also spoke about a democratic plan to eliminate the budget deficit. He said the package put forth by House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski could help pave the way for a budget agreement between the White House and Congress. Mr. Bush added, however, that he could not endorse all aspects of the proposal, which includes increased taxes.

MR. LEHRER: A fight over talking to the Palestinians ended Israel's coalition government today. The talks are part of a U.S. peace plan for the MidEast. The proposal was rejected by the Likud Party but accepted by the labor part of the coalition. Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News has our report.

MS. DONNELLY: After weeks of political in-fighting and diplomatic maneuvering, Israel's teetering coalition government has finally collapsed. At a cabinet meeting this morning, the prime minister Yitzhak Shamir sacked his finance minister, Labour leader Shimon Peres. The other 10 Labour cabinet members resigned. And at a news conference after his dismissal, Mr. Peres pledged to continue the search for peace.

SHIMON PERES, Labour Leader: We do hope to continue the peace process. We think there is a chance, so I cannot say this is certain to form a coalition that will continue the peace process and anyway, I am sure that they speak in the name of all of my friends and members of the party that is in the past so in the future the guiding line will be the peace process.

MS. DONNELLY: But Likud leaders blaming labour for the break-up weren't publicly writing off peace either.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Likud: I don't think it means killing the peace process at all. What I think it means is that Israel has to speak with one voice. It's impossible to go and negotiate on the most critical matters affecting the destiny of this country and do so from a divided government.

MR. LEHRER: Today's firings and resignations take effect in 48 hours, leaving room for a last ditch compromise. Prime Minister Shamir then faces a no confidence vote in parliament Thursday.

MS. WOODRUFF: Haiti has a new president. She is Supreme Court Judge Urtha Pascal Trio, and she becomes the first woman president in Haiti's history. Pascal Trio was sworn in one day after former President Prosper Avril fled to the U.S. She will lead the government until Democratic elections take place in the next three to six months.

MR. LEHRER: An Amtrak passenger train was involved in an accident last night. Its Florida to New York Silver Meteor was rammed from the rear by a freight engine near Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Thirty-one people were hurt. Three of the cars of the passenger train derailed. There was a sniper attack against a Greyhound bus in Chicago today. According to police, four shots hit the bus. None of the 14 people on board were injured. It was the third shooting incident in Chicago since Greyhound workers went on strike 11 days ago. There have been seven similar attacks nationwide.

MS. WOODRUFF: That wraps up our summary of the day's news. Just ahead on the Newshour, big changes in the Soviet system of government, a talk with the Dean of the Yale School of drama, and an essay about our ethical shortcomings. FOCUS - SUPER PRESIDENCY

MR. LEHRER: This was an important day in the Soviet Union. The most important in its history said President Gorbachev. The ruling body of the Soviet Union eliminated the Communist Party's one lock on power, approved private ownership of factories and established a strong Western like Presidency. A Presidency that will be Gorbachev's for at the least the first four years. President Bush was among those who had a comment. It came up at a morning news conference at the White House. He was asked if the changes would make the Soviets more totalitarian and how it would effect his dealings with Gorbachev.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I answer that by saying I stay out of the internal affairs and deliberations of the Soviet Union and they are going through a process of reform which we support in broad terms perestroika. They are going through a process of glasnost which is openness which we support and it would be very inappropriate for the President of the United States to start passing judgement as that process of perestroika, democratization if you will, moves forward. And so yes the Soviets have created a new post of President I hear but that is their business and we will work with in this instance President Gorbachev. As you know I think that we have a reasonably good relationship there, a respectful one and I continue to work with him.

MR. LEHRER: Now for four other views. One Soviet and three American. The Soviet Diplomate Oleg Derkovsky,a Counselor at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. The Americans are Arthur Hartman former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1981 to 1987. Now a consultant on internal affairs in Washington. James Billington, A Soviet Scholar and Librarian of Congress. He is the Author of Ican and the Ax, The History of Soviet and Russian Culture. And Peter Reddaway Professor of Soviet Studies and International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington. Ambassador Hartman President Gorbachev said today the presidency decision was the most significant of the history of the Soviet Government. Do you agree or is that an over statement?

ARTHUR HARTMAN, Former Ambassador, Soviet Union: No I don't think that it is an overstatement. It is a major change and in fact away from the principals that were established after the revolution. It is away from Marxism Lenninism. But it may be a step toward Russian history because what he has done is gather more power in his own hands then any other Soviet leader since Stalin and perhaps that is a move back to a more Russianess in Soviet Literature and Constitutionalism.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Billington?

MR. BILLINGTON: Well I think there is no question but I already think he already had more power than any other Russian Leader since Stalin. So I think what it really is a half step in this sort of the middle of the road way he has of moving towards a religitimization of a authority. This is sort of a fall back position from Communist Authority which is no longer there. The Communist party is still mentioned it is sort of a compromise position. It no longer has the leading role but it is still the only party mentioned in the Constitution. So as you look at it he is creating a Super Gaulist Presidency.

MR. LEHRER: Super what?

MR. BILLINGTON: I mean like De Gaul. They use the French model very much in these discussions. But he is trying to create a new alternate form of legitimizing his authority but he hasn't entirely broken with the old.

MR. LEHRER: But he was so strong before why does he need this?

MR. BILLINGTON: Well he needed this partly because of the decentralizing tendency, partly in legitimizing his authority he wants to have a more authoritarian executive force. All of the legitimation to this point has been in the Parliament and the Parliament is a more unwieldy body ion dealing with these things like the tension in the Republics as well as the economic problems. To get on top of these problems he needs more authority and a different base of authority. So it is a different move but he is still a very strong executive and there are fears you can see from the opposition that in saying that it is only a transitional move to build democracy more strongly. Communism after all is a dictatorship of the proletariat that was supposed to bring in a classless society. And they have had a lot of experiences with authoritarian regimes that were temporarily putting in reforms and ended up retaining and re-establishing the authoritarian pattern of Russian History as Ambassador Hartman mentioned.

MR. LEHRER: Professor Reddaway where would you put this in the history books?

PROF. REDDAWAY: It is certainly a very important event but I personally think that Mr. Gorbachev himself denounced the whole idea of moving toward a stronger presidency. He said we don't need a strong hand. That could lead to all sorts of problems,and disasters to not enough consultation, hasty decision, not consulting the people and so forth. My second point is that I don't think that this move has enhanced his authority very much because he was elected to his previous presidency by the Congress of People's Deputies. He is going to be elected by the same body again. It is a repeat election to the same office. A lot of his colleagues have thought that in order to have really increased authority he needs a popular mandate. And he has never faced the voters in the Soviet Union. Four years from now the president should be elected but it is absolutely clear to everyone in the Soviet Union today that he did not dare face popular election this time. That is the message that is going to the Soviet people and it is disastrous because it is more and more clear to the Soviet people that central government has less and less authority. People are not turning out for the draft and when they are recruited in to the military they simply don't go and they don't punish them any more. These are just one of the many symptoms of the break down of order.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Derkovsky as the only Soviet here and an Official of the Soviet Government how do you read the need that Gorbachev felt that led to this action today?

OLEG DERKOVSKY, Soviet Embassy: No doubt it is an important step in the context of establishing our own checks and balances. I personally view it in this light and I believe that we really need this strong presidency. Let me explain why. It is a transition period from a rule of the Communist party to the power of great institutions both legal and executive and we have felt the dangerous shortage of power during this transition period and that explains why.

MR. LEHRER: You mean that the power remained in the party rather than the government?

MR. DERKOVSKY: Well but the party has decided to relinquish power to the Soviets to new elected parliament and the local soviets that have been elected and are being elected at this moment at regional and city levels. So to make this transition smoother I think that we need a very strong presidential post and the citizens of the Soviet Union support this move and while the results of the election you have heard already, the members of the People's deputies supported the suggestion but we don't know what will happen tomorrow because the elections and the nominations of the new post will take place tomorrow most likely.

MR. LEHRER: You heard what the other three said and you used the term checks and balances but this makes him even strong, at least according to Mr. Billington. there are disagreement, you heard what everybody else said. Where are the checks and balances on this strong presidency?

MR. DERKOVSKY: This system I am talking about is not in place yet. We are in the process of creating it. We already have walked a certain distance along this road. A parliament which was elected on a competitive basis therefore, I wouldn't support or entertain the position of those who express fears in connection with a new Soviet president having too much power in his hands because it should be viewed in system of checks and balances. He is going to be controlled by the Parliament but right now we need a person an individual with very serious powers in order for the position to take decisions to almost symbolize the Unity of the Federation. To be in a position to negotiate new treaties with the Republics.

MR. LEHRER: Like Lithuania?

MR. DERKOVSKY: Like Lithuania and some other Republics. I believe that as soon as we elect a new President he will start the business of negotiating treaties with those Republics.

MR. LEHRER: Ambassador Hartman do you agree that Gorbachev needed all this new to get things done that Mr. Derkovsky and others have mentioned.

AMB. HARTMAN: I certainly think that he needed a remandating of his own power. His major problem is going to be the economy of that country. Obviously he has problems with the Republics with an empire that is loosing its central strength. But it is the economy that will be the real test of what he is able to do. And the thing that I fear in giving more central authority to the leader they are reemphasizing all the old ways of doing things, central planning, central price direction and so forth. There will a temptation to make all the decisions from the center and that won't help I think a reform of the economy.

MR. LEHRER: That is your fear and so when Mr. Derkovsky talks about fears that is your central fear, this new strong President?

AMB. HARTMAN: Yes my fear is that they may go back to the old ways even though it will be less in the hands of some of the old bureaucrats. I think the second important thing to watch in this development is to watch how the opposition is treated. Many of the mistakes that were made in the past were made because people didn't stand up and say they were mistakes. They didn't have a debate about policies. I think this is the point that Sakarhov was trying to make. It is not so much the power in the center as it is the quality of the debate. How much people talk about the issues. So I think that as you look at this see how the opposition is going to be treated.

MR. LEHRER: What is the record on that so far Mr. Billington?

MR. BILLINGTON: Well I think not bad. It seems to me there are two fundamental problems for this formula. One is that I don't think that the proponents of it have said there is a power vacuum. This word occurs throughout the debates in the parliament that there is a lack of power there is a disintegration of power. I think there is much power there just isn't much authority.

MR. LEHRER: What is the difference?

MR. BILLINGTON: The difference is that the authority has legitimation, it motivates people. They are trying to build that with elections and I think that if they had gone to the people and he had gotten the popular vote he would had authority. Instead he simply increased his power with broadening his authority. I think that is a serious problem and the other serious problem that is not addressed really in this formula is that in every case he is taking a middle way between two other approaches. Even on private property it is a half way measure. You know unless they are really going to decollectivize agriculture radically they could get food on the table instantly without any transfer of resources. There a lot of bold steps in the economy as Mr. Hartman has mentioned the key to eroding his authority that he could re-establish if he took steps like the Poles did or even the Chinese when they de-collectivized agriculture. It is another set of half moves that has the suspicious look to people who have seen less food on the table with a series of half moves of being a compromise between two bolder positions.

MR. LEHRER: Professor Reddaway you don't see it as half moves you see it as a possibility of creating another dictator. Is that right?

PROF. REDDAWAY: That is the very serious danger I think in the case of Mr. Gorbachev that he will not become probably a dictator but the liberals who have been worried about this move.

MR. LEHRER: Define Liberals in this context?

PROF. REDDAWAY: Liberals are people who are concerned and trying to build in real checks and balances into the system.

MR. LEHRER: The Yeltsin group, people who want to go further in their reforms and quicker?

PETER REDDAWAY, Political Scientist: Yes. The interregional group of deputies with in the Soviet Legislature which includes Mr. Yeltsin and others. They want real checks and balances, And I don't agree with Mr. Derkovsky. It seems to me that checks and balances have been reduced in many ways by these new measures. The President can over rule laws promogated by Ministers. He can declare Marshall Law or war off his own bat without if he wants proper consultation. These are extending the powers of the President and reducing the checks and balances and I think that this is dangerous.

MR. DERKOVSKY: I simply would disagree with this definition. I would like to respond to two points made by Ambassador Harriman. First he spoke of the quality of the debate. It seems to me on watching the developments in my country from this angle it seems to me that we have lots of debate and little action. With regards to economic reform. We are speaking about economic reform. We haven't embarked upon the road to serious economic reforms. We are discussing the quality and dimension of possible economic reforms but we haven't acted and precisely because of the necessity to move swiftly but cautiously in a measured way along the road of economic reform we need a very strong Presidential post right now.

MR. LEHRER: Somebody who can operate on his own and make decisions on his own and get on with it?

MR. DERKOVSKY: He is responsible for the decision and to report this decision to the Parliament, to consult with the Parliament and to continue to create the mechanisms of democracy to continue to create this system of checks and balances we haven't accomplished yet. So we have all that sort of things.

MR. LEHRER: What about his point that this goes back to the old way, that central power in MOscow calling all of the shots?

MR. DERKOVSKY: But again this is not a return to what we used to have. I mean we are talking about a strong presidential position in an entirely new atmosphere and therefore because of that I believe that fears have been expressed that are not warranted. Again about the fears. I mean this is my personal assessment. As you know in this country liberty without order and order without liberty are equally dangerous and I believe that we need a little bit of order right now and because of that I support the idea of strong executive Presidential position.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Harriman.

AMB. HARTMAN: I would have one last comment. I think in a cynical way you can say in order to destroy the old command structure you have to have more central authority. What Gorbachev does with this new central authority, the more power he has in his own hands, is to destroy some of the things that have been built up by the old command structure like the collectivized agriculture. The things that the Party has been resisting in doing then I think he will have used his power well and can move on to perhaps a more democratic system.

MR. LEHRER: And the is you point is it not Mr. Derkovsky that that kind of power is needed to reform things more and get on with it?

MR. DERKOVSKY: To transform power from the Communist Party to state mechanisms represented by parliament and the government. Both are legislative branch of the government and executive branch of the government. Precisely for the need to move smoothly and quickly toward these objectives. We need somebody with strong powers and authority.

MR. LEHRER: Do you want to respond.

MR. BILLINGTON: Well at a time when you are trying to build up initiative from below and get dynamism in to the society to so powerfully reassert authority at the top is demeaning.

MR. LEHRER: To whom?

MR. BILLINGTON: It is demeaning to the Russian people. It underestimates the degree of which a rise in education, a sense of people defending and defining their own interests. This has developed very rapidly and think that this could lead to a reversion.

MR. LEHRER: Reversion to what?

MR. BILLINGTON: Well a reversion to a strong authoritarian rule that will actually reverse even if it is not intended the democratization process.

MR. LEHRER: Not necessarily to the old communist way?

MR. BILLINGTON: No to a more traditional historic totalitarianism.

MR. LEHRER: Like what? Give me an example.

MR. BILLINGTON: Well it is the sort of thing that you had. Alexander the First began as a great reformer but ended up taking a very repressive and reactionary move in the name of order. You have to have order and things will develop at a more free pace later. Well sometimes it is like the dictatorship of the proletariat the formal rule that they had for a long time was supposed to whither away but the only thing that withered away was the idea that it was ever going to whiter away. So they have lived with that and I think that is a great skepticism towards it and the risk they will undermine the new constructive forces that they are developing. The only justification in my view if they rapidly make some dramatic economic liberalization and reform. But unless we see that very rapidly this drift toward authoritarian rule is going to assert itself and I think that it would be a great tragedy because there are these great creative forces that have been unleased by these new policies.

MR. LEHRER: You don't see tragedy in the future do you Mr. Reddaway?

PROF. REDDAWAY: Yes I do. I am very pessimistic about the current trends in the Soviet Union. I don't think that Mr. Gorbachev's authority will be increased by these measures because he does not have a popular mandate. And what you have to have in order to impose on popular things on the population is a mandate.

MR. LEHRER: A tragedy in the future Mr. Devkovsky?

MR. DERKOVSKY: Just to the contrary. I am very optimistic. I believe that we are on the right track and I simply can not share the fears expressed by some of the participants of this debate. You have mentioned that Gorbachev wouldn't face popular vote now. I believe that he could face that.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think that he could win?

MR. DERKOVSKY: I am sure that he can win despite the fact that he is less popular domestic wise than he is abroad. Many senators in this country jokingly said they wouldn't run against him. So the question is he can do that but we simply can not afford in terms of time because we need urgently the imposition of these dimensions.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen we have to leave it there. Mr. Derkovsky, gentlemen thank you very much for being with us. Mr. Derkovsky I must say as somebody who has been doing this a long time it is an incredible thing to have you an official of the government even participating in this kind of open debate,

MR. DERKOVSKY: Thank you very much.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you for being here.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still to come on the Newshour tonight a Charlayne Hunter- Gault conversation with a noted theater director and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay on ethics. But first this is pledge week on public television. We are taking a short break now so that your public television stations can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. PLEDGE BREAK - BUSH NEWS CONFERENCE EXCERPTS

MS. WOODRUFF: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the Newshour continues with excerpts from Pres. Bush's news conference today. He addressed a number of topics, including the deficit reduction plan proposed by Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, the Israeli government crisis and an aid package for Nicaragua and Panama.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Today I want to speak about how we can best help two democracies in our hemisphere, Panama and Nicaragua. These nations need our help to heal deep wounds inflicted by years of strife and oppression, years of loss and depression. And we must act and act soon to help the peoples of these new democracies in two great and historic tasks, reconstruction and reconciliation. I've taken an important step today. As a demonstration of our resolve to be part of the process of reconciliation, I just signed an executive order to end the economic embargo against Nicaragua. Americans are determined to help the people of Nicaragua. I am proposing the creation of a fund for democracy to assist in the reconstruction and development of these two countries, and I am requesting the Congress to approve by April 5th a package of assistance of $800 million for these two countries using funds from the defense budget. This package consists of $500 million for Panama, already requested in the January 25th proposal to Congress, along with 70 million for refugees, and an additional 300 million for Nicaragua. I'm asking the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to work together on the economic assistance aspects of these package and, of course, to consult with the United States Congress. In addition, under existing authorities, I'm initiating immediate action to provide 21 million of previously appropriated economic aid, principally for food and humanitarian assistance. I also will be sending to the Congress in the future a budget amendment for an additional 200 million in fiscal '91 for Nicaragua, consistent with the approach that we've taken this year. Moreover, I've instructed the Secretary of Defense and Dick Darman at OMB to begin negotiations immediately with the Congress on mutually acceptable offsets from the defense budget that can be used for this democracy fund without having an unacceptable impact on national security.

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: Your warm reception of the Rostenkowski plan, does that mean you're ready to negotiate tax increases and a freeze on Social Security benefits, things you have never gone for in the past?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No.

MS. THOMAS: You are not willing to negotiate, or what is your - -

PRESIDENT BUSH: Overall feeling. Look, I think he, without rancor, without a lot of rhetoric, made a very broad proposal. We've made a proposal, the administration. We now would like to hear from the budget process on the Hill what their proposal is and then we'll talk.

MS. THOMAS: You're not saying whether you would go for a tax increase or a freeze --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I'm not for a tax increase.

MS. THOMAS: How about a freeze on Social Security?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there are a lot of things that I am not for that are in his proposal, a lot, including taxes. LAWRENCE McQUILLAN, Reuters: Mr. President, do you regret the other day raising the issue of settlements in East Jerusalem?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don't regret it. I think all the speculation and commentary of the last 10 days have blown things way out of proportion. What I was doing was reiterating United States policy. But let me say this. Right now in Israel, there's internal developments taking place in the political scene there, and I do not want to look in any way like we're trying to mingle into the internal affairs of Israel, as they're going through this difficult political problem. Right now I just think any further speculation on this question would be, would certainly not be useful, given what's happened just in the last few hours.

MS. WOODRUFF: That was Pres. Bush speaking to reporters at the White House earlier today. CONVERSATION

MS. WOODRUFF: We turn next tonight to a Charlayne Hunter-Gault talk with the history making theater director Lloyd Richards. The conversation took place shortly after Richards announced that he was retiring after over a decade as dean of the Yale School of Drama.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Lloyd Richards earned his place in history in 1959 when Loraine Hansbery's "A Raisin in the Sun" opened in New York. It was the first Broadway play written by a black woman and Lloyd Richards was the first black director ever to stage a show on the great white way. Twenty years later, Richards achieved another first. After serving a decade as artistic director of the National Playwrights Conference of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, he was also named dean of the Yale School of Drama and artistic director of the Yale Repertory Theater. Richards immediately set out to "open up" Yale's program, meaning that in addition to the classics, he would stage contemporary works by new playwrights. The hit play "A Walk in the Woods" by Lee Blessing about the relationship between a Soviet and an American arms control negotiator had its premier at the Yale Repertory Theater before going on to Broadway, London, and Moscow. [SCENE FROM "A WALK IN THE WOODS"]

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Richards also staged the world premiers of three plays by the South African playwright Apel Fugard, and he's credited with boosting the career of Wendy Wasserstein, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of the Heidi Chronicles. But perhaps Richards' most noted discovery was the poet turned playwright August Wilson. The two collaborate closely on re-writes and production. Their partnership began in 1982, when Richards plucked an early draft of Wilson's first play, "Ma Rainy's Black Bottom", out of a pile of a thousand plays submitted to the O'Neill Center. Richards went on to stage "Ma Rainy" at Yale and then on Broadway. He did the same for Wilson's second play, "Fences", which earned each of them a 1987 Tony Award and for Wilson a Pulitzer Prize. [SCENE FROM "FENCES"]

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The latest Richards-Wilson project is "The Piano Lesson", which will open on Broadway in April. All in all, 1990 is shaping up into another big year for Lloyd Richards. He has announced that it will be his final year at Yale, but not the final curtain on his career. I recently spoke with him on the boards of Yale University's theater. You surely had a mission when you came here. What was that mission and how far do you think you've come in accomplishing it?

LLOYD RICHARDS: One of my missions was to create the finest training program that existed in this country or anywhere for that matter. That was one of the things that I set out to do and I am in that regard very pleased. But then when I came to Yale, over 11 years ago now, there was another thing that I was determined to do, and that was to restore the concept of the playwright as the center of theater in this program.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What are you looking for in a playwright in deciding to accept him?

MR. RICHARDS: We're looking for a unique voice, and an artist is someone who sees a bit more than you see. You see a unique artist is one who really sees that from his own perspective that is like no one's. And when he articulates it, it's in a way that is distinctively his own. We've all looked at the same thing. We've all heard the same thing but when he shows it to you, whether that be in music, whether it be in writing, whether it be in acting, you suddenly see it, you say, oh, yes, that's what I saw but I didn't even know I saw it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is that process like? Let's take August Wilson, for example.

MR. RICHARDS: Well, August will tell you that at the National Playwrights Conference, he submitted his work and was rejected five times. Rearrange your eyebrows, oh, yes, indeed, five times, and finally in 1982, he simply did a play called "Ma Rainy's Black Bottom" and my readers, screeners, said, take a look at this one, and I did. And what did I find? I found a sense of poetry. Now by poetry, I mean rhythm in the play, itself. I found unique characters who I immediately recognized, individualistic, and they jumped off the page to me. I knew those characters because I had encountered them personally.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like who?

MR. RICHARDS: Well, I as a young boy, I used to go to the barber shop to have my hair cut, Your Barber Shop, it was called, on Milford Avenue and Detroit, and I used to like to go on Saturday. Why? Because it took longer on Saturday, you had to sit there longer, and I got an opportunity when I was sitting there to listen to these wonderful men discuss philosophy, religion, baseball. Everything under the sun was discussed in such really colorful language and with perception and knowledge and the metaphors that were used were just wonderful. It was like sitting at the feet of the elders and listening to them talk. And those voices repeated themselves in August's work.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You've been at the critical center of the development, modern black theater's tradition since 1947, Loraine Hansbery's "Raisin in the Sun", right up through August Wilson's plays in the '80s. How do you see that progression?

MR. RICHARDS: Raisin was, I guess, an historical experience. I say that in retrospect. You don't in going through any of those things think of history. You're just striving and struggling to do something. It was a play that looked at a family and their aspirations and their struggle, and that family was black.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How unusual was that play at that time?

MR. RICHARDS: A black play about a black family on Broadway, are you kidding? No, that was a very unusual thing for that time. As a matter of fact, no smart money was in the play at all. It took us, we worked on the play for a year, and it took us every bit of that to raise the money.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you get to "Fences", which is also a play about a black family, it was a critical success, a box office success, and you look back to "Raisin", what are your thoughts?

MR. RICHARDS: The same lines I heard about "A Raisin in the Sun" twenty-five, thirty years before I heard about "Fences".

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What?

MR. RICHARDS: That I don't know whether a black play can work on Broadway at this time. Oh, yes, "Fences" came very close to not being done. When it was done over here at Yale Repertory Theater when we did it, the smart money came up of course to see it, because we do things that occasionally went to Broadway so they came, and I remember standing in front of the theater with a producer whose wife was in tears after the experience, who said to me, I don't know, I don't know whether New York is ready for a black play at this time. And that was when we began to explore the regional theater. New York is wonderful, it is special, it is the whatever it is, but thatneed not be the be all and the end all.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Where do you see black theater going?

MR. RICHARDS: When I first started in the theater, when the theater included blacks somehow, it had to be protest. It didn't have to be, that's what it was, because that's what it was about, and now there is a recognized, acceptable place for the black experience as a part of the American experience in this country and where do I see it going? I see it going more in that direction, that people who write will write about a wider variety of experiences.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just a few quick personal questions. How did you first become interested in the theater?

MR. RICHARDS: Oh, I think that back to, it must have been intermediate school, it could have been earlier, where some wonderful teacher had us all read Shakespeare and told us to memorize speeches from it or sections of it. And I remember being called on to recite a section of MacBeth, and getting in front of the class and doing that speech and finding these beautiful words and wonderful thoughts and expression coming out of my mouth. And they became my thoughts and my expressions at that time and people were receiving them. And what I was getting back was something I hadn't felt before and that created an excitement in me that was unmatched by anything else that I had ever known at that time. But I went to college as a pre-law student and I --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You didn't think you could make it as an actor?

MR. RICHARDS: Not that I couldn't make it, but as a possible profession for a young black man in the 1930s, in this country it wasn't among the things you thought of and suddenly I said, what am I doing, I know I'll enjoy law, I'll be secure in law, but theater is really what I want to do, I'm going to change my major. Oh boy, everybody said, you're out of your mind, what do you do, you're not going to get work, you are a black person. And I said, yes, they may turn me down for that, but they will not turn me down because I'm not qualified, and that's my responsibility to me, to become qualified, and they have to deal with the rest, they have to deal with that together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Despite the fact that your life's work and interest has been black work, black people, you've basically had to function in a white world. How has that affected you and how have you worked in that world?

MR. RICHARDS: I have functioned in that world. When I came to New York, I had been trained in and could do radio. I could act on radio, and I tried to get work and I did from time to time as an actor because I didn't sound always as though I was a black person. On radio you could do that, but there was a problem. And the problem was that many directors or producers really put their jobs on the line if they hired you. And remember there used to be such a thing as sponsors and programs went into the South, and to know that that was a black person doing that voice was not a totally unacceptable thing so there were some directors who took chances and I did get work here and there in that. It is wonderful now when I look for an actor, a black actor, to work in a show that I need him for and I can't get him. Why? He's got a job and he's got offers for this and offers for that. That's a tremendous change in the last however many years. It has consistently changed and that is, that's wonderful, but it wasn't always that way.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's next for you, Lloyd Richards?

MR. RICHARDS: I have not directed enough, I have not produced enough, I have not taught enough, I have not acted enough. I may go back to that. I don't know exactly where I'll do any and all of those things, but I'll be doing them, because that's what my life is about, and when one thinks of not doing it, what you're really talking about is not living, and I can't conceive of that, so I guess that's what I'm going to be doing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we'll be looking for you wherever you are, Lloyd Richards. Thank you for being with us.

MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. ESSAY - VANISHING VIRTUE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight our Tuesday night essay. The essayist is Anne Taylor Fleming; her subject, something that's disappearing.

MS. FLEMING: Ethics, has ever a word been more bandied about, have more erstwhile leaders of the land ever been more under ethical investigation than they are now? Everywhere you look somebody who's somebody is under scrutiny for alleged ethical lapses, people like the whole Lincoln Savings crowd of heavyweight Congressmen or Barney Frank with his homosexual prostitute or the Irangate brigade, or the latest, Father Bruce Ritter of Covenant House. The list goes on and on, Gary Hart driven from the Presidential race and Jimmy and Tammy driven from the pulpit, and Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken driven from their financial feistdoms. What is going on here, we ask, with puffed up, post Watergate, anti-yuppie virtues? Isn't there anybody left up there at the top with any ethics whatsoever, anybody left who hasn't been corrupted by lust and greed? What have you done, Jim Wright and Tony Coelho? What ever possessed Jimmy Swaggart? It's as if an ethical snowball is rolling through the corridors of power, sweeping influence peddling politicians and pious adulterers out into the cold. We watched them go with self-satisfaction. Justice is being done. The moral order is being re-ordered, up with ethics. In our finger pointing as the high profile bad guys and our head shaking over the demise of values, we seldom stop to cast a cold eye on our own ethics. That isn't even a word we use with regard to our own lives, ethics. When is the last time you said to yourself, hmm, guess I had a little moral slip-up there, a little ethical lapse? But don't we, in fact, have them all the time? And isn't every day a moral mine field, when you come to think about it? I'm not talking about big time crimes or even biblical sins. I'm just talking about the small judgment calls involved in any given day. For example, do you lie to someone you don't want to see by saying you have a previous engagement? Why hurt his or her feelings, right? And what about having a clandestine lunch with an ex-love? Why enflame the jealousy of your present mate by owning up? And what about returning to the store for a refund the dress you wore last night? Well, you only wore it once. And what about keeping the extra money the bank teller or supermarket checker has given you in error? It's their mistake, isn't it? And what about secretly popping a few snitched grapes into your mouth as you pass through the supermarket produce department? No one's going to notice. And what about running into old friends in a movie line and casually joining them, thereby cutting in front of all the trusty souls that have been waiting out in the cold for a seeming eternity? Everyone does it, come on. You're making way too much of all this stuff. That's the refrain of course, everybody does it, no big deal. Yet, we get high and mighty when the politicians hide behind that defense without realizing how often we resort to it too. These little white lies of ours are hardly the stuff of Watergateor any of the other gates that have fired up our moral ire of late. A purloin grape, after all, is hardly a national scandal. But there is some connection, and I think we all know it, on some uncomfortable level, we know that we're on some diverting ethical witch hunt that's keeping us from looking close to home, from looking at ourselves, and that the breakdown of values we're so lamenting these days just might not be trickling down from on high so much As trickling up. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, Tuesday's major stories, the Soviet parliament adopted Mikhail Gorbachev's plan for a more powerful Presidency and a multi-party system. Pres. Bush lifted the economic embargo against Nicaragua and asked Congress for $300 million for the newly elected government, and Israel's coalition government split apart over proposed talks with the Palestinians. Good night, Jim.

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