PBS NewsHour - 1996-03-11
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:07] Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the
[0:09] NewsHour tonight, the China-Taiwan
[0:11] problem as seen by State Department
[0:13] official Winston Lord. Wall Street
[0:16] rebounds after its dark Friday and
[0:18] analyst explains. Tomorrow's Super
[0:20] Tuesday vote, three reporters offer a
[0:22] preview. And American exceptionalism,
[0:25] David Gergen talks with political
[0:27] scientist Seymour Martin Lipset. It all
[0:29] follows our summary of the news this
[0:31] Monday.
[0:32] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[0:34] Lehrer has been provided by the Archer
[0:36] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[0:39] supermarket to the world.
[0:42] And by New York Life, yet another
[0:45] example of New York Life's wise
[0:47] investment philosophy.
[0:51] And by the Corporation for Public
[0:53] Broadcasting and by the annual financial
[0:55] support from viewers like you.
[0:58] The United States sent more ships to the
[1:00] waters off Taiwan today. Defense
[1:02] Secretary Perry said the aircraft
[1:04] carrier the USS Nimitz, a submarine, and
[1:07] six support ships will be in place
[1:09] within the next 2 weeks. Another
[1:11] carrier, the USS Independence, and four
[1:13] other ships are already there. They are
[1:16] being deployed in response to Chinese
[1:18] war games and missile exercises in the
[1:20] area. The People's Republic of China
[1:22] considers Taiwan a rebel province and
[1:25] has threatened to invade if the island
[1:26] declares independence. Secretary Perry
[1:29] said he does not believe China will
[1:30] attack Taiwan. He said the US measures
[1:33] are precautionary. We'll have more on
[1:35] this story right after the news summary.
[1:37] In economic news today, new home sales
[1:39] jumped 4.2% in January. The Commerce
[1:43] Department reported it was the strongest
[1:44] posting in 5 months despite recent bad
[1:47] weather in the Northeast. And the stock
[1:49] market rebounded from its loss of 170
[1:52] points last Friday. At the close of
[1:54] trading today, the Dow Jones Industrial
[1:56] Average was up more than 110 points.
[2:00] We'll have more on this story later in
[2:01] the program. Four more General Motor
[2:03] General Motors plants closed today. They
[2:05] did so because of a strike at two brake
[2:08] plants in Ohio that supply parts to
[2:10] nearly all of GM's 29 auto assembly
[2:13] facilities. Up to 14 of them have been
[2:16] affected by the strike so far. 49,000 GM
[2:19] workers have been idle. In the
[2:22] Republican presidential race today, the
[2:23] attention was on tomorrow, Super
[2:25] Tuesday, the biggest day of the primary
[2:28] season. Seven states will choose a total
[2:30] of 362 delegates to the Republican
[2:33] National Convention. Bob Dole was in
[2:35] Florida this morning, Texas this
[2:37] afternoon. Pat Buchanan went to
[2:39] Oklahoma. Steve Forbes campaigned in
[2:42] Florida. Dole has 392 of the 996
[2:47] delegates needed to clinch the
[2:48] nomination. He said today he could he
[2:50] could virtually lock it up if he swept
[2:52] the Super Tuesday primaries. We'll have
[2:54] more on Super Tuesday later in the
[2:56] program. President Clinton today toured
[2:58] a Superfund cleanup site in New Jersey.
[3:01] He used the visit to announce a plan to
[3:03] grant $2 billion in tax incentives. They
[3:06] would go to companies that clean up
[3:08] areas called brownfields, lightly
[3:10] polluted industrial waste sites located
[3:12] in or near poor communities. The
[3:15] president spoke at Fairleigh Dickinson
[3:17] University in Hackensack, New Jersey.
[3:20] Today I'm proposing the next step in
[3:22] revitalizing these communities.
[3:24] A brownfields tax initiative for those
[3:26] who clean up and redevelop contaminated
[3:29] abandoned properties.
[3:31] A $2 billion tax incentive targeted
[3:34] specifically to areas where the poverty
[3:36] rate is 20% or higher.
[3:38] To make it possible for brownfield
[3:40] investors to deduct their cleanup
[3:42] expenses immediately and cut the cost
[3:45] for this type of investment in half.
[3:48] That will bring jobs to the places that
[3:50] have missed out on this recovery.
[3:53] The president urged Republicans to make
[3:55] the effort bipartisan. And that's it for
[3:57] the news summary tonight. Now it's on to
[4:00] a China-Taiwan update, the Wall Street
[4:03] rebound, Super Tuesday,
[4:06] and a David Gergen dialogue.
[4:17] The China-Taiwan problem is our lead
[4:19] tonight. Charlene Hunter-Gault has the
[4:20] story.
[4:22] Tension between mainland China and
[4:24] Taiwan has been simmering for weeks. It
[4:27] went up a few more notches over the
[4:29] weekend. Tomorrow, China begins eight
[4:32] days of military exercises in the Taiwan
[4:35] Strait. The United States has a Navy
[4:37] cruiser group south of Taiwan and an
[4:40] aircraft carrier group north of the
[4:42] island. And more ships are on the way.
[4:45] We start with a report from Taiwan from
[4:48] Ian Williams of Independent Television
[4:50] News.
[4:53] The United States has rarely deployed
[4:55] this much naval firepower in the region
[4:58] since the Vietnam War.
[5:00] The aircraft carrier Independence and
[5:02] her battle fleet, now steaming towards
[5:05] Taiwan, will be joined by the
[5:06] nuclear-powered Nimitz and five or six
[5:09] of her support ships.
[5:11] Their firepower is formidable.
[5:14] Elsewhere in Taipei, where the crisis is
[5:17] dominating the presidential election
[5:19] campaign, officials stressing that the
[5:21] role of the fleet is to watch, not
[5:23] intervene, though they welcome it as a
[5:25] stabilizing factor.
[5:28] The markets didn't see it that way,
[5:30] though. Across the region, they tumbled.
[5:33] Green represents a sell, red is a buy.
[5:36] Taiwan stocks fell by 2% in spite of
[5:39] heavy government intervention.
[5:41] While neighboring Hong Kong, influenced
[5:43] also by a fall on Wall Street, finished
[5:46] 7% down.
[5:48] People feel that
[5:49] it looks like war is imminent with the
[5:52] fleet present because it's interpreted
[5:56] at least by
[5:57] close friends of mine as a negative
[6:00] factor to the security rather than a
[6:02] positive factor.
[6:04] Taipei city officials trying to reassure
[6:07] a nervous population are reopening
[6:09] massive air raid shelters and an
[6:12] emergency control center built inside
[6:14] the hills at a secret location outside
[6:17] the city.
[6:18] They explained to us how the bunker has
[6:20] fallen into disrepair over the past
[6:23] decade while relations with China have
[6:25] been improving.
[6:27] They're now moving rapidly to re-equip
[6:29] both the bunker and air raid shelters,
[6:32] which together they estimate can hold up
[6:34] to 4 million people.
[6:37] For the past 20 years, this bunker was
[6:40] the responsibility of Lin Chu Rong and
[6:42] his family, who are somewhat taken aback
[6:45] by the sudden activity.
[6:48] The best thing would be if we didn't
[6:50] have to use it at all. Isn't that right?
[6:53] The Chinese war games beginning tomorrow
[6:55] will be far bigger than last year,
[6:57] covering 17,000 square kilometers and
[7:01] virtually closing the southern mouth of
[7:03] the Taiwan Strait.
[7:05] Taipei insists they'll show restraint.
[7:08] We are not trying to
[7:10] uh
[7:11] provocate anything. So, so this time we
[7:14] have decide to wait uh until they
[7:19] um start first. Because we do not want
[7:22] to be blamed on the starting of this
[7:26] situation.
[7:27] It was reported today that Hong Kong
[7:29] shipping companies are telling their
[7:31] vessels to keep clear of Taiwan during
[7:34] the eight days of exercises. While
[7:36] airlines are preparing to reroute their
[7:38] flights, a move that will hit services
[7:41] on the busy Hong Kong route.
[7:43] New opinion polls show that China's
[7:45] actions are increasing support for
[7:47] independence, precisely what they claim
[7:50] to be trying to prevent.
[7:52] While officials here believe China's aim
[7:54] now is to force the winner of the
[7:56] presidential election to accept a firm
[7:58] timetable for unity, something that may
[8:01] be politically impossible to accept.
[8:04] The pressure will be racked up
[8:12] Officials here believe they'll take the
[8:14] form of a mock attack on Taiwan and will
[8:17] involve warships, fighter aircraft, and
[8:19] 150,000
[8:21] troops.
[8:22] Those same officials now concede they
[8:24] might have been wrong in their early
[8:26] description of the exercises as merely a
[8:29] show.
[8:31] And now to the Clinton administration's
[8:33] point man on the China-Taiwan crisis,
[8:35] Assistant Secretary of State for East
[8:37] Asia and the Pacific, Winston Lord. Mr.
[8:39] Secretary, thank you for joining us.
[8:41] >> Thanks to be here. The largest show of
[8:43] US force in the Taiwan Strait since
[8:46] Vietnam. Why?
[8:48] It's there as a precautionary measure.
[8:50] It's there to make sure there's no
[8:51] miscalculation in Beijing. It's there to
[8:53] reassure our friends in the area that we
[8:55] have a big stake
[8:57] in the stability and peace of that
[8:59] region. So, it is there to make sure
[9:02] this current dangerous situation does
[9:04] not escalate further. Now, I'd like to
[9:06] make a couple other quick points.
[9:08] It is a serious situation and we have
[9:10] conveyed that in unmistakable terms to
[9:12] China, including in recent days at the
[9:15] highest levels, that what they're doing
[9:17] is reckless and provocative and designed
[9:19] toward intimidation of Taiwan,
[9:20] particularly
[9:22] after the election. Uh we've also, not
[9:24] only in our public and private
[9:25] statements, indicated our concern
[9:27] through the movement of these military
[9:29] assets.
[9:30] At the same time, we are not on the
[9:31] brink of war. Uh the whole purpose of
[9:33] the movement of these assets is to make
[9:35] sure there is no miscalculation, to
[9:37] underline our interests,
[9:38] and to try to get this situation under
[9:40] control. So, we are urging Beijing, as
[9:43] well as Taiwan, but of course in recent
[9:45] days, particularly Beijing, that it's
[9:47] time to reduce tensions and get back to
[9:49] uh direct dialogue. So, we don't take
[9:52] this matter uh with any casualness.
[9:54] Obviously, you've seen our movements,
[9:56] but I don't want our listeners to think
[9:57] that we should exaggerate uh where we
[10:00] are at this point.
[10:01] >> But of course, it's the the escalation
[10:03] is bigger than it's been before. I mean,
[10:05] the there was a presence there last week
[10:07] when they were firing off the missile uh
[10:10] missiles. No, that's correct. The
[10:12] Chinese have continued provocative
[10:14] actions and we've made very clear that
[10:16] we think this could have grave
[10:18] consequences if it escalated into
[10:20] military force. But the whole purpose of
[10:23] our movements, in addition to being
[10:24] precautionary and reassuring, is to make
[10:26] sure there is no miscalculation in
[10:28] Beijing. Well, are they listening? I
[10:30] mean, there was a high-level Chinese
[10:32] official here this weekend who met with
[10:33] the National Security Advisor Anthony
[10:35] Lake. Are they listening?
[10:37] >> Well, so far they have not adjusted
[10:39] their policies. We haven't seen any more
[10:41] firing of missiles since Friday. I don't
[10:42] know if that's significant or not. Uh
[10:44] but they are planning to go ahead with
[10:46] these live ammunition exercises. We'll
[10:48] have to see. I think uh
[10:51] we would like to see tensions reduced
[10:52] immediately. I want to make that clear.
[10:55] I think we're more apt to see Chinese
[10:56] restraint perhaps after the election in
[10:58] Taiwan
[10:59] than before it, but we want to see it
[11:01] right away.
[11:02] But today, Defense Secretary Perry said
[11:04] that he had already received some
[11:06] indication or some reaction from China
[11:08] to the US stance. I mean, what what was
[11:10] he referring to?
[11:11] >> see his exact quotes. The Chinese
[11:13] officials, in private and publicly, have
[11:15] reaffirmed that they still are striving
[11:18] to resolve this issue peacefully, but
[11:20] they have not ruled out the use of
[11:22] force. Uh they have not, however, given
[11:24] us any guarantees yet on reducing uh
[11:27] their provocative actions, but I think
[11:29] uh we have made it very clear to them
[11:31] that the whole premise of our China
[11:32] policy and our Taiwan policy is based on
[11:34] a peaceful resolution of this issue. So,
[11:37] we'd like to think that the message will
[11:39] sink in, but we'll have to wait and see.
[11:41] Is the American build-up going to stop
[11:43] here? I mean, the the troop build-up,
[11:45] the ships in the straits. Are they
[11:47] stopping here?
[11:47] >> on where we go from here, and I would in
[11:49] any event leave that to the Pentagon.
[11:52] But how would the US respond if if you
[11:56] you say that you were there to make sure
[11:57] that China didn't have a miscalculation,
[12:00] but what kind of miscalculation could
[12:02] they have, and then how would the US
[12:04] >> there was any doubt in Beijing's eyes
[12:05] that we didn't have great interest in
[12:08] the area, and there shouldn't be any
[12:09] doubt whether we wouldn't fulfill our
[12:10] obligations under the Taiwan Relations
[12:12] Act in close consultations with the
[12:14] Congress,
[12:15] uh
[12:16] we would like to think that our actions
[12:17] and our rhetoric have removed those
[12:19] doubts.
[12:20] Uh we cannot spell out in advance
[12:22] precisely what we would do. That would
[12:24] depend on the circumstances,
[12:26] uh how a conflict was provoked. Uh we
[12:29] would want to consult with the Congress.
[12:30] Indeed, when the Taiwan Relations Act
[12:32] was passed in 1979, the Congress
[12:35] explicitly said at the time that they
[12:37] wanted any administration to consult
[12:39] with us before taking specific actions.
[12:41] So, we think it's inappropriate to try
[12:42] to spell these out in advance. What we
[12:44] have done is relayed to the Chinese that
[12:46] there would be grave consequences if
[12:48] they resorted to force. But I'd like to
[12:50] add that we have no clear evidence now
[12:52] and and Taiwan, and we're in very close
[12:54] touch with Taiwan, agrees with us that
[12:56] China does not intend to launch military
[12:59] actions. What they're doing is reckless
[13:01] and could lead to miscalculation or
[13:03] accidents.
[13:05] But so far, it is still psychological
[13:07] warfare uh
[13:09] directed at Taiwan's voters and Taiwan's
[13:11] leaders. Who believe that there as you
[13:14] heard in the ITN piece, that war some of
[13:16] whom believe that war is in the
[13:17] >> Well, I again, I I don't want to
[13:18] underestimate the seriousness of the
[13:20] situation. We wouldn't be moving ships
[13:22] if we didn't think it was serious.
[13:24] But I don't think we should exaggerate.
[13:25] We're not on the brink of war. The
[13:26] Chinese do not have the capability for
[13:28] all-out attack, certainly. We see no
[13:31] intention of even more modest military
[13:32] moves. But in order to reduce even that
[13:35] possibility, we're taking these prudent
[13:37] cautionary actions. I understand your
[13:39] your prudence and your care in the words
[13:42] that you've chosen.
[13:44] But let's just say, for the sake of
[13:46] argument, that there is some
[13:47] miscalculation or some accident, because
[13:50] we had someone on the program last week
[13:52] who talked about China's missile firings
[13:55] before this one, and one of them went
[13:56] awry and and blew up. I mean,
[14:00] is the US prepared to engage or fight a
[14:04] war with China now? Or what would be the
[14:06] extent of what we could do? I have to go
[14:10] back to the language of the Taiwan
[14:11] Relations Act and what we've been saying
[14:13] recently, grave consequences.
[14:15] Uh and I won't be more specific than
[14:17] that for reasons I mentioned, but
[14:18] there's no ambiguity in the minds of
[14:20] Beijing that we would react strongly. Uh
[14:22] and I think our friends in the region
[14:24] are reassured by what we're doing, but I
[14:26] want to stress that I think China
[14:27] understands
[14:29] that they would suffer great damage if
[14:31] they resorted to force. And I want to
[14:32] repeat, there's no evidence they plan to
[14:33] do that. In fact, they've told us that
[14:35] they still hope for a peaceful
[14:36] resolution.
[14:37] The impact on their economy, on their
[14:39] relationships with us, Japan, and the
[14:41] whole region, the impact on Hong Kong,
[14:43] which returns to China in 500 days,
[14:46] would be devastating. So, we don't
[14:47] believe China has the motive or the
[14:49] incentive to resort to force, but we
[14:51] want to make sure there's no
[14:51] miscalculation. Well, what is the motive
[14:53] of what they're doing now? I mean, you
[14:55] heard Ian Williams'
[14:57] analysis in in the piece. How do you
[14:59] read what they're up to?
[15:00] >> Well, they're trying to affect perhaps
[15:02] the vote in the election, but I think
[15:03] it's more trying to have an impact on
[15:06] Mr. Lee or whoever is elected, and I
[15:08] think I won't comment on that who will
[15:10] be, but to make sure that whoever's
[15:12] elected pursues what they would consider
[15:14] a one-China policy and doesn't flirt uh
[15:17] with independence. So, they're trying to
[15:18] have that kind of impact. I think,
[15:20] frankly, that they're probably
[15:21] increasing uh Mr. Lee's votes. I like to
[15:24] add one other point, however. In
[15:25] addition to stressing to the Chinese the
[15:27] serious consequences in the straits,
[15:29] we've also made it clear that it
[15:30] complicates our bilateral relations,
[15:32] obviously, and you can see the
[15:34] congressional and domestic as well as
[15:35] the administration's reaction to what
[15:37] they're doing.
[15:38] But the fact is, and we've conveyed this
[15:39] message as well to Beijing, we still
[15:41] would like to pursue a policy of
[15:43] engagement. It's in both countries'
[15:45] long-term security, political, and
[15:47] economic interests to do that. We're
[15:49] determined to do that, but the Chinese
[15:51] have got to show restraint and
[15:53] reasonableness on this and some other
[15:54] issues. You were instrumental in
[15:57] drafting what they call the Shanghai
[15:58] Communique in 1972 that recognized one
[16:03] uh China. How legitimate is the Chinese
[16:06] concern that Taiwan is not going along
[16:09] with one China, that they really do want
[16:11] independence? Well,
[16:13] uh again, I think I'll let Taiwan
[16:15] leaders speak for themselves, but they
[16:17] have said that uh and and Mr. Lee in
[16:20] particular has said that he is not for
[16:22] independence. He's for eventual uh
[16:25] reunification. Beijing professes not to
[16:28] believe him. I think the important thing
[16:30] is get these tensions down and resume
[16:32] direct dialogue between Taiwan and
[16:34] Beijing. We're urging both sides to do
[16:36] that. We're urging both sides to refrain
[16:38] from any provocative actions. We're
[16:40] urging both sides to resolve this issue
[16:42] peacefully. We will not get in the
[16:44] middle in terms of the terms of the
[16:46] resolution or what the future
[16:48] relationship should be. That is up to
[16:50] Taiwan and Beijing. However, we do
[16:53] insist the process be peaceful. You
[16:55] don't have any concerns that the US
[16:57] positioning itself that way and talking
[16:59] to China that way
[17:01] uh gives the impression that the US is
[17:04] tilting toward the Taiwan side.
[17:06] >> No, we've also made clear to Taiwan that
[17:08] we don't think it should take any
[17:09] actions that are provocative or give
[17:11] Beijing any pretext to escalate uh
[17:14] tensions. Obviously, our attention in
[17:16] recent days has been with Beijing, but
[17:17] we've also made clear to Taiwan we think
[17:19] it's in Taiwan's interest uh to resume
[17:22] dialogue with Beijing, and we hope both
[17:24] sides will move in this direction at
[17:26] least after the election. The ITN piece
[17:28] suggested that Bei- Beijing may have
[17:31] overplayed its hand and and forced the
[17:34] pro-independence
[17:36] people into a tougher, stronger
[17:39] uh attitude about independence. Is
[17:41] what's your reading of that? Or do you
[17:43] have a sense of
[17:43] >> that's possible. It's still a very fluid
[17:45] situation. Uh as I said earlier, I think
[17:48] there's a sense that it might strengthen
[17:50] Mr. Lee's hand, but he has said he is
[17:52] not for independence. There are also
[17:54] some pro-reunification forces running
[17:56] for office, but they're being hurt by
[17:58] Beijing's action.
[18:00] Uh
[18:00] the impact on the pro-independence vote,
[18:02] I can't judge. Some of those may rally
[18:04] behind Lee to strengthen his mandate,
[18:07] even though Lee is not for independence.
[18:09] And just briefly, how is all this going
[18:12] to affect US-China relations? We've had
[18:14] other problems recently.
[18:16] >> Well, I want to stress it remains,
[18:18] despite this current tension, in our
[18:20] interest to have a constructive
[18:22] relationship with China. We've had
[18:23] intensive talks again recently, and this
[18:25] process will continue at high levels in
[18:27] coming weeks and months
[18:28] to try to maintain a productive
[18:30] relationship. We have problems not only
[18:32] in Taiwan, but trade, human rights, and
[18:34] nonproliferation.
[18:35] But we cooperate in various areas like
[18:37] Korea, Cambodia, the environment,
[18:40] fighting narcotics traffic, etc. And
[18:43] therefore, our mutual challenge is to
[18:45] navigate the various difficulties we
[18:47] have, particularly over the next year,
[18:49] to maintain a constructive relationship
[18:51] for the long run. But what they're doing
[18:52] in the strait is complicating this
[18:54] issue, and we've made that very clear.
[18:56] Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for
[18:57] joining us.
[18:59] >> Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,
[19:01] the stock market story,
[19:03] a Super Tuesday preview, and a David
[19:06] Gergen dialogue.
[19:07] But first, this is pledge week on public
[19:09] television. We're taking a short break
[19:11] now, so your public television station
[19:13] can ask for your support. That support
[19:15] helps keep programs like this on the
[19:17] air.
[19:20] Good evening and welcome. I'm Francine
[19:22] Raften, and I'm here with Bob Kellogg
[19:24] this evening. The NewsHour was created
[19:26] because public television was convinced
[19:28] that there was an audience for something
[19:30] more than 60-second news bites, and
[19:32] learning more is the reason so many OPB
[19:35] viewers rely on the NewsHour to fill in
[19:37] the gaps left by the network news shows.
[19:40] It's a different approach to the news,
[19:42] making complex issues intelligible by
[19:45] expanding the time devoted to exploring
[19:47] them.
[19:48] Won't you take some time now to give us
[19:50] a call and let us know that the NewsHour
[19:52] has earned your support. I know that it
[19:54] has. All we need is one pledge. Guess
[19:57] whose? Right now, you have a special
[20:00] opportunity to double the value of your
[20:02] donation to OPB. This is very exciting
[20:06] and I want you to listen closely and
[20:07] make sure one hand is very near your
[20:09] phone. Members of OPB's Cornerstone
[20:12] Society have made generous contributions
[20:15] far above their regular membership and
[20:18] and now then Bob, do you have a drum
[20:20] roll? Uh no, no, but then go ahead.
[20:22] >> Okay.
[20:23] For the next 10 minutes, they will match
[20:25] your contribution dollar for dollar. Oh,
[20:28] already somebody's getting the message
[20:29] here. Up to $1,500.
[20:32] Got that? 10 minutes, 1,500 bucks. We
[20:35] got to get that from you so they can
[20:36] match it. Okay? The clock is going to
[20:38] start right It started. There we go. 9
[20:40] minutes, 50 seconds left to go. T minus
[20:43] and counting and we need you to call in
[20:44] right now. This challenge fund is made
[20:47] possible by the members of OPB's
[20:48] Cornerstone Society and we salute each
[20:50] and every one of them who are waiting
[20:52] now to get your call. The challenge is
[20:54] on and we're waiting to hear from you.
[20:56] The numbers are simple. Remember, if
[20:59] you're calling from Portland, dial
[21:00] 245-2345.
[21:03] Anywhere else in our viewing area,
[21:05] that's all of Oregon and Southwest
[21:06] Washington, you pick up the phone right
[21:08] now and make sure that we get this
[21:10] matching pledge dialing 1-800-245-2346.
[21:15] Memberships begin at $35 a year, but if
[21:17] you're able to support OPB at a higher
[21:19] level, think about this. Right now, for
[21:21] a pledge of $75, you can have Well, you
[21:24] can have this handsome black and gold
[21:26] tankard mug. Or how about an investment
[21:29] of $125
[21:30] for a matching OPB black and gold
[21:32] sweatshirt?
[21:34] It's so smart, very fetching and it can
[21:37] be yours. Your $60 contribution to OPB
[21:40] brings you this delightful book, Where
[21:42] to Find the Oregon in Oregon. It's by
[21:45] Bridget Batey McCarthy and it's a
[21:47] comprehensive guide to Oregon's special
[21:49] places that represent the essence of the
[21:52] state. Plus a listing of establishments
[21:54] whose products or services offer a local
[21:57] or a regional experience. This
[21:59] easy-to-use book is yours with your $60
[22:02] contribution to OPB. These great gifts
[22:06] are great ways to support TV worth
[22:08] watching. We have 8 minutes and 21
[22:11] seconds remaining now for you to get
[22:12] your calls in so we can match the
[22:14] generous pledges of our Cornerstone
[22:16] Society. We need to make 1,500 bucks on
[22:19] this end for them to match it and it
[22:21] makes your pledge double in value. We
[22:24] really need you to call. So, if you're
[22:25] calling from Portland, pick it up and
[22:27] dial 245-2345.
[22:29] Anywhere else in our viewing area,
[22:31] that's all of Oregon and Southwest
[22:33] Washington, you can call toll-free
[22:35] 1-800-245-2346.
[22:40] Our world is complex and often baffling
[22:43] and OPB is always there when you need
[22:45] the kind of clarity that comes from
[22:47] digging deep beneath the surface of the
[22:49] headlines.
[22:50] The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour takes a full
[22:52] hour to examine the important stories.
[22:55] FRONTLINE investigates one issue at a
[22:57] time.
[22:58] Washington Week in Review and Wall
[23:00] Street Week help demystify the worlds of
[23:02] politics and finance.
[23:05] From Washington to Moscow, from Wall
[23:07] Street to your street, on OPB the
[23:10] difference is depth and the difference
[23:12] is you.
[23:14] Become a member now.
[23:17] Besides the programs, membership in OPB
[23:19] offers tangible benefits, too. As a
[23:21] member, you'll receive a year's
[23:22] subscription to Oregon Focus, our
[23:24] magazine and program guide, and an OPB
[23:27] member card, your ticket to VIP
[23:29] discounts at museums and cultural events
[23:32] around the region.
[23:33] A program like the NewsHour is a
[23:35] monument to how good television can be
[23:37] when it's used as a tool to encourage
[23:39] thought and expand understanding. And
[23:42] I'm grateful to OPB for including us in
[23:44] that search. If you feel the same way,
[23:46] this is your chance to let us know. And
[23:49] there is no better opportunity because
[23:51] your pledge is doubled by the
[23:52] Cornerstone Society's generous offer to
[23:54] match. In the next 6 minutes and 34
[23:57] seconds and counting and you can see the
[23:59] clock as well as I. You need to get your
[24:01] pledge in because they will match it up
[24:03] to $1,500.
[24:04] So, please call now from Portland
[24:06] 245-2345.
[24:08] Elsewhere in Oregon and Southwest
[24:10] watching Washington, wherever you're
[24:12] watching, that's a toll-free number
[24:14] 1-800-245-2346.
[24:18] And remember that none of this could
[24:19] have happened without two important
[24:20] elements. One, public TV's respect for
[24:23] you as an audience and two, your
[24:25] financial support for OPB and programs
[24:27] like the NewsHour. It's an investment in
[24:29] the future that's worth every dollar you
[24:31] contribute.
[24:33] Well, we're almost about halfway through
[24:35] our 10 minutes here. 5 minutes, 54
[24:37] seconds. I just want you to know how
[24:39] much time is left. So, if you haven't
[24:40] been able to get through or you need to
[24:41] get to your phone, you got to do it now.
[24:44] We've got about about 5 and 1/2 minutes
[24:45] left to go to match your pledge. Some
[24:48] people are curious about OPB's funding
[24:50] sources. Before I give you that
[24:52] breakdown, let me once again repeat the
[24:53] phone number so you can get your calls
[24:55] in during this special matching time.
[24:57] 245-2345
[24:59] in Portland or toll-free 1-800-245-2346.
[25:04] Make those call now. Right about 5 and
[25:06] 1/2 minutes left in our little matching
[25:08] segment here and our Cornerstone Society
[25:10] folks are just waiting to talk to you.
[25:12] So, now let me give you the specifics
[25:14] about OPB's funding sources. This is
[25:16] very interesting. It might be an
[25:17] eye-opener for you. Here's how it
[25:19] currently breaks out. A little over 19%
[25:22] of OPB's operating budget comes from the
[25:24] state. 11% comes from the Corporation
[25:27] for Public Broadcasting. 12% comes from
[25:30] earned income. Underwriting makes up 8%
[25:33] of OPB's budget. But, here we go. The
[25:36] majority of OPB's operating budget,
[25:39] almost 50%, comes from individual
[25:43] contributions. That's your membership
[25:45] dollars. So, you can see how vitally
[25:47] important you are to OPB. Your financial
[25:50] support is the foundation for everything
[25:53] Oregon Public Broadcasting is today and
[25:56] what it will be in the future. And the
[25:58] easiest way to pledge to OPB is on that
[26:01] ever popular plastic. Send us that
[26:03] credit card number uh by the phone. Pick
[26:05] it up and dial 245-2345
[26:08] or 1-800-245-2346.
[26:11] You can choose a one-time payment plan
[26:13] or spread your contribution out over a
[26:15] period of time. Again, your Visa,
[26:17] American Express, Discover or MasterCard
[26:20] also keeps, you know, postage and
[26:21] handling down and printing costs as
[26:23] well. If you're in the Portland area and
[26:26] you have about a 4 minutes left to
[26:28] really take advantage of the matching
[26:30] grant opportunity from our Cornerstone
[26:32] Society. In Portland, call 245-2345
[26:36] and from the desert, the valley, the
[26:37] gorge or the coast, use our toll-free
[26:40] number 1-800-245-2346.
[26:44] Enjoy an evening with Rick Steves, uh
[26:46] public TV's popular host of Travels with
[26:48] Rick Steves, compliments of OPB when you
[26:50] contribute $120 to OPB. You'll receive a
[26:54] pair of tickets to a reception and his
[26:56] lecture on Sunday, March 31st at the
[26:58] Northwest Service Center at 6:00 p.m.
[27:00] Plus, you'll get two books, Best Travels
[27:03] in Europe and Europe 101, a guide to
[27:06] museums throughout Europe. And of
[27:08] course, the books are autographed by
[27:09] Rick himself. So, don't miss this
[27:11] opportunity to meet Rick Steves and all
[27:13] it takes is your $120 donation to OPB.
[27:17] If you're calling from Portland, the
[27:18] number is 245-2345
[27:20] or for your convenience, we have a
[27:21] toll-free number for pledges from
[27:23] anywhere in our viewing area. That's
[27:24] 1-800-245-2346.
[27:27] Look at that clock, Francine. Ooh, we're
[27:29] into the home stretch now, Bob. 3
[27:31] minutes and counting. 2 minutes, 58
[27:33] seconds. I feel like NASA. A little bit
[27:35] like NASA here. But, it's so important
[27:37] that you get in before the countdown
[27:39] clock zeros out because the funds again
[27:42] will be matched. We can match up to
[27:44] $1,500
[27:45] and if you've been getting the message
[27:47] here this evening, those dollars are
[27:49] vitally important to Oregon Public
[27:51] Broadcasting. Remember, commercial
[27:53] television has the statutory authority
[27:55] to sell commercial time to raise money.
[27:58] That option doesn't happen here at
[28:00] Oregon Public Broadcasting. We don't
[28:02] access that and can't. Instead, the
[28:04] programs themselves have to sell you on
[28:06] the idea of making a voluntary
[28:08] contribution to support this station.
[28:11] It's your decision. But, if you're one
[28:13] of the regular viewers of this
[28:15] remarkable news program, well, then you
[28:17] already know how pledges can improve the
[28:19] quality of television journalism. And
[28:22] we're depending on that insight to
[28:24] convince you to pick up that phone and
[28:27] make a contribution of your own. Pick it
[28:29] up right now while the phone
[28:32] the clock is ticking down. We've got
[28:33] about 2 minutes left to go. In Portland,
[28:36] 245-2345
[28:37] or toll-free 1-800-245-2346
[28:41] from anywhere else in Oregon and
[28:43] Southwest Washington. Once again, here
[28:45] are the thank you gifts we're offering
[28:46] during this break. Take a look at this
[28:48] terrific looking OPB black and gold
[28:50] tankard mug. Isn't it handsome? Well,
[28:52] for a pledge of $75, we'll send it right
[28:54] out to you. Also, you can have a
[28:56] matching OPB black and gold sweatshirt
[28:59] if you'll support OPB with a $125
[29:02] pledge. Your $60 contribution to OPB
[29:04] brings you this delightful book, Where
[29:07] to Find the Oregon in Oregon by Bridget
[29:10] Batey McCarthy. It's a comprehensive
[29:11] guide to Oregon's special places that
[29:14] represent the essence of the state. Plus
[29:16] a listing of establishments whose
[29:18] products or services offer a local or
[29:20] regional experience. It's this
[29:22] easy-to-use book is yours with your $60
[29:24] donation to OPB. If
[29:26] area, please call us now at 245-2345.
[29:29] From the desert, from the valley, the
[29:30] gorge or the coast, use the toll-free
[29:32] number 1-800-245-2346.
[29:35] We're under a minute.
[29:36] >> We're under a minute now and you can
[29:37] still get in the your call and help with
[29:39] our matching contributions from the
[29:41] Cornerstone Society of OPB. Oh, it's
[29:44] exciting. 46 seconds left and I hope
[29:46] we've been able to match that total.
[29:48] We're looking for 1,500, and well,
[29:50] you'll be able to sit back and enjoy the
[29:51] rest of the evening knowing that you've
[29:53] done your part for Oregon Public
[29:55] Broadcasting. Hey, enjoy an evening with
[29:57] Rick Steves, Public TV's popular host of
[29:59] Travels with Rick Steves, compliments of
[30:01] OPB, when you contribute $120 to OPB.
[30:05] You'll get a pair of tickets to a
[30:06] reception and his lecture Sunday, March
[30:08] 31st at the Northwest Service Center at
[30:10] 6:00. Plus, couple of books, Best
[30:13] Travels in Europe and Europe 101, a
[30:15] guide to museums throughout Europe. And
[30:17] of course, the books are autographed by
[30:19] the Rickster himself. Again, 245-2345
[30:23] or 1-800-245-2346.
[30:27] Thank you very much for demonstrating
[30:29] your support for Oregon Public
[30:30] Broadcasting.
[30:36] You can mail your contribution to Oregon
[30:38] Public Broadcasting, P.O. Box 4373,
[30:42] Portland, Oregon 97208.
[30:45] Or call 245-2345
[30:48] or 1-800-245-2346,
[30:51] and your phone volunteer will be happy
[30:53] to take your contribution.
[31:04] Now, why the stock market is doing what
[31:06] it's doing, and to our economics
[31:08] correspondent, Paul Solman of WGBH,
[31:11] Boston.
[31:12] Friday, down 171 points. Today, up 110.
[31:16] The end of one week and worries of a
[31:18] crash, the beginning of the next week,
[31:20] and it seems as if the bull market
[31:21] charges on.
[31:23] What's going on, and what's the
[31:24] connection between Wall Street and Main
[31:26] Street? Well, for these and other
[31:27] questions, we turn to David Hale, chief
[31:29] economist of Kemper Financial Companies,
[31:32] an investment and insurance group. And
[31:33] Mr. Hale, welcome. So, it looks to most
[31:36] of us or many of us like wild swings or
[31:39] huge swings, big swings at least.
[31:41] Why the swings? Well, there's elements
[31:44] of both schizophrenia and hypochondria
[31:45] in the market right now. We had a month
[31:47] ago many investors believing the US
[31:49] economy was heading into a period of
[31:51] recession or very slow growth, which
[31:52] would ensure that the federal funds
[31:54] rate, the key money market yield in our
[31:56] financial markets, would fall from
[31:58] 5 and 1/2% down to maybe 4 and 1/2 or
[32:00] even 4%.
[32:01] >> That is to
[32:03] see if I'm with you, the Federal Reserve
[32:04] would then lower interest rates Yes.
[32:07] because of a slow economy.
[32:08] >> That's right, revive the economy.
[32:09] >> Right, okay. Uh the data over the last
[32:11] month has been very mixed. We had clear
[32:13] evidence of weakness in the industrial
[32:15] sector,
[32:16] but we also had evidence that retail
[32:18] sales has begun to recover after a poor
[32:20] Christmas and a very depressed January
[32:22] because of severe weather and also the
[32:23] government shutdown. Right. But
[32:25] yesterday's numbers suggested the
[32:26] economy might be entering a boom. We had
[32:28] employment growth twice as high
[32:30] >> Not yesterday, you mean Friday.
[32:31] >> On Friday.
[32:32] >> Right, okay. twice as high as most
[32:33] economists expected. Now, there's
[32:34] explanations for this. Because of the
[32:36] government shutdown, we've had
[32:37] distortions in the survey week. In
[32:39] addition, because of the government
[32:40] shutdown and the severe winter weather
[32:42] in January, a lot of business was
[32:43] delayed. And the major source of
[32:45] employment growth last month was
[32:46] temporary help agencies. There were
[32:48] gains in construction, gains in
[32:49] manufacturing, but temporary help
[32:51] agencies boomed. So, that means it
[32:52] wasn't as amazing as it might have
[32:54] seemed.
[32:55] >> I think with the advantage of hindsight,
[32:56] after the weekend, the market reflected
[32:58] and decided these numbers were so
[32:59] extreme that we should be discounted
[33:01] somewhat.
[33:01] >> Now, but so then, do you mean that
[33:03] interest rates are the sole determinant
[33:05] or the major determinant of these swings
[33:07] up and down in the stock market? No, the
[33:09] market's a function of earnings growth
[33:11] and interest rates both. And what we've
[33:12] had over the last year has been
[33:14] reasonably good growth in corporate
[33:15] profits and modest gradual Fed easing.
[33:18] The market might have had a correction
[33:20] for a few weeks and still rallied later
[33:21] in the spring as the market began to
[33:23] focus on profits again. But in recent
[33:25] weeks, we've had bond yields in the
[33:26] United States
[33:28] rise by almost 100 basis points.
[33:29] >> That means that it costs more money to
[33:31] borrow money.
[33:32] >> The interest rate on long-term
[33:33] government bonds got down to about 5 and
[33:35] 3/4% in early January hoping for a
[33:38] deficit reduction breakthrough, slow
[33:40] economy, lower foreign rates. But over
[33:42] the course of January and February,
[33:44] those hopes were disappointed. And then
[33:46] last week, we had a further shattering
[33:48] of those hopes in the markets because of
[33:49] the strong employment numbers.
[33:50] >> Is this how the market always moves? I
[33:52] mean, it's either earnings or it's
[33:54] interest rates. Is there Is that it?
[33:55] Well, those are the two primary
[33:57] determinants of the stock market value
[33:59] over time. But from day to day and week
[34:01] to week, you can have policy events.
[34:02] This news in China tonight could be
[34:04] threatening to the market tomorrow
[34:05] depending on what happens, concern about
[34:07] the primaries and what it might do to
[34:08] trade policy. But over time, the market
[34:10] historically is heavily influenced by
[34:12] the interaction of profit and interest
[34:14] rates.
[34:14] >> Okay, now, here's a key question. Do
[34:16] swings like this matter, or is this
[34:18] something that the news media in our
[34:19] infinite wisdom blow out of proportion
[34:21] time and again? Well, it matters in the
[34:23] sense that one in three Americans now
[34:25] owns a mutual fund.
[34:27] We now have
[34:27] >> Owns Owns a share of a Owns a share of
[34:29] stock in a mutual fund. 30 million
[34:30] Americans own equities directly. And the
[34:32] value of the stock market has a big
[34:33] influence on the cost of capital for
[34:35] business.
[34:36] So, if this turns into a trend where the
[34:38] market becomes stronger week over a
[34:40] period of several days or several weeks,
[34:42] it would influence the economy. But one
[34:44] or two day volatility, we've been
[34:45] accustomed to that.
[34:46] >> Well, how does it influence the the
[34:47] economy? I mean, just people feel
[34:49] richer. I get that because if if lots of
[34:51] people are invested If we have a
[34:52] sustained movement in the market over a
[34:54] few months with prices rising or falling
[34:56] by say say 10 or 20%, that would affect
[34:58] consumer perceptions of wealth. It would
[35:00] affect the business cost of capital. So,
[35:02] what what would consumer Then then
[35:03] people would spend more money, you mean?
[35:05] Well, last year, even though we had
[35:07] sluggish growth in employment and
[35:08] income, we did have benefits to the
[35:10] economy from rising share prices. Some
[35:12] consumers spent more than they earned
[35:13] because they had stock market gains.
[35:15] >> But does it matter if it's 170 up and
[35:17] 110 down and one I mean Day-to-day
[35:19] volatility has no significant impact on
[35:21] the economy. This would have mattered on
[35:22] Friday if it had been confirmed by
[35:24] further weakness on Monday. Then you
[35:26] would have had discussion about maybe
[35:27] we're in a more protracted
[35:28] consolidation. One thing you hear a lot
[35:30] of talk about is the disconnect between
[35:32] the economy and the market. That is, we
[35:34] hear good news in the economy, jobs are
[35:36] created, and the market goes down. AT&T
[35:38] lays people off, AT&T stock goes up.
[35:41] What's going on? Is there a disconnect,
[35:43] and if so, is that the first time this
[35:44] has happened? No, no, there's very much
[35:45] a connect, but what's different are the
[35:47] time lags involved. Right now, the stock
[35:49] market is focusing on where the US
[35:50] economy will be in 6 months or 9 months.
[35:53] And basically, the market a month ago
[35:55] was discounting further monetary easing
[35:57] to revive the economy later this year
[35:59] and certainly in 1997. Now, suddenly the
[36:01] market has to confront the risk that
[36:03] interest rates are going to stall or
[36:05] might even go back up again at some
[36:06] point. That changes the timing of
[36:08] things. Day-to-day, we can have swings
[36:10] in sentiment in response to many
[36:12] factors, election news, foreign policy
[36:14] news, a surprise economic number. But
[36:16] over time, the market does correlate
[36:19] with the economy and does influence the
[36:20] economy. But day-to-day, we can all have
[36:22] mood swings, and the financial markets
[36:24] aren't any different cuz they're a
[36:25] reflection of human behavior. So, the
[36:28] disconnect is a short-term phenomenon,
[36:31] but overall, you say stock market goes
[36:33] up, that means the economy's doing well.
[36:35] >> That's right. All else equal. Over a
[36:38] period of 6 months to a year, there's a
[36:39] very strong correlation between the
[36:40] stock market and the economy with the
[36:42] only caveat being the stock market's
[36:44] always looking forward 6 months. So, the
[36:46] strength of the stock market is telling
[36:48] us a lot in the last few months about
[36:50] the economic outlook for later this
[36:51] year. Well, we'll see if you're right.
[36:53] Thank you very much for joining us.
[36:54] Okay.
[37:04] Now, a Super Tuesday preview. Tomorrow,
[37:06] 362 delegates to the Republican National
[37:09] Convention will be chosen in seven
[37:11] states, including Texas and Florida. We
[37:14] look at the prospects now with three
[37:15] political reporters, Elizabeth Arnold of
[37:17] National Public Radio, Ron Brownstein of
[37:20] the Los Angeles Times, and Tom Fiedler
[37:23] of the Miami Herald. Elizabeth, the
[37:24] conventional wisdom is that Bob Dole is
[37:26] going to sweep all seven states
[37:28] tomorrow. Can you add or subtract from
[37:31] the conventional wisdom? You're always
[37:32] asking us to predict.
[37:34] And this is a pretty safe prediction, I
[37:36] think. Um what's interesting to me is
[37:38] everything that his rivals and all of us
[37:40] said were was going against him, his age
[37:43] and his experience, uh is not so
[37:45] hard-line on conservative issues, they
[37:47] are all turning out to be the things
[37:48] that voters say they like about him. So,
[37:49] so no, I don't see anything that's going
[37:51] to upset tomorrow. Ron? Well, the
[37:53] three-way
[37:56] squeeze that we talked about before New
[37:58] Hampshire really has broken down.
[38:00] Forbes, Alexander's out of the race on
[38:02] the one hand. Forbes has really not much
[38:04] Dole has successfully cut into
[38:06] Buchanan's base among very conservative
[38:07] and religious conservative voters, and
[38:09] this has propelled them, I think, far
[38:10] out of their reach in most states. In a
[38:12] In a perfect world, many of these states
[38:14] would be good for Pat Buchanan, but at
[38:15] this point in the race, when people see
[38:16] Dole as the presumptive nominee, his his
[38:19] floor is really falling out from under
[38:20] him. What about in Florida, Tom? Dole
[38:23] Dole going to win? That's what the polls
[38:25] say. I think there's no question that
[38:26] Dole is going to win. There is only
[38:29] I guess the slightest possibility that
[38:30] Pat Buchanan could put something
[38:33] together, perhaps a uh bad weather in
[38:35] the Florida panhandle, a very low
[38:37] turnout, complacency on the part of
[38:39] Dole's supporters that could create a
[38:41] situation where Pat Buchanan could do
[38:44] well in the first and second
[38:46] congressional district. I think the the
[38:48] probability of that is fairly low, and
[38:50] uh the likelihood that Bob Dole will
[38:52] come out of here with all 98 delegates
[38:54] is fairly high. What's the basis of the
[38:56] Dole support in Florida? Why is he going
[38:58] to do so well? Uh the organization, I
[39:01] think, number one. He He really does
[39:03] have everybody in this state who who is
[39:06] able to move large numbers of people. Uh
[39:09] secondly, Pat Buchanan
[39:11] >> move them politically or move them
[39:12] physically to the polls or both? I
[39:14] suppose both. Um Elizabeth touched on
[39:16] this a moment ago, the idea of
[39:19] experience in government. I mean, a lot
[39:21] of us, I think, discounted that a year
[39:23] ago. This was going to be a year when
[39:25] the outsider was supposed to do well. Uh
[39:27] the electorate, certainly the electorate
[39:29] in Florida, is having none of that. I
[39:31] think one of the most important factors
[39:33] that Republicans here are looking for is
[39:35] somebody who can go in and actually make
[39:38] deficit reduction a reality and any
[39:39] number of other things. Um the Florida
[39:43] The Florida voters from what I can tell
[39:45] here do not want to roll the dice and
[39:46] try a Steve Forbes or or they're not
[39:48] angry enough to go for a Pat Buchanan.
[39:50] You agree with Elizabeth's analysis too
[39:53] of why Buchanan has not caught on? Is
[39:55] that Does that work in Florida as well?
[39:57] It does. It does. And I think you can
[39:59] add to that the the the factor of
[40:01] organization.
[40:03] Pat Buchanan has not been able to put
[40:05] together the kind of infrastructure here
[40:07] that I think would help. Just one
[40:08] example, he He spent a little better
[40:11] than one day here since
[40:13] the junior Tuesday a week ago and he
[40:16] chose to spend that day in Miami, which
[40:18] is probably the single least friendly
[40:20] area of him in the entire state. The
[40:23] area where he might have done something
[40:24] up in North Florida, he's completely
[40:26] ignored. I think that's just a function
[40:27] of
[40:29] less than sophisticated operation.
[40:31] Elizabeth, let's move around a little
[40:32] bit. Texas is another big state
[40:34] tomorrow.
[40:35] The polls there show also the the same
[40:38] result. In fact, even stronger term Do
[40:40] they not in Florida? What Buchanan was
[40:42] expected to do well there? Why not? He
[40:45] has pockets of support in Texas. By
[40:47] contrast, I should say that Senator Dole
[40:48] has only spent two days in Texas because
[40:50] he feels so secure about it. In fact,
[40:52] the first day he didn't even meet a
[40:53] single voter. He met with President
[40:55] George Bush and his son, who's the
[40:56] governor.
[40:58] I think that that that Senator Dole has
[41:00] neutralized a lot of Buchanan's issues.
[41:04] Protectionism, just like he did with the
[41:05] flat tax. He Forbes sort of co-opted the
[41:07] flat tax by saying
[41:09] I'm interested in that idea. With
[41:11] protectionism, he's come out and talked
[41:13] about trade in every single state. And
[41:15] And I think he's dampened Buchanan's a
[41:17] certain constituency Buchanan has. He
[41:19] has a certain He's got pockets in Texas
[41:21] and most folks are going to come out and
[41:22] vote for him. He doesn't really need
[41:24] organization for those folks, but but
[41:27] it's it's definitely a Dole state. And
[41:29] the big The big issues that Buchanan has
[41:31] raised like immigration, which which a
[41:33] lot of people who don't know Texas but
[41:35] only from the outside, oh well, that'll
[41:36] be a big issue down there. It's just the
[41:38] opposite.
[41:38] >> Texas historically is very different
[41:39] than California on this issue. Much
[41:41] higher percentage of the
[41:42] Mexican-Americans in Texas are citizens.
[41:44] They've had a lot more political
[41:45] influence. You have a governor in George
[41:47] W. Bush who's very hostile to the
[41:49] anti-immigration message unlike Pete
[41:52] Wilson. You know, but a lot of this Jim
[41:53] is the process itself. What we're seeing
[41:55] here is the fruit of the compression of
[41:57] the primary calendar to the point that
[41:59] it that it has been compressed. It is
[42:00] very difficult for any of these
[42:02] candidates to launch an independent
[42:04] effort in any of these states. In
[42:05] Florida or Texas or Mississippi, the
[42:07] main piece of information voters are
[42:08] getting about these candidates is who
[42:10] won Georgia and Colorado and
[42:11] Connecticut. And the the domino
[42:14] They can only the the thought that
[42:16] you're going to influence Texas or
[42:17] Florida with a day or two of campaigning
[42:19] and a week of media is ludicrous. You
[42:21] can run media for 6 months as a
[42:23] gubernatorial candidate in Texas or
[42:24] Florida and on election day 40% of the
[42:26] people still don't know who you know
[42:27] really know much about you. So it it's
[42:30] really sort of rolling along. This is
[42:32] what the party leaders said they wanted,
[42:34] but I think now even many of them are
[42:36] really uncertain whether this was too
[42:37] much. Tom, would you agree with that
[42:39] that we we got all We mean in the
[42:40] national
[42:42] political reporting types got all
[42:44] fixated on Iowa and New Hampshire
[42:46] because it was retail, because it was
[42:48] very intense. And then the expectation
[42:50] was that oh well, the same thing will
[42:51] happen in all these states and it's very
[42:53] It's impossible, right? I I think voters
[42:55] did anticipate that they would get a
[42:57] bigger slice of this than they did.
[42:59] Although Floridians shouldn't complain
[43:00] because we had this Republican Party
[43:02] straw poll in November that actually
[43:05] drew a great deal of participation by
[43:07] the candidates down here. I'd like to
[43:09] mention to pick up on what what Ron was
[43:11] also saying there's the two pillars of
[43:14] Pat Buchanan's campaign, trade and
[43:16] immigration, work against him badly
[43:19] here.
[43:20] The Cuban-American community in South
[43:22] Florida certainly doesn't want to hear
[43:24] Pat Buchanan talk about cutting off
[43:26] immigration for for 5 years. And this is
[43:29] an economy that is generating literally
[43:32] 500,000 jobs because of our foreign
[43:35] trade. So those those things I think are
[43:37] are devastating to him. Elizabeth, back
[43:40] to the to the to the quote big picture
[43:42] here for a moment. The expectation here
[43:44] again, conventional wisdom expectation
[43:47] is that it The results don't matter
[43:49] tomorrow to Pat Buchanan or Steve
[43:51] Forbes. They're still going to be in on
[43:53] Wednesday. Is that Is there anything
[43:54] happened that I don't know about
[43:56] that would make you think otherwise? I
[43:58] think that's what Senator Bob Dole
[43:59] believes as well. So I I don't think I
[44:02] think they are in it for the duration. I
[44:03] don't necessarily think either of them
[44:05] are in it because they think they're
[44:07] going to be the nominee. I think they're
[44:09] in it to influence the process and to
[44:11] get their issues on the table. I think
[44:12] that the supply-siders have their man in
[44:15] in Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan has his
[44:17] appeal as well. And And we're going to
[44:18] hear And And Senator Dole talks about
[44:20] this. He says it could be a messy
[44:21] convention.
[44:23] But Ron, the the
[44:25] There's been speculation the last 48
[44:28] hours or so that the Buchanan strategy
[44:30] to hang in there means he gets beaten
[44:32] seven times on a Tuesday and then and
[44:35] then another four times on another
[44:36] Tuesday and whatever that he might in
[44:38] fact lose his influence at the
[44:39] convention rather than gain it if he
[44:41] stays in. What's your reading of that?
[44:43] >> Both of them. I think Forbes You know,
[44:44] Forbes is even more ironic. Forbes has
[44:46] put 25 Who knows how much? 30 million by
[44:48] now into this race. He's not only not
[44:49] going to be president, he has buried the
[44:51] idea that drove him into this race. The
[44:52] flat tax as he's proposed it is really
[44:55] interred at this point. Bob Dole has
[44:57] walked away from the central provisions
[44:58] of it and nothing like it is going
[45:00] Nothing like it as Forbes proposed it is
[45:02] going to be in the Republican platform.
[45:03] And Buchanan obviously risks this runs
[45:05] the same risk. If he is shows himself to
[45:07] be nothing more than really a niche
[45:09] candidate, to some extent his influence
[45:11] is diminished. With one exception, I
[45:12] think that he has shown the continuing
[45:14] power of the anti-abortion issue to
[45:16] motivate an important part of the
[45:17] Republican constituency, the Republican
[45:19] coalition. And I think he's raised some
[45:20] fears among Republicans about having a
[45:22] pro-choice vice president, much less
[45:25] changing the platform. Well, that was
[45:26] that was
[45:27] Senator D'Amato, a Republican of New
[45:29] York, co-chairman of the Dole campaign
[45:31] nationally, suggested very forcefully
[45:34] today in an in a newspaper interview
[45:36] that Colin Powell would be the dream
[45:38] vice presidential candidate for running
[45:41] mate for for Senator Dole. And of course
[45:43] brought down all kinds of protests and
[45:45] and firmed up Buchanan in a way, did he
[45:47] not? And I also think Buchanan is going
[45:49] to is going to cause problems in the
[45:51] primaries ahead in in Michigan and Ohio
[45:53] and Illinois just like
[45:55] Jerry Brown did in 1992.
[45:58] Even if even if his influence
[46:00] diminishes, he's still a problem, I
[46:02] think. But and and what what But a major
[46:04] problem? Not a major. Well, there's a
[46:06] long tradition of buyer's remorse in the
[46:07] presidential elections. Once somebody
[46:09] seems to have the nomination sewn up,
[46:11] they often start losing primaries. It
[46:12] happened to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
[46:14] both in '76. It happened to Walter
[46:15] Mondale in '84. It's It Even as you
[46:18] mentioned in '92 when Bill Clinton
[46:19] seemed to have it sewn up, he lost to
[46:21] Jerry Brown in Connecticut. So there
[46:22] could be surprises down the road. But
[46:24] ultimately, I think that you know, if
[46:25] Bob Dole does as well as it looks like
[46:27] he's going to do tomorrow night,
[46:29] by Wednesday people are going to be
[46:30] saying this thing is effectively over.
[46:32] And Tom, as you said earlier, that has
[46:34] an influence on voters, does it not? I
[46:35] mean, the people of Florida were
[46:37] influenced by what happened a week ago
[46:39] and what happened in New York on
[46:40] Thursday and all of these things, right?
[46:42] Oh, absolutely. Not only does it narrow
[46:44] the choices, but the arguments become
[46:46] very constrained there. I You know,
[46:49] Ron, though you're citing what had
[46:50] happened in previous campaigns, I don't
[46:52] know that that applies to this. There
[46:53] There almost isn't time for much buyer's
[46:55] remorse to settle in here. There was a
[46:57] time when California's qualifying date
[46:59] was very late and you could have you
[47:01] could see a Jerry Brown jump in and do
[47:03] something. This is really going to be
[47:04] all over in 2 weeks. And then if people
[47:07] have buyer's remorse remorse, I think
[47:09] they'll just have to go home and sulk
[47:10] about it. There's no Nobody else going
[47:12] to elbow their way in. Elizabeth, is
[47:15] there any lesson to be learned from the
[47:17] way
[47:18] the Bush folks handled the Buchanan
[47:21] challenge?
[47:22] Well, I think it depends on
[47:24] I think that Senator Dole has has said
[47:27] several times that perhaps after what
[47:29] happens tomorrow, somebody not him
[47:32] should reach out to Pat Buchanan. But I
[47:33] think it sort of depends on who's got
[47:35] the most leverage. And And as you're
[47:37] saying, maybe after a few more defeats,
[47:39] he doesn't have as much leverage. So you
[47:41] would agree with that that he's losing
[47:43] He may It's possible at least that he
[47:45] may lose power as he could stays in
[47:47] rather than gain it. I agree that it's
[47:49] possible, but I think that he's very
[47:51] capable of causing a lot of problems for
[47:52] Senator Dole.
[47:54] To me, a large unanswered question is
[47:55] how important the relationship with
[47:57] Buchanan is to ultimately winning back
[47:58] Buchanan's voters. You know, at least
[48:00] half of his vote in most states come
[48:02] from religious conservatives and they
[48:03] are the most They are a very solidly
[48:05] Republican group now. No matter what
[48:07] Buchanan says, they're going to vote for
[48:08] Bob Dole. You're saying You're You're
[48:09] not same, Tom. Yeah, I I think there is
[48:11] a peacemaker there and it's Ralph Reed
[48:13] or it's Pat Robertson. I think it'd be
[48:14] at when the appropriate time comes,
[48:17] Ralph Reed or Pat Robertson will come in
[48:19] and say to those anti-abortion voters
[48:21] primarily that it's time to to come to
[48:23] Bob Dole. And I think that would leave
[48:26] Pat Buchanan very much off on the
[48:27] sidelines unless he's ready to go in
[48:29] himself. All right, Tom, Ron, Elizabeth,
[48:31] thank you very much. Thank you.
[48:42] Finally tonight, a Gergen Dialogue.
[48:44] David Gergen, editor at large of U.S.
[48:46] News & World Report, engages Seymour
[48:48] Martin Lipset, professor of public
[48:50] policy at George Mason University,
[48:52] author of American Exceptionalism, A
[48:54] Double-Edged Sword. Marty, you've
[48:57] written a book about how and why America
[48:59] is different from many other
[49:01] industrialized countries. And you had an
[49:03] example
[49:04] that helped illustrate that I thought
[49:06] very well about the American experience
[49:07] and Canadian experience. 25 years ago,
[49:09] both governments announced to the people
[49:11] of their countries that they were going
[49:12] to move to the metric system. What
[49:14] happened and what does that tell us
[49:15] about America?
[49:16] >> Well, it's a it's a wonderful example, I
[49:18] think. The
[49:20] Both countries, as you say, were told to
[49:21] go metric, to drop miles and inches and
[49:24] go to
[49:25] meters and kilograms and the like.
[49:27] And And after 15 years, both countries
[49:30] were supposed to be only metric. Well,
[49:32] you know, if you go to Canada and you
[49:33] see you can drive 100 an hour, that
[49:35] means kilometers, not miles.
[49:37] Canadians it's very simple. Canadians
[49:40] were told to go metric and they did.
[49:41] Americans were told to go metric and
[49:43] they didn't in under identical almost
[49:45] identical conditions. And you know,
[49:47] Canadians respect the state are obedient
[49:51] uh they
[49:52] they're the country of the
[49:53] counter-revolution the country where
[49:55] which preserved the monarchy. The United
[49:57] States is the country which overthrew
[49:58] the the state the state and which is
[50:00] anti-statist and disobedient and and
[50:04] much more lawless. And and
[50:06] >> That's part of the American Creed the
[50:08] values that came out of the American
[50:10] Revolutionary period.
[50:12] >> Right. And those those values
[50:13] essentially as you described them in the
[50:15] book were those of liberty,
[50:16] egalitarianism meaning equality of
[50:18] opportunity, individualism, populism,
[50:20] laissez-faire. I think you identify
[50:22] those as the values so I think That's
[50:24] right. But what I was uh struck by I
[50:25] think a lot of us are familiar with the
[50:27] fact that these values grew out of the
[50:29] American Revolution but you you argue in
[50:31] your book that it's more than the
[50:32] American Revolution. It's also the
[50:34] Protestant experience. Yeah, well the
[50:36] two I think key things that
[50:38] affect our values are the revolution and
[50:40] the institutions that flow from it with
[50:42] the Constitution Bill of Rights but also
[50:44] that something which we rarely think
[50:46] about or realize we are the only
[50:48] Protestant sectarian country in the
[50:50] world. That is the the overwhelming
[50:52] majority of Americans uh belong to the
[50:55] Protestant sects the Methodists the
[50:56] Baptists and the hundreds of others. The
[50:58] European Christianity in Europe what
[51:02] religious religious sociologists called
[51:03] churches as distinct from sects. The
[51:05] Catholics the Anglicans the Lutherans
[51:07] the Orthodox the churches are
[51:10] state-related they were all state
[51:11] churches they're hierarchical and they
[51:14] and the relationship with the
[51:15] parishioner to the church is that he's
[51:17] supposed to be obedient. He's supposed
[51:18] to listen to the bishop and the priest
[51:20] and so on. American sectarians are
[51:23] congregational. The the minister is an
[51:25] employee of the members and and
[51:28] sectarianism requires that the members
[51:31] read the Bible study the Bible make
[51:33] their own decisions. And and and
[51:36] whatever they come to conclusion is
[51:37] moral they're morally obligated to
[51:41] to do it. Right.
[51:42] >> So that we're a much more moralistic
[51:43] country. Right and we're more most most
[51:45] more individualistic in the sense you
[51:46] make your own decisions what your own
[51:48] beliefs are but once you've reached
[51:49] those it's it also makes us makes us
[51:51] more moralistic as well. Right.
[51:53] >> I I was interested in that you know the
[51:55] if you see that in our politics
[51:58] the flap we went through over the
[52:00] allegations about President Clinton and
[52:01] Jennifer Flowers back in his campaign
[52:03] and you compare that to the picture of
[52:05] President Mitterrand's funeral in
[52:07] France.
[52:08] >> Where his mistress was present with his
[52:09] illegitimate daughter. Right. Standing
[52:11] there next to his widow. Right. And and
[52:13] his children by his widow. Mhm. Uh and
[52:15] that was just part of what what French
[52:17] culture was accepting. And it also flows
[52:20] you know if continuing in the in the in
[52:21] the sex-related area you know abortion
[52:24] Mhm. is a is a terrible issue in the
[52:27] United States with and it's moralistic
[52:29] and people on both sides feel it it is a
[52:32] death issue life and death issue and we
[52:34] burn down abortion clinics as some
[52:36] people do. Now you can go to Rome where
[52:38] the Pope sits and get an abortion. Have
[52:41] you ever heard of an abortion clinic
[52:42] being burnt in Rome or in in Spain?
[52:45] Uh Italy has one of the lowest birth
[52:48] rates in the world. Mhm. Uh Quebec has
[52:50] the the lowest birth rate in North
[52:51] America. These are all Catholic areas
[52:54] and you know
[52:56] they are and many of these most of these
[52:58] people are Catholics go to church but
[53:00] they don't
[53:01] they don't get moralistic about the
[53:04] whole thing. Because they they have this
[53:06] system in which there's more obedience
[53:08] but there's also less sense of
[53:10] perfectibility. Right. The church
[53:12] believes in the Christian churches in
[53:14] the in the in the original sin that the
[53:17] human institutions and human beings are
[53:19] inherently imperfect. And therefore when
[53:21] they're when therefore when they sin you
[53:22] shouldn't take it that seriously because
[53:24] that's the way they are. Mhm. Whereas
[53:25] the Protestant sects insist on on
[53:28] perfection on perfectibility that you
[53:30] don't that you don't sin. And and and of
[53:32] course the United States as a country uh
[53:35] has reflected this in all sorts of ways
[53:37] in its foreign policy. Mhm. You know we
[53:40] we have we don't recognize evil
[53:42] countries. We didn't recognize the
[53:43] Soviet Union for a long time China we
[53:45] still don't recognize Cuba as obvious we
[53:48] just recognized Vietnam. Well Franco
[53:51] recognized Cuba six months after Castro
[53:53] came to power and he was hardly a com
[53:55] simp. Uh De Gaulle and Churchill both of
[53:58] whom come out of church religions dealt
[54:01] with the communists dealt with the with
[54:03] the Russians didn't have the same kind
[54:04] of feeling because sure Russia was a an
[54:07] evil country but no country's good. One
[54:09] of your central arguments I wonder if
[54:10] you could explain it a bit more
[54:12] is about the double sword quality of our
[54:15] values that that on one hand our values
[54:17] seem to produce all this dynamism and
[54:19] innovation and creativity that comes
[54:21] from an individualistic country but you
[54:22] say there's a there's a double edge to
[54:24] that sword.
[54:25] >> Yeah because we you know we're we're
[54:26] outliers. If you compare all the
[54:28] countries developed countries on
[54:31] on behavior or as to behavior attitude
[54:33] we were at the extreme. Mhm.
[54:34] >> at the extreme in in many good ways and
[54:36] we're at the extreme in many bad ways.
[54:38] For example crime rates violence rates
[54:40] where that we have the we have the
[54:42] largest crime rate. We have more people
[54:44] incarcerated. We have a whole you know
[54:46] we're a very large divorce rate and I
[54:49] think the bank we would we we have the
[54:51] lowest rate of people voting and I think
[54:53] these negative aspects are interlinked
[54:57] with the positive ones. Uh you know I
[54:59] developed the argument in the book that
[55:01] that they they they come out of the same
[55:04] kinds of things. For example if you take
[55:06] crime we place this great emphasis on
[55:09] equality on opportunity on getting
[55:11] ahead. Mhm. And getting ahead regardless
[55:13] of social origin regardless of family
[55:15] background. Well that means if you if
[55:17] you don't get ahead it's your fault
[55:19] because we assume that this is an open
[55:21] society. Uh
[55:23] societies which come out of a feudal
[55:25] tradition where there's more emphasis on
[55:26] stratum on inherited stratification
[55:28] family don't place the same feeling of
[55:31] of failure. Mhm. Don't put the same onus
[55:33] of failure on individuals who don't get
[55:35] ahead. Hence in a certain sense you one
[55:38] of the American society tells you to get
[55:40] ahead by hook or by crook. And if you
[55:42] can't do it by hook then do it then you
[55:44] do it by crook. Yeah I I understand the
[55:46] argument about why some of the bad
[55:49] trends we see in the society the high
[55:50] divorce rates the high crime rates and
[55:51] so forth are inherently linked to the
[55:53] same values that produce all the
[55:55] dynamism in the country.
[55:57] What that doesn't explain for me is why
[55:59] some of these rates are getting so much
[56:00] worse.
[56:02] Well there I think you
[56:04] one has to note that in I think in
[56:06] almost all of them it's happening all
[56:08] over the the Western world. It's not
[56:11] it's it's and and America has changed in
[56:14] all sorts of ways the way other
[56:15] countries have changed. Well we've all
[56:17] moved from having once been
[56:19] overwhelmingly rural small town
[56:21] societies to metropolitan complex
[56:23] societies and I high-tech societies. We
[56:26] all have increased immigration rates
[56:29] we all have we're going through a
[56:30] technological revolution.