鑽石舞台

我們必須捍衛自由，否則自由將離我們而去。

說到保守主義，先要說說里根，他或許是二戰後美國唯一一位能稱得上是政治家（Statesman）的總統。所謂二流影星的說法是左翼媒體嘲笑里根的說法，反而暴露出他們的膚淺。里根從1941年當選好萊塢演員工會主席後，一直從政。他最初是民主黨人，但是到了50年代，他的思想開始向右轉，主要是因為他當時在全國巡迴講演，坐火車時間很多，有大量的時間閱讀和思考，形成了自己對美國政治和國際關係的理論。其核心是對個人自由和民主政體的崇尚。1960年後，他轉讓共和黨。1964年他在共和黨大會上作了題為《抉擇的時刻》，鏗鏘有力，擲地有聲，從此一舉成名。今天聽起來，依然能夠感受到一個保守主義者的卓識遠見。全文如下——

A time for choosing《抉擇的時刻》1964年10月27日 羅納德∙里根

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't 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.

謝謝，非常感謝。謝謝你們，晚上好。贊助商已經有了，但是跟大部分電視節目不一樣的是，演員還沒有台詞。實際上，我被允許自己編寫台詞，來表達我自己對於我們在未來幾個星期會面臨的選擇的觀點。

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, "We've never had it so good."

我的職業生涯中大部分時間都是一個民主黨人，而最近我為自己選擇了另一條道路。我相信這個問題一直在困擾着兩個黨派。現在，競選陣營中的一方告訴我們，這次競選中的問題是保持和平和繁榮，並且使用了這句話「我們從未如此的和平和繁榮」。

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't 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 collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've 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 don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

但是我有一種不祥之感，我們並不能把對未來的期望寄托在目前這樣的繁榮之上。歷史上沒有任何一個國家可以在稅賦達到全國收入三分之一的情況下生存。今天，這個國家的每一美元收入中，有37美分落入稅務局的腰包，而我們的政府每天的支出要比收入多1700萬美元。過去34年裡，28年的預算未能持平。我們在過去一年中三次提高債務上限，現在我們國家的債務是世界上所有其它國家債務總和的1.5倍。我們的金庫中存放着價值1500億美元的黃金，但與我們沒有絲毫的關係，而且我們手中還有273億美元的外國債務。我們剛剛宣布，1939年一美元的購買力相當於今天的45美分。

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. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's 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 it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

至於我們希望保留的和平，我在想，是否有人會找到那些丈夫或者兒子死在越南的妻子和母親，問他們是否相信和平會永久持續下去。他們究竟是說和平，還是說我們想要被賜予和平？一個美國人為了我們在另一個國家獻出生命，這不是和平。我們的敵人也曾親眼見證人類從沼澤中經歷了漫長的努力最終走上太空的過程。有人說，如果我們輸掉這場戰爭，就等於失去了我們的自由，歷史將會令人難以置信地記錄下，輸得最多的人竟然是為避免戰爭所做的努力最少的人。我想，我們該問問自己，是否還記得國父們曾經給予我們的自由究竟代表着什麼。

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 don't 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, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

不久前，我的兩位朋友與一位古巴難民交談，那是一位商人，剛剛逃離卡斯特羅的政權。在他講述自己的故事過程中，我的一位朋友對另一位說：『我們都不知道自己有多麼幸運。』古巴人聽到這句話，說：『你們很幸運嗎？我至少還有地方可以逃避。』這句話讓我們明白了整個故事。如果我們在這裡失去了自由，我們將無處可逃，這是地球上最後的一片淨土。

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 man'srelation to man.

這種政府對人民負有責任，以及它唯一的權力是統治人民的思想，依然是歷史上最新、最獨特的人與人之間的關係。

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.

這場選舉的問題是，我們是否相信自治的能力，抑或我們打算放棄美國獨立戰爭的成果，告訴自己遠在國會山的那幫知識分子們可以比我們自己更好地規劃我們的生活。

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's 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.

有越來越多的聲音告訴你和我，我們必須要選擇左派或者右派。而我認為，根本沒有所謂的左右，只有上下之分。上即人類最古老的夢想，在法律和秩序前提下個人的終極自由；下即徹頭徹尾的極權主義。不管他們真誠的態度和人道主義的行為，那些用自由換安全的人已經開始走上下了坡路。

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 they've 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."

在這個收穫選票的季節里，他們卻在說「偉大社會」。總統在前幾天還告訴我們，必須接受一個更偉大的政府插手民眾事務的行為。但是在歷史上，在他們自己的身上，我們看到了更直言不諱的表達。我下面要引用的這些話都有據可查，並不是共和黨的誣陷。例如，他們曾經說：「只要我們接受一個非不民主的社會主義制度，冷戰就會結束。」令一個人說：「利益動機已近過時了，必須用福利社會的動機所取代。」。還有，「我們傳統的個人自由體制已經無法解決20世紀的複雜問題。」參議員福爾布萊特在斯坦福大學說，憲法已經過時了，他說總統是「我們的道德導師和偉大領袖」，還說「這份古老的文件讓他行使自身的權力時處處受限」。他必須「被解放」，這樣他才可以用他認為「最好」的方式「為我們造福」。賓夕法尼亞州參議員克拉克是另一位口齒伶俐的說客，他把自由主義定義為「通過全能的中央政府滿足民眾的物質需求」。

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 haven't 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 don't control things. A government can't 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.

我個人，對於用「民眾」這個詞來代表你和我，代表這個國家的男人和女人，感到憤怒。美國人不用這個詞表示我們自己。而且，「全能的中央政府」，這恰恰是國父們力圖規避的現象。他們知道政府不能為所欲為，政府不能讓人民俯首聽命，就不能控制經濟。他們知道如果一個政府必須要這麼做，就必須採取武力和強迫的手段。我們的國父還知道，脫離了立法機構，政府對經濟的作用與私人經濟體沒有差別。

Now, we have no better example of this than government's 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 -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

現在，要說明這一點，最好的例子是政府在過去30年裡對農業經濟的干預。從1955年開始，這個項目的成本幾乎翻了一倍。美國四分之一的農場生產出85％的剩餘農產品，四分之三的農場被排除在自由市場之外，而且人均農產品的消費增長了21％。你看到了，那四分之一的農場正是被聯邦政府所控制和管理的。在過去三年裡，我們為飼料穀物項目中每一斗我們根本沒有種植的玉米付出了43美元的代價。

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll 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. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't 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.

參議員漢弗萊在上個星期要求巴里•戈德華特在成功當選總統之後，應當設法消除農民。他應該好好做一做功課，因為他會發現我們在這些政府的措施中，已經減少了500萬農業人口。他會發現，民主黨政府試圖得到國會的批准，來延長這些農業項目持續的時間，以便把剩下四分之三自由的農業行為也收編進來。他還會發現，他們要求國會授予他們監禁農民的權力，僅僅是因為這些人不按聯邦政府的要求記賬。農業部長建議沒收農民的所得，再賣給其他人。這樣做所基於的理由就是聯邦政府即將把200萬農民趕離他們的土地。

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace andBillie Sol Estesnever left shore.

與此同時，農業部的雇員數量在一直上升。現在的美國，每30個農民就有一位農業部政府職員，而他們還說不出前往奧地利的66船糧食究竟在哪裡，Billie Sol Estes可一直沒有離開這個國家。

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's 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.

每一個負責任的農民和農業組織都曾多次要求政府放鬆對農業的管控，但是農民怎麼會搞的清楚什麼是對自己最好的？麥農投票反對麥子種植項目，但政府還是通過了這項法令。現在，麵包的價格在上漲，而農民手中小麥的價格在下降。

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 he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've 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.

現在讓我們回到城市裡，在城市改造的過程中，對自由的侵害隨處可見。房地產私有的權力被極力淡化，以至於公眾的利益被極少數政府規劃者肆意踐踏。在一個劫貧濟富的項目里，我們看到俄亥俄州克里夫蘭在三年前耗資150萬美元建造的房屋必須要被拆除，原因是政府官員認為「可以更有效地利用這片土地」。總統告訴我們，他現在要開始投入數千美元建造公共住房，而在以前其實只需要數百美元。聯邦住房管理局和退伍軍人事業部說他們通過取消抵押貸款收回了12萬套住房。三十年來，我們試圖通過政府規劃來解決失業問題，但是這些規劃失敗的越多，他們規劃的就越多。最近的一個例子是地區再發展司。

They've 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 you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

他們剛剛宣布堪薩斯的大米鎮是經濟蕭條地區。堪薩斯的大米鎮有200口油井、1.4萬人口，他們在銀行中的個人存款超過3000萬美元。反正政府說你蕭條了，你就老老實實地蕭條吧。

We have so many people who can't 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 they're 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 they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

如果看到一個瘦子旁邊站着一個胖子，大部分人都會覺得胖子是占了瘦子的便宜才會變成那個樣子。所以，他們打算通過政府和政府的規劃來掃除人類的一切痛苦。如果政府的規劃和福利政策找到了一些答案——他們有30年的時間來做這件事——難道不應該向我們通報一些數字嗎？需要救助的人數每年降低了多少？對保障性住房的需求降低了多少？

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 we're 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. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd 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.

但事實卻恰恰相反。每年的需求都在增長，項目變得越來越大。4年前我們被告知，每天晚上有1700萬人餓着肚子上床睡覺。這或許是事實，因為有些人在減肥。但是現在我們知道，這個國家有930萬個家庭處於年收入3000美元以下的貧困階層。社會福利支出是大蕭條時期的10倍，我們共投入了450億美元。現在讓我們稍微計算一下，你會發現，如果我們把這450億美元平均分配給900萬戶家庭，每個家庭每年可以得到4600美元。加上他們自己的收入，足以脫離貧窮。然而，直接發放給窮人的救濟款，只有每個家庭不到600美元。似乎有些環節的經費過高了。

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 we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't 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 isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the oldCCC camps[Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're 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, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

現在，我們「向貧窮宣戰」，或者說「你也可以成為鮑比•貝克」。那麼他們真的期望我們能夠相信，在4500萬美元的支出的基礎上再加上10億美元，在目前30多個項目上再加一個項目——記住，這個新項目不能取代現存的項目，而是多一個，他們真的相信貧窮會像變魔術一樣突然消失嗎？公平地說，這個新項目中的確有和從前重複的地方，就是年輕人問題。我們需要解決過早輟學和青少年犯罪問題，我們應該恢復平民保育團制度，把年輕人放到保育團中。但是讓我們再計算一下數字，每年我們要為每一個問題青年支出4700美元，可是我們只需要2700美元就可以送他們去哈佛大學讀書！當然，別誤會，我並不是說解決青少年犯罪問題的根源在於哈佛大學。

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 who'd 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. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

但是，嚴肅地說，對那些需要幫助的人我們都做了些什麼？不久之前，洛杉磯的一位法官給我打電話。他告訴我，一個年輕的女人曾經來尋求他的幫助。她有6個孩子，正懷上第7個。在交談中，她說她的丈夫是個工人，每個月收入250美元。她希望申請離婚，他們家庭的收入可以增長80美元，因為他符合未成年兒童援助計劃每月330美元的救助條件。住在附近的兩個女人告訴她這個方法，他們已經這麼做了。

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

然而每當我們向那些目光遠大的社會改革家質問他們的計劃時，我們都會遭到譴責，說我們反對他們的人道主義目標。他們說我們總是「反對」，從來不「支持」什麼。

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

我們那些自由派的朋友們其實並不無知，他們完全了解事實並不是這樣。

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

現在，我們完全贊同失業並不等於貧困這個設想，原因眾所周知。所以我們接受社會福利作為解決這個問題的第一步。

But we're 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. They've 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 they're doing just that.

但是我們反對他們在面臨財務緊張時採取的欺騙行為，而且我們反對他們把所有對此項目提意見的人都說成是要停止救助那些以此為生的貧民。在交給我們的厚厚一摞的報告中，他們說這是「保險」，但是在面對最高法院作證時，他們說這是一項福利。只有在向群眾推銷的時候，他們才會用到「保險」這個詞。他們還說，社會福利資金的缺口需要用政府的稅收來填補，政府的確也是這麼做的。事實是，這個缺口無法填補，精算師羅伯特•拜爾斯在國會中承認，社會福利資金目前有2980億美元的缺口。但是他還說不需要擔心，因為只要他們還有徵稅的權力，他們就可以隨心所欲地搶走人民手中的一切，讓自己擺脫困境。他們的確就是這麼做的。

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 he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

一個27歲的年輕人，有一個平均水平的工資收入。在開放性市場中，他的社會福利繳費相當於一份保險，確保他在65歲之後每個月可以拿到220美元。而政府的承諾是217美元。他可以享受目前的生活，直到31歲，這時突然出現了一項政策，說他需要繳納的不僅僅是社會福利保險。難道我們就這麼缺乏商業頭腦，不能給這個項目找一些更堅實的基礎嗎？當人們真正需要這筆錢來安度晚年時，他們難道不會發現金庫已經空空如也了嗎？

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

巴里•戈德華特說我們可以。

At the same time, can't 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? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're 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 we're 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. They've come to the end of the road.

與此同時，我們難道不能讓公民在有證據顯示沒有收入的情況下，退出福利制度嗎？難道不能讓一個有孩子要撫養，還需要工作的寡婦，依然得到本應由他死去的丈夫支付的福利項目嗎？你和我難道不能宣布我們在這些福利政策下一無所獲嗎？我認為，我們應道告訴每一位尊敬的公民，在這個國家裡，沒有人會因為囊中羞澀而無法得到醫療服務。但是我們反對強迫所有公民——不管他們需要還是不需要——參與政府的福利項目。尤其是當我們在上個星期聽說，法國宣布它的醫療福利制度已經破產，無路可走了。

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 dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

還有，當巴里•戈德華特說我們的政府蓄意製造通貨膨脹，讓你們拿到手的每一美元退休金只相當於45美分的購買力時，他是在不負責任地亂說嗎？

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're 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 world's population. I think we're 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.

我想我們應該支持一個國際組織，世界上所有的國家都可以在那裡謀求和平。但是我們應該反對讓美國的利益屈服於一個結構混亂的組織，你甚至可以在代表全世界人口不到10％的會員中輕而易舉地拿到三分之二的投票。我想我們應該反對虛偽地攻擊我們的盟友，僅僅因為他們與另一個集團有些瓜葛，而我們自己卻對蘇聯在周邊國家奴役人民的事情睜一隻眼閉一隻眼。

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've 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.

我們支持給那些與我們共享基本信念的盟友提供物質援助，但是我們反對政府與政府之間的金錢交易，這不但會在全世界範圍內培養官僚習氣，甚至會滋生社會主義苗頭。剛開始的時候，我們幫助19個國家，現在的援助對象是107個國家。我們花費了1460億美元。我們用這些錢給海爾•塞拉西購買了一艘價值200萬美元的遊艇，給希臘殯葬業者購買了工作服，給肯尼亞政府官員買來更多的老婆，還給根本沒有電力供應的人購買了一千台電視機。在過去6年裡，52個國家購買了我們價值70億美元的黃金，而這52個國家都在接受我們的援助。

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

任何一個政府都不願主動放低身段。所以政府的項目一旦啟動，就不會停止。

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

實際上，一個政府機構是我們在這個世界上所能見到的最接近於長生不老的東西。

Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's 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 man's 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.

聯邦雇員——現在的數量是250萬人——包括聯邦、州和地方的政府雇員，全國六分之一的勞動力為政府效力。這些不斷擴張的龐大機構，以及他們所發明出來的成千上萬條規定，剝奪了我們太多憲法賦予的權利。有多少人會相信今天的聯邦探員沒有搜查令就敢闖入私人住宅？不經聽證就給予罰款，更不用提有陪審員在列的審判了。他們還敢沒收、拍賣房產來強迫對方支付罰款。在阿肯色州的奇科鎮，詹姆斯•威爾種植的大米數量超過了定額，政府在審判後得到了1.7萬美元的賠償，一位警察局長拍賣了他占地960英畝的農場。政府說，為了讓這套制度得以貫徹，這是必要的手段。

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 that's exactly what he will do.

去年2月19日在明尼蘇達大學，連任6次社會黨總統候選人的諾曼•湯姆斯說：「如果巴里•戈德華特當選總統，他會停止社會主義在美國的發展。」我想他的確會這麼做的。

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't 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.

但是作為一個前民主黨成員，我可以告訴你，諾曼•湯姆斯不是唯一一個把社會主義與現任政府扯上關係的人。1936年，偉大民主黨派人士的阿爾•史密斯率先指責他的黨派，說它讓這個擁有傑斐遜、傑克遜和克里夫蘭等著名人物的黨派走在馬克思、列寧和斯大林的旗幟下。他脫離了這個黨派，致死也沒有回心轉意。今天，這個黨的領導人正在把這個具有無限榮耀的黨派推上英國社會勞工黨的道路。

Now it doesn't 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.

想要把社會主義強加在人們的頭上，根本不需要沒收私人的財產和生意。如果政府對財產和商業持有生殺予奪的大權，你手中的房契和經營資質有什麼用呢？這樣的機制已經形成了，政府可以找各種各樣的藉口來對付它認為看不順眼的事情。每個商人都有自己的血淚史，我們的國家變質了。我們那與生俱來、不可剝奪的權利即將變成政府的恩典，自由從未如此脆弱，從未像現在一樣即將從我們的手中滑落。

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 we're to choose just between two personalities.

我們的民主黨對手似乎不願意討論這個問題。他們試圖讓你和我相信，這是兩個人之間的戰爭，我們必須要在兩種人格之間做出選擇。

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 I've 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 I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

那麼，他們試圖詆毀的是一個什麼人呢？所謂詆毀，他們的做法是扼殺他所代表的那些我們奉若真理的思想。他真的是那種被他們描述成傲慢、淺薄、暴躁的人嗎？我很榮幸，在他把總統職位作為人生目標很久之前就認識他。我可以負責任地告訴你，我一生中從來沒見過這樣一個不會做欺騙、丟臉事情的人。

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 couldn't 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.

這個人，在他步入政壇之前，用自己的生意設立了一個福利分享計劃，那時候工會還根本沒有想到這些問題。他為自己所有的員工都購買了健康和醫療保險。他把稅前50％的利潤用作退休金，所有員工都可以享用。一個員工在工作期間患病，他每月都會寄去生活費。他還為員工的子女提供看護服務。墨西哥格蘭德河發生洪水災害，他登上飛機，送去藥品和其它物資。

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, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

一名前美軍士兵告訴我是如何與他見面的。那是朝鮮戰爭期間的聖誕節前夕，他在洛杉磯機場準備飛回亞利桑那州過聖誕節。他說，機場有很多軍人，買不到機票。這時候機場突然廣播：「所有計劃飛往亞利桑那州的軍人，請到跑道上來……」他們來到跑道，看到一個叫巴里•戈德華特的人坐在自己的飛機上。在聖誕節之前的幾個星期里，他每一天都會讓飛機滿載軍人飛往亞利桑那，飛回他們的家鄉，然後再飛回來。

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 aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd 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 people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

在極為繁忙的競選活動中，這個人還會花時間坐在一個罹患肺癌即將去世的老朋友身邊。他的競選經理顯得很不耐煩，但是他說：「真正關心她的人已經不多了，我要讓她知道，我是其中一個。」這個人對他19歲的兒子說：「堅實的基礎是由城市和公平構成的，你要在這樣的平台上開始你的生活，用上帝的信仰建起高樓大廈，這才是真正的人生。」這個人不會毫無顧忌地把別人的孩子送上戰場，競選中的這個問題讓我曾經談過的所有其它問題不值一提，除非我們意識到自己身處於一場必勝的戰爭。

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 we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll 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.

那些用我們的自由換取流動餐車的人告訴我們，他們有一個烏托邦式的方案來獲取和平。他們管這項政策叫做「遷就」，他們說，如果我們可以避免與敵人的正面衝突，對方就會忘記邪惡的念頭，進而愛上我們。所有反對這項政策的人都被貼上了戰爭販子的標籤，因為他們說這時解決複雜問題的簡單方法。或許的確有一個簡單的方法，但並不容易做到：如果你和我有勇氣告訴政府的官員們，我們希望國家的政策可以遵從內心的道德標準。

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 theIron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're 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 let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

武力威脅買不來自由，我們不能恬不知恥地對被奴役在鐵幕後的10億人說：「為了讓我們全身而退，你們要放棄自由的夢想，因為我們打算和你們的主子達成協議。」亞歷山大•漢密爾頓說：「一個屈服於威脅的國家就是在等待着奴隸主的降臨，他們需要一個奴隸主。」讓我們把話說明白，在戰爭與和平之間的選擇已經沒有什麼可以討論的了，但是有一個方法可以讓你得到和平，而且是近在眼前的和平，那就是投降。

Admittedly, there's 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 we're 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 he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

必須承認，除此之外的所有道路都隱藏着危險。但是歷史上無數的事實告訴我們，綏靖政策隱含着更大的危險，而這正是那些善良的自由主義朋友們拒絕面對的事實——即他們的遷就就是綏靖政策，他們給出的選擇不是戰爭與和平，而是反抗和投降。如果我們繼續遷就，繼續退卻，最終將面對一個最後通牒。到了那個時候，尼基塔•赫魯曉夫會告訴他的人民我們的答案是什麼呢？他會說，我們在冷戰的壓力之下節節敗退。當最後通牒降臨的時候，我們的投降是不由自主的，因為到那時候，我們在精神、道德和經濟層面上都已經千瘡百孔。他堅信這一點，因為他已經聽到「不惜一切代價換取和平」和「寧紅不死」等言論。還有一位評論人士說，他寧可「跪着生，不願站着死」。這或許會真的引導我們走上戰爭的道路，因為這些聲音並不能代表我們。

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 didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

你和我都知道，並且相信，生活是如此的珍貴，和平如此甜美，讓我們願意付出鐐銬和奴役的代價。如果生活中沒有什麼是值得用生命來換取的，那麼我們怎麼會勇敢地站在敵人的面前？摩西會告訴以色列的人的子孫接受法老的奴役嗎？基督會拒絕十字架嗎？康科德河的愛國者會丟下槍，讓那響徹全世界的槍聲從未出現嗎？歷史中的烈士並不是傻瓜，為阻止納粹而獻出生命的英雄們不會白白死去。那麼，通往和平之路究竟在哪裡？答案其實很簡單。

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 Goldwater's "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 we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

你和我都有勇氣面對敵人說：「有些代價我們不會付出。」「有些界限我們永遠不會逾越。」這就是巴里•戈德華特「強力和平」口號的含義。溫斯頓•丘吉爾曾經說：「人類的命運並非某種物質的集合。當邪惡勢力橫行時，我們會發現自己以精神方式而存在，我們不是動物。」他還說：「有些東西貫穿並超越整個時空，那就是——無論你是否喜歡——責任。」

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

你和我與命運有個約會。

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

我們將為子孫後代保留人類最美好的希望，或者我們可以把這些希望變成千年的黑暗。

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.

我們將記住，巴里•戈德華特對我們有信心。他相信，你和我有能力、有尊嚴、有權利做出我們自己的決定、引導我們自己的命運。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝。