名人演讲：罗纳德里根 A Time for Choosing
http://www.newdu.com 2024/11/27 11:11:08 普惠英才 佚名 参加讨论
1964年10月27日，里根代表戈德华特竞选班子做了一次电视演讲。这次演讲被称为“1896年以来最成功的全国性政治亮相”。里根也由此踏上了他伟大政治家的道路。 晚上好。主办单位找到了。但不同于大多数的电视节目，这里不给演员提供台词。因此，我可以用自己的话来说说，我怎样来看待数周后的选举。 我这辈子大部分时间都是民主党。最近，我才感到我比较适合另一套路子。我认为，我们面临的问题是跨党派的。如今，一边的阵营在告诉我们，本轮选举的议题是维护和平与繁荣。这话说的，“我们没法再好了。” 但是，我觉得不妥。这个“繁荣”不是我们所希望的未来。历史上没有任何国家，在税负高到国民所得的三分之一，还可以活着的。 如今，每赚一美元就有37美分要上交国库作为税收。而我们的政府每天超支1700万美元。过去34年，有28年预算没有平衡过。在过去的一年时间里，我们已经把债务上限提高了三倍。如今，我们国家的债务是全世界国家债务总和的1.5倍。我们的国库只有150亿元的黄金，但一盎司都不属于我们，外国货币占去了273亿。而我们刚刚说，现在一美元购买力总值只相当于1939年的4毛5分钱。 说到我们要和平，我想知道，我们中间有没有人去了解那些妻子和母亲们，他们的丈夫和孩子在南越牺牲了。你问问他们，这是否是该无条件维护的和平。他们意味着和平么？还是意味着我们只想要在“和平”中度日而已？如果还有一位美国人在世界某处为我们大家牺牲，就不可能有真正的和平。 我们遭遇的是人类有史以来最险恶的敌人。据说如果我们输掉战争，我们的自由也将如此失去。历史将会这样震惊的记载，那些人之所以一败涂地，因为他们连最起码阻挡也没有做过。嗯，我想该是我们扪心自问的时候了，我们是否知道建国先贤给我们指明的自由道路。 不久前，我两位朋友和一个古巴难民聊天，他是个生意人，从卡斯特罗那里逃出来的。在古巴人述说他遭遇的时候，其中一个朋友对另一个说，“我们不知道我们幸运什么。”古巴人停了下来，说：“你们还不幸运？我只要有个地方可以躲，就行了。” 他的这句话说明了一切。如果我们这里也失去了自由，那全世界都无处可逃了。这是地球上最后的一站。 政府理应为人民服务，因为权力是至高的人民所授予的，除此之外没有其他的来源。在人与人关系的历史长河中，这种理念仍然是最新，最独特的。 本轮选举的主题是：我们要相信自我管理的能力，还是摒弃美国革命的理念，承认偏远的国会里有一小撮精英可以为我们的生活作计划，而且计划得比我们更好。 我和你一样，越来越多的人要你选左派，或右派。嗯，我想提议的是，别管什么左派右派的。这里只有向上派或向下派：向上，这是人古老的梦想，是个体自由的目标，它与法律和秩序是一致的。所谓向下，就是象蚁堆一样，甘愿自己被极权主义压在底层，不管真心诚意也好，或是出于人道主义也罢，他们都会以安全为由，出卖我们的自由，走上这条向下沉沦的道路。 在这个争夺选票的时刻，他们说“伟大社会”这番话，要不就像前几天总统和我们讲，我们必须接受“政府进一步对于民事的干预”。而过去他们还含糊其辞，模凌两可。 我说的所有这一切，你们都能在报纸上看见。这些不是共和党的指控。比方说，他们说：“如果我们接受不民主的社会主义，冷战就结束了。”还有的说，“争夺利润的激励制度已经过时了。应该由福利国家的激励机制来取代。”或者说，“我们个人自由的传统体制无法解决20世纪的复杂问题”。 参议员富布赖特在斯坦福大学说，宪法已经过时了。他说总统是“我们的道德导师，是我们的领袖”，他说，他的工作被这篇限制权力的‘古文’束缚了。“应该给他”自由“，让他‘尽心为我们做’他认为最好的事情。” 还有一位发言人，宾夕法尼亚州参议员克拉克，他直截了当把“自由主义”定义为“通过集权政府的所有权力来满足民众的物质需求。” 是啊，作为民众之一，我不喜欢这样的说法，因为议员所谓“民众”，是指你，我以及我们国家的所有自由的男人和女人。在美国，“民众”这样的词，我们自己已不适用了。 除此之外，“集权政府的所有权力”这是建国先贤极力避免的东西。他们知道，政府无法控制事情。一个政府要控制经济，必然要压制人民。他们知道如果政府要这样做，它必须通过暴力和强制的手段来实现。那些建国先贤，他们当然知道，政府除立法职能之外，在经济上的作为，完全不如私有经济领域。 我们用“过去30年政府干预农业的例子”，来说明问题是再好不过了。从1955年以来，这项计划的成本增加了将近一倍。美国85%的农产品过剩是由四分之一的农业（政府干预的那部分）造成的，除此之外，依靠自由市场的四分之三的农业，其农产品，人均消费量增长了21%.你看，这四分之一的农业——是由联邦政府来规范和控制的。在过去的三年，我们的饲料粮计划，用43美元产不出1美元的玉米量。 参议员汉弗莱（Humphrey）上周指控戈德华特是企图消灭农民的总统。他如果多做点功课的话就会发现，政府这些计划让我们的农业人口减少了500万。他也会发现，民主党政府在寻求国会支持将农场计划扩张到，在自由市场里四分之三的农业。他会发现，他们还要申请特权来关押那些不按照联邦政府规定来记账的农民。 农业部部长还要申请接管农场特权，通过没收农场并转售给其他人的手段。如果把这个条款放到同一个计划里，等于允许联邦政府把200万农民从土地上赶走。 与此同时，农业部却在增加雇员。如今，美国每30个农民就有1个公务员来管，这些公务员无法向我们交代，去奥地利的66艘满载稻米的船怎么会消失的无影无踪？比利索埃斯蒂斯（Billie SolEstes）都没有出过海。 凡是负责任的农民和农场组织都一再要求过政府放弃对农业的管制，但是，除了农民自己，还有谁知道什么对他们有利呢？麦农投票反对麦子计划。政府照样通过该计划，现在，面包价格上涨，农民的小麦价格下跌。 与此同时，在城市里，所谓“重建市区”在侵害民众的自由。私有财产权被蚕食，所谓高于一切的“公共利益”，却由几位政府规划者说了算。政府的计划夺走贫困者的财产，送予贪心者享用。 俄亥俄州，克利夫兰就发生了这样不幸的事。三年前花了150万盖好的房子，因为政府要“让土地使用更具有兼容性”，就强制拆除。我们的总统说，那里要盖数千栋公共住宅，目前只有几百栋。 FHA（联邦房屋管理局）和退伍军人管理局说，他们已经收回了止赎的12万套住房。为了解决失业问题，政府搞三十多年的计划，但是计划失败得越多，计划就越多。最新的是“地区再开发局”。 他们刚刚说堪萨斯州赖斯县是一个贫困地区。堪萨斯州赖斯县，有200口油井，1万4千人，他们在银行的个人存款超过3千万。如果政府说你穷，那就你认了呗，穷就穷吧。 不是有人断言，胖子之所以肥是因为胖子卡了瘦子的油，我们很多人是看不到瘦子的边上还站着个胖子的。于是，他们打算通过政府和政府计划来解决人类所有的贫穷问题。那么，好了，如果政府的计划和福利真的是解药，那么他们搞了将近30年福利，他们的成绩不该给我们看看吗？难道他们不该对我们说，需要帮助的人逐年在减少吗？需要住公共住宅的人也在下降吗？ 但事实恰恰相反。每年穷人都在增加，而政府计划增长也越大。 四年前，我们听政府说，每晚有1700万人饿着肚子上床睡觉。说不定确有此事，他们都在节食。但是，现在我们又听说，我国有930万户年收入低于3000美元的家庭，他们穷困潦倒。如今，福利开支是极度黑暗的大萧条时期的10倍。 我们的福利开支有450亿美元。现在你算算，就会发现，如果我们把450亿元均分给900万户贫困家庭，每年每户家庭就能拿到4600元。加上他们目前的收入，他们应该不穷了。但直接给到穷人手里的援助，每户家庭只拿到600元左右。这似乎意味着，在别的什么地方开销用过了头。 现在，我们宣布“向贫困开战”，或者“你也可以是鲍比贝克（国策顾问）。”他们真的要我们相信在450亿的开支上再加10亿，或者30多个计划上再加1个计划，就能……我们，记住，新计划不会改变什么，它只是复制现有的计划。嗯，说心里话，应该说在这个新计划中有一部分是不重复的。那是有关年轻人的部分。 我们现在又要搞老套的“公共资源保护队”计划（CivilianConservationCorps新政时期，让青年铺路，植树，建公园），让年轻人入团以来解决辍学问题，青少年犯罪问题。但是我们稍微计算一下，就会发现，单单花在年轻人的吃住上，每年每人就要用掉4700美元。花2700元我们就可以把他们送进哈佛！当然，不要搞错。我并不是说要哈佛来解决青少年犯罪的问题。 但是，说真的，我们对那些需要帮助的人，都做了些什么？不久前，洛杉矶的一个法官打电话给我，他跟我说，有名年轻妇女到他那要离婚。她生了六个孩子，肚子里还怀着第七个。在他再三的追问下发现，她丈夫是名劳工，月收入250美元。她要离婚是想再得到80美元收入。因为，按照援助抚养子女计划，她有资格每月享受330美元的补贴。她这么做是受到他两个邻居的启发，他们也都是这样做的。 然而，每当我质疑这些良心人士的计划，我们就被批评说我们反对的人道主义的目标。他们说，我们总是“反对”一切，从来不会“支持”。 嗯，我们的左派朋友的问题不是他们太无知，只是他们知道得太多，就是不太对。 现在，我们支持这样的一个条款，所谓年老失业不应该是贫穷的借口，为此我们认为搞社会保障将会出现问题。 但是，我们反对，那些计划受惠者钻财政的漏洞，作弊骗钱，我们反对，一听到批评政府计划就指责，其用心是让政府停止补助那些靠补贴才能度日的人。 在大量的文献中，他们称之为“保险”。而在最高法院上，他们的呈词说这是一种“福利”计划。他们以“保险”的名义推销给老百姓。他们说“社保”费用是政府为了公共用途才征的税，而且政府已经用过了这些税。政府的社保帐户上并没有钱。 在国会委员会上，精算师罗伯特·拜尔斯（Robert Byers）承认，当时社保有2980亿美元的缺口。但他说不要担心，只要政府还有权力征税，无论是他们要什么，总能从老百姓那儿征收上来，问题便可迎刃而解了。目前，他们就是这么做的。 一个21岁的年轻人，如果他的工资达到平均水平，那么他缴的社会保障金在公开市场上，足够买到一份保险计划，保证他在65岁时每月领到220元。但政府只承诺将来给他127元。于是，他会等到31岁的时候，选择办一份比“社保”补偿更好的保险计划。 这样看来，我们政府是不是很没有商业头脑呢，这个计划根本靠不住。一旦到了社保兑现期的时候，大家问政府要钱，就会发现“这个橱柜不是空掉了么？” 戈德华特认为我们能做到。 与此同时，我们可不可以推出一些自愿的条款，允许“自己能做的更好”的公民不加入政府计划，只要他能证明自己为退休时候做好了准备？ 不准有小孩的寡妇上班，否则不给她抚恤金，我们这样做，对么？按理她已故的丈夫也交过税了？在这个计划中，你和我，难道都没有权力决定自己的受益人是谁，我们不能做什么？ 我认为我们不该因为缺钱而剥夺老年人享受医疗保险。但是，我们要反对那种不管民众需不需要，都强制他们加入政府计划。尤其我们还有前车之鉴。就在上周，法国宣布医保计划破产了。这条路已经走到了尽头。 再者，戈德华特不负责任了吗？他建议我国政府要停止搞那种精心的，人为的通膨计划。这样将来你得到的养老金，一块钱还值一块，而不是只值4毛5？ 我认为我们要支持一个让世界各国能够寻求和平的国际组织。但，我们要反对凌驾于美国利益之上的组织，即便是获得了联合国大会三分之二的支持票，因为这组织的结构不健全，它代表的人口还不到世界总人口的十分之一。 我认为我们要反对那种“虚伪”，一边抨击我们盟国，因为他们这儿或那儿还坚持着一个殖民地，一边却暗地里搞阴谋诡计，对苏联的殖民地，苏联卫星国中受奴役的千百万人，三缄其口。 我认为我们要支持那些与我们志同道合的盟国，与他们分享我们的物资。而不是在各国政府之间乱捐钞票，这些国家不是搞社会主义就是在搞官僚主义。我们的目标是要帮助19个国家。但如今，我们帮助了107个。我们花了1460亿美元。 这些钱，我们让海尔·塞拉西（Haile Selassie）买了200万的游艇，让希腊的殡仪官穿了礼服，让肯尼亚政府官员包上了二奶，我们买了一千台电视机，结果却送到一个连电都没有的地方。 过去的6年里，共有52个国家购买了我国的黄金，价值70亿美元。而这些国家全部都接受过我国的援助。 没有政府会主动缩减自身的规模。因此，政府的计划，一经推出，永不消失。 其实，政府官僚机制是我们在地球上看到的最不容易死的东西 联邦雇员——拥有250万之众，而本国六分之一的劳动力受雇于联邦、州与地方政府。这些官僚机构猛增，成千上万条的管制侵蚀了我们的宪政保障。究竟有多少人意识到，如今连逮捕证都不带的联邦特工就能私闯民宅？他们可以不经过正式听证而执行罚款，更不用说陪审团的判决机制了？他们可以通过查封和拍卖人家的财产来强制执行罚款。 在阿肯色州奇科县，詹姆斯·威尔（James Wier）种值水稻的用地超标了。于是，政府获得了17000元的判罚。法院执行官把他960英亩的农场拍卖掉了。政府还说，这非常必要，可以警告其他的人，让这个机制起作用。 去年二月在明尼苏达大学，诺曼·托马斯（Norman Thomas），这位获得社会党六次提名的总统候选人说：“如果戈德华特成为总统，他会停止美国走向社会主义的道路。”我想正是如此。 但是，作为一个前民主党人，我跟你说，不只是诺曼托马斯把现政府比作社会主义。早在1936年，民主党自己人，阿尔·史密斯（Al Smith），这个伟大的美国人，就曾在美国民众面前指控他的党领袖背离了杰斐逊、杰克逊和克利夫兰的路线，而跑到了马克思、列宁、斯大林的麾下。他退党了，直到他死也没有回头。因为直到那一天，该党的领袖还在带领着这个光荣的党，沿着英格兰的劳工社会党的路线走下去。 现在都不用霸占或没收私有财产和企业，或对老百姓强制推行社会主义。什么意思呢？如果政府掌握了企业和财产的生杀大权，即使你拥有房契或者在自己公司做官，又有什么用呢？这种机制已经存在了。 政府随随便便就能找到一些罪名来控告你。凡是生意人都有过被骚扰的经历。有些地方，莫名其妙的事也会发生。我们天赋的，不可剥夺的权利，如今被认为是政府的一种特许，自由从未如此脆弱，几乎此刻就要从我们手中滑落。 我们民主党的对手似乎不愿意讨论这些问题。他们想要让你和我都相信这是两个男人在竞争，我们只需要根据两人的人品做出选择而已。 那么，他们要在哪一点上击垮他（戈德华特）呢？击垮，击垮他所代表的理念，那是你和我都珍惜的理念？他是所谓的轻浮和浅薄，喜欢满嘴放炮的人吗？嗯，我有幸能够认识他，在他还没有参选之前，我早就认识他了。就我个人而言，我可以告诉你，我可以打保票他是最不会去做“那种不诚实或不光彩的事”的人。 在进入政坛之前，他有自己的公司。他制定了一项让员工分享利润的计划，这点他比工会想到得还要早。他为公司里的所有员工购买了健康和医疗保险。他把税前利润的50%来为所有员工设立一项退休计划，养老金计划。他每月都送一位患病，无法上班的员工去检查身体。他给在站店面的母亲提供儿童保育费。墨西哥的兰德河发洪水的时候，他开自己的飞机，为灾民送去药品和物资。 一名前海外军人告诉我，他见过戈德华特。那是在朝鲜战争时期，某个圣诞节的前一周，他在洛杉矶亚利桑那州机场，要搭机回家过圣诞节。他说，当时军人很多，飞机上座位已经没有多余的座位。这时候，喇叭传来了一个声音说：“凡是想搭机去亚利桑那州的各位军人请去跑道那儿，什么什么的……”然后，他们就下去了，有一个叫戈德华特在飞机里等他们。在圣诞节前几周，他每天都会过来，从早到晚地运送客人，送他们去亚利桑那州，送他们回家，然后飞回来，再运一次。 即使在这个分秒必争的选战时刻，他也会抽出时间去陪一位罹患癌症即将离世的老朋友。他的竞选经纪人很不理解，但他（戈德华特）说，“没有多少左派会在乎她。我想让她知道我在乎她。” 他曾对自己19岁的儿子说“没有什么根基胜过诚实和公平这样的磐石，你要把你的人生建在这块磐石上，用你对上帝的信仰来加固，这才是你人生的真正起点。” 他并不是那种不停地忽悠别人孩子去打仗的人。选战的这个议题使得我之前讨论过的问题显得不切实际，除非我们意识到这场战争我们一定要取得胜利。 那些人为了要福利国家的“流动厨房”而出卖我们的自由，他们对我们说，他们有乌托邦式的、和平的、解决方案，用不着获得战争的胜利。他们称他们的政策为“和解”。他们说，如果我们能避免与敌人正面交锋，敌人就会放弃自己的罪恶活动，并且逐渐会喜欢我们。凡是反对他们方案的人都被他们指控为战争贩子。 他们说，我们对复杂问题提供了简单的答案。嗯，也许有一个简单的答案，但不容易做到，除非你和我鼓足勇气告诉当选的官员，我们希望国家政策在道义上是正确的，能对得起我们的良心。 我们不能为了自己的安全和自由不受炸弹的威胁而出卖良心地对铁幕下饱受奴役的10亿人说：“放弃你们的自由梦想吧，因为我们要明哲保身，我们要和你们的主子做交易。”亚历山大汉密尔顿说，“如果一个国家宁受屈辱也不愿意铤而走险，那么它在邀请一个主子，活该被它奴役。” 现在，我们要以正视听。所谓“要和平还是要战争”都是空谈，你要的那种打保票的和平，只有一个办法，你马上就能实现，那就是“投降”。 的确，除“投降”之外，我们任何的做法都有风险，但所有的历史教训都告诉我们，绥靖政策的风险更大。他们的和解政策就是绥靖政策，我们好心的自由派朋友们却回避了魔咒。 和平与战争没得选，要么战斗，要么投降。如果我们坚持“和解”，继续退让和撤退，最终我们不得不面对最后的命令，最后通牒。接着，赫鲁晓夫会告诉他的人，他知道我们会怎样反应？他会说，我们因为迫于冷战的压力而撤兵了。 某天，到了下最后通牒的时候，我们会主动地投降，因为到那时，我们在精神上、道义上、经济上，都被削弱了。他如此确信，因为从我们这边他听到恳求的声音“为了求和，不惜任何代价”或“宁可被共产，也不要死于核战”，或正如一位评论家所说的那样，他宁愿“跪着生，也不要死在他的脚下。”通往战争的道路就在那一点上，因为这些话不代表我们的声音。 你和我都知道，我们不相信“生命如此宝贵，和平如此甜美，以至于不惜以枷锁和奴役为代价去换取它们”（出自PatrickHenry）。难道生命中没有什么值得牺牲的，什么时候才开始这样，是因为前面有这敌人？ 摩西应该告诉为奴的以色列人听命于法老吗？基督有拒绝背负十字架吗？爱国勇士们应该在康科德桥就把枪扔了，不该打响惊动世界的这一枪？历史上的烈士不是笨蛋，我们这些光荣的逝者用他们的生命阻止了纳粹的扩张，他们没有白死。通往和平的道路在哪里？答案毕竟很简单。 你和我鼓起勇气告诉我们的敌人，“我们不买这个账。”“有一点更为重要，就是他们必须停止扩张。”这就意味着，戈德华特的那句话“和平要靠实力。”温斯顿·丘吉尔说过：“人的命运不是以物质积累来衡量的，当世界上伟大的军队在前进的时候，我们意识到我们是灵魂的人，而非动物”。他说，“有件事正在时空或超时空中发生着，不管我们喜欢还是不喜欢，那叫做责任。” 命运让你和我走到一起。 为了我们的孩子，我们一定要保守住人类最后的憧憬，否则我们将会就让他们跌入千年黑暗。 我们要铭记，记住戈德华特有颗忠于我们的心。他相信，你和我都有能力，有尊严，有权利自己做决定，决定自己的命运。 非常感谢。 Ronald Reagan 罗纳德·里根 A Time for Choosing (aka "The Speech")决择的时刻 Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA 演讲者简介：罗纳德·威尔逊·里根(英语：Ronald Wilson Reagan，1911年2月6日-2004年6月5日)，美国政治家，第33任加利福尼亚州州长(1967年-1975年)，第40任总统(1981年-1989年)。在踏入政坛前，里根也曾担任过运动广播员、救生员、报社专栏作家、电影演员、和励志讲师，他的演说风格高明而极具说服力，被媒体誉为“伟大的沟通者”。 Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan: Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasnt been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "Weve never had it so good." But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isnt something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collectors share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We havent balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. Weve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we dont own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And weve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. Were at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and its been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We dont know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, theres no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of mans relation to man. This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well Id like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. Theres only an up or down: [up] mans old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But theyve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we havent applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments dont control things. A government cant control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than governments involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- thats regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years weve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we dont grow. Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because hell find out that weve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. Hell also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. Hell find that theyve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldnt keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil. At the same time, theres been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. Theres now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they cant tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore. Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know whats best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down. Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us hes now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore weve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units theyve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, weve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. Theyve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you youre depressed, lie down and be depressed. We have so many people who cant see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So theyre going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and theyve had almost 30 years of it -- shouldnt we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldnt they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now were told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. Were spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and youll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, wed be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead. Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion were spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesnt replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isnt duplicated. This is the youth feature. Were now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and were going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that were going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, dont get me wrong. Im not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman whod come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. Shes eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood whod already done that very thing. Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, were denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say were always "against" things -- were never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that theyre ignorant; its just that they know so much that isnt so. Now -- were for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end weve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But were against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. Theyve called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And theyre doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until hes 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we cant put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when theyre due -- that the cupboard isnt bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can. At the same time, cant we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldnt you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think were for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think were against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. Theyve come to the end of the road. In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollars worth, and not 45 cents worth? I think were for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think were against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the worlds population. I think were against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations. I think were for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but were against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. Were helping 107. Weve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life well ever see on this earth. Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nations work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a mans property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think thats exactly what he will do. But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isnt the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. Now it doesnt require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that were to choose just between two personalities. Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well Ive been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally Ive never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldnt work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there. An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, hed load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load. During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There arent many left who care what happens to her. Id like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other peoples sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems Ive discussed academic, unless we realize were in a war that must be won. Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if well only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, hell forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, were willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now lets set the record straight. Theres no argument over the choice between peace and war, but theres only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender. Admittedly, theres a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that were retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side hes heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, hed rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices dont speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didnt die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well its a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwaters "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn were spirits -- not animals." And he said, "Theres something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. Well preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or well sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much. (责任编辑：admin) |
- 上一篇：西方文化：英语中的动物暗含什么样的寓意？
- 下一篇：遵从本心，做你自己