里根于1964年為總統(tǒng)候選人助選的演講

里根于1964年為總統(tǒng)候選人助選的演講英文版

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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’s 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 I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: 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.

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.”

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 cannot 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 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 do not 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 he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress extension of the farm program to include those 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.

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 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 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.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights 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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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 old CCC camps, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

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 have 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 dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

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.

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 are 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 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. Therefore, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll 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 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.

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.

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.

Now it does not 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 we’re 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 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 have 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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 us set the record straight.

There is 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.

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.

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.

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.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

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.

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.

里根于1964年為總統(tǒng)候選人助選的演講中文版

謝謝，非常感謝。晚上好。主辦單位找到了。但不同于大多數(shù)的電視節(jié)目，這里不給演員提供臺詞。因此，我可以用自己的話來說說，我怎樣來看待數(shù)周后的選舉。

我這輩子大部分時間都是民主黨。最近，我才感到我比較適合另一套路子。我認為我們面臨的問題是跨黨派的。如今，一邊的陣營在告訴我們，本輪選舉的議題是維護和平與繁榮。這話說的，“我們沒法再好了。”

但是我覺得不妥。這個“繁榮”不是我們所希望的未來。歷史上沒有任何國家，在稅負高到國民所得的三分之一，還可以活著的。如今，每賺1美元就有37美分要上交國庫作為稅收。而我們的政府每天超支1,700萬美元。過去三十四年，有二十八年預算沒有平衡過。在過去的一年時間里，我們已經(jīng)把債務上限提高了3倍。如今，我們國家的債務是全世界國家債務總和的1.5倍。我們的國庫只有150億元的黃金，但1盎司都不屬于我們，外國貨幣占去了273億。而我們剛剛說，現(xiàn)在1美元的購買力只相當于1939年的45美分。

說到我們要和平，我想知道，我們中間有沒有人去了解那些妻子和母親們，他們的丈夫和孩子在南越犧牲了。你問問他們，這是否是該無條件維護的和平。他們意味著和平嗎?還是意味著我們只想要在“和平”中度日而已?如果還有一位美國人在世界某處為我們大家犧牲，就不可能有真正的和平。

我們遭遇的是人類有史以來最險惡的敵人。據(jù)說如果我們輸?shù)魬?zhàn)爭，我們的自由也將如此失去。歷史將會有這樣震驚的記載，那些人之所以一敗涂地，因為他們連最起碼的阻擋也沒有做過。我想該是我們捫心自問的時候了，我們是否依然知悉建國先賢為我們開創(chuàng)的自由道路。

不久前，我的兩位朋友和一個古巴難民聊天，他是從卡斯特羅那里逃出來的生意人。當古巴人述說他的遭遇時，其中一個朋友對另一個說：“我們不知道我們有多幸運。”古巴人停了下來說：“你們有多幸運?我只要有個地方可以躲就行了。”他的這句話說明了一切。如果我們這里也失去了自由，那全世界都無處可逃了。這是地球上最后的自由之地。

政府理應為人民服務，因為權力是至高的人民所授予的，除此之外，沒有其他的來源。在人與人關系的歷史長河中，這種理念仍然是最新、最獨特的。

本輪選舉的主題是：我們要相信自我管理的能力，還是摒棄美國革命的理念，承認偏遠的國會里有一小撮精英可以為我們的生活作計劃，而且計劃得比我們更好。

越來越多的人像你我一樣，要求我們選左派或右派。我想提議的是，別管什么左派右派。這里只有向上派或向下派：向上，是人類古老的夢想，是個體自由的目標，它與法律和秩序是一致的。所謂向下，就是像蟻群一樣，甘愿自己被極權主義壓在底層，不管真心誠意也好，或是出于人道主義也罷，他們都會以安全為由，出賣我們的自由，走上這條向下沉淪的道路。

在這個爭奪選票的時刻，他們說“偉大社會”這番話，要不就像前幾天總統(tǒng)和我們講，我們必須接受“政府進一步對于民事的干預”。而過去他們還含糊其辭，模棱兩可。我說的所有這一切，你們都能在報紙上看見。

這些不是共和黨的指控。比如，他們說：“如果我們接受不民主的社會主義，冷戰(zhàn)就結束了。”還有人說：“爭奪利潤的激勵制度已經(jīng)過時了。應該由福利國家的激勵機制來取代。”或者，“我們個人自由的傳統(tǒng)體制無法解決20世紀的復雜問題”。

參議員富布賴特在斯坦福大學說，憲法已經(jīng)過時了。他說，總統(tǒng)是“我們的道德導師，是我們的領袖。他說，他的工作被這篇限制權力的‘古文’束縛了。應該給他‘自由’，讓他盡心為我們做他認為最好的事情。”

還有一位發(fā)言人，賓夕法尼亞州參議員克拉克，他直截了當把“自由主義”定義為：“通過集權政府的所有權力來滿足民眾的物質(zhì)需求。”

作為民眾之一，我不喜歡這樣的說法。因為議員說的所謂“民眾”，是指你、我以及我們國家所有自由的男人和女人。在美國，“民眾”這樣的詞，我們自己已不適用了。

除此之外，“集權政府的所有權力”是建國先賢極力避免的。他們知道，政府無法控制事情。一個政府要控制經(jīng)濟，必然要壓制人民。他們知道如果政府要這樣做，必須通過暴力和強制的手段來實現(xiàn)。那些建國先賢，他們當然知道，政府除立法職能之外，在經(jīng)濟上的作為，完全不如私有經(jīng)濟領域。

我們用過去三十年政府干預農(nóng)業(yè)的例子來說明問題是再好不過了。從1955年以來，這項計劃的成本增加了將近一倍。美國85%的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品過剩是由四分之一的農(nóng)業(yè)(政府干預的那部分)造成的，除此之外，依靠自由市場的四分之三的農(nóng)業(yè)，其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品人均消費量增長了21%。你看，這四分之一的農(nóng)業(yè)——是由聯(lián)邦政府來規(guī)范和控制的。在過去的三年，我們的飼料糧計劃，用43美元產(chǎn)不出1美元的玉米量。

參議員漢弗萊上周指控巴里·戈德華特是企圖消滅農(nóng)民的總統(tǒng)。他如果多做點功課的話就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，政府這些計劃讓我們的農(nóng)業(yè)人口減少了500萬。他也會發(fā)現(xiàn)，民主黨政府在尋求國會支持將農(nóng)場計劃擴張到自由市場里四分之三的農(nóng)業(yè)。他會發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們還要申請?zhí)貦鄟黻P押那些不按照聯(lián)邦政府規(guī)定來記賬的農(nóng)民。

農(nóng)業(yè)部部長還要申請接管農(nóng)場特權，通過沒收農(nóng)場并轉售給其他人的手段。如果把這個條款放到同一個計劃里，等于允許聯(lián)邦政府把200萬農(nóng)民從土地上趕走。

與此同時，農(nóng)業(yè)部卻在增加雇員。如今，美國每三十個農(nóng)民就有一個公務員來管，這些公務員無法向我們交代，去奧地利的六十六艘滿載稻米的船怎么會消失得無影無蹤?比利·索爾·埃斯蒂斯都沒有出過海。

凡是負責任的農(nóng)民和農(nóng)場組織都一再要求過政府放棄對農(nóng)業(yè)的管制，但是，除了農(nóng)民自己，還有誰知道什么對他們有利呢?麥農(nóng)投票反對麥子計劃。政府照樣通過該計劃?，F(xiàn)在，面包價格上漲，農(nóng)民的小麥價格下跌。

與此同時，在城市里，所謂“重建市區(qū)”在侵害民眾的自由。私有財產(chǎn)權被蠶食，所謂高于一切的“公共利益”，卻由幾位政府規(guī)劃者說了算。政府的計劃奪走貧困者的財產(chǎn)，送予貪心者享用。俄亥俄州克利夫蘭就發(fā)生了這樣不幸的事。三年前花了150萬蓋好的房子，因為政府要“讓土地使用更具有兼容性”，就強制拆除。我們的總統(tǒng)說，那里要蓋數(shù)千棟公共住宅，目前只有幾百棟。

FHA(聯(lián)邦房屋管理局)和退伍軍人管理局說，他們已經(jīng)收回了止贖的12萬套住房。為了解決失業(yè)問題，政府搞了三十多年的計劃，但是計劃失敗得越多，計劃就越多。最新的是“地區(qū)再開發(fā)局”。

他們剛剛說堪薩斯州賴斯縣是一個貧困地區(qū)。而堪薩斯州賴斯縣有200口油井，14,000人，他們在銀行的個人存款超過3,000萬。如果政府說你窮，那就你認了吧，窮就窮吧。

不是有人斷言，胖子之所以肥是因為胖子揩了瘦子的油，我們很多人是看不到瘦子的邊上還站著個胖子的。于是，他們打算通過政府和政府計劃來解決人類所有的貧窮問題。如果政府的計劃和福利真的是解藥，那么他們搞了將近三十年福利，他們的成績不該給我們看看嗎?難道他們不該對我們說，需要幫助的人逐年在減少嗎?需要住公共住宅的人也在下降嗎?

但事實恰恰相反。每年窮人都在增加，而政府計劃增長也越大。四年前，我們聽政府說，每晚有1,700萬人餓著肚子上床睡覺。說不定確有此事，他們都在節(jié)食。但是，現(xiàn)在我們又聽說，我國有930萬戶年收入低于3,000美元的家庭，他們窮困潦倒。如今，福利開支是極度黑暗的大蕭條時期的10倍。

我們的福利開支有450億美元。你現(xiàn)在算算就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果我們把450億元均分給900萬戶貧困家庭，每年每戶家庭就能拿到4,600元。加上他們目前的收入，他們應該不窮了。但直接給到窮人手里的援助，每戶家庭只有600元左右。這似乎意味著在別的什么地方開銷用過了頭。

現(xiàn)在，我們宣布“向貧困開戰(zhàn)”，或者“你也可以是鮑比·貝克(國策顧問)”。他們真的要我們相信在450億的開支上再加10億，或者三十多個計劃上再加一個計劃，我們就能……記住，新計劃不會改變什么，它只是復制現(xiàn)有的計劃。說心里話，應該說在這個新計劃中有一部分是不重復的。那是有關年輕人的部分。

我們現(xiàn)在又要搞老套的“公共資源保護隊”計劃，新政時期讓青年鋪路，植樹，建公園，讓年輕人入團來解決輟學問題和青少年犯罪問題。但是我們稍微計算一下就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，單單花在年輕人的吃住上，每年每人就要用掉4,700美元?；?,700元我們就可以把他們送進哈佛!當然，不要誤解，我并不是說要哈佛來解決青少年犯罪的問題。

但是說真的，我們對那些需要幫助的人都做了些什么?不久前，洛杉磯的一個法官打電話給我，他說，有名年輕婦女到他那里要離婚。她生了六個孩子，肚子里還懷著第七個。在他的再三追問下才知道，她丈夫是名勞工，月收入250美元。她要離婚是想再得到80美元收入。因為按照援助撫養(yǎng)子女計劃，她有資格每月享受330美元的補貼。她這么做是受到她兩個鄰居的啟發(fā)，他們也都是這樣做的。

然而，每當我們質(zhì)疑這些良心人士的計劃時，我們就被批評說我們反對的是人道主義的目標。他們說，我們總是“反對”一切，從來不會“支持”。

我們的左派朋友的問題不是他們太無知，而是他們知道得太多，且并非如此。

現(xiàn)在，我們支持這樣的一個條款，所謂年老失業(yè)不應該是貧窮的借口，因此我們認為可將社會保障作為解決問題的第一步。

但是，我們反對那些計劃受惠者鉆財政的漏洞作弊騙錢，我們反對一聽到批評政府計劃，就指責其用心是讓政府停止補助那些靠補貼才能度日的人。

在大量的文獻中，他們稱之為“保險”。而在最高法院，他們的呈詞說這是一種“福利”計劃。他們以“保險”的名義推銷給老百姓。他們說“社保”費用是政府為了公共用途才征的稅，而且政府已經(jīng)用過了這些稅。

政府的社保帳戶上并沒有錢。在國會委員會上，精算師羅伯特·拜爾斯承認，當時社保有2,980億美元的缺口。但他說不要擔心，只要政府還有權力征稅，無論他們要什么，總能從老百姓那兒征收上來，問題便可迎刃而解了。目前，他們就是這么做的。

一個二十一歲的年輕人，如果他的工資達到平均水平，那么他繳的社會保障金，在公開市場上足夠買到一份保險計劃，保證他在六十五歲時每月領到220元。但政府只承諾將來給他127元。于是，他會等到三十一歲時，選擇辦一份比“社保”補償更好的保險計劃。

這樣看來，我們政府是不是很沒有商業(yè)頭腦呢，這個計劃根本靠不住。一旦到了社保兌現(xiàn)期，大家向政府要錢時，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)“這個櫥柜不是空掉了嗎?”

巴里·戈德華特認為我們能做到。

與此同時，我們可不可以推出一些自愿的條款，允許自己能做得更好的公民不加入政府計劃，只要他能證明自己為退休時候做好了準備。

不準有小孩的寡婦上班，否則不給她撫恤金，我們這樣做，對嗎?按理她已故的丈夫也交過稅?在這個計劃中，你和我難道都沒有權力決定自己的受益人是誰?我們不能做什么?

我認為我們不該因為缺錢而剝奪老年人享受醫(yī)療保險。但是，我們反對那種不管民眾需不需要，都強制他們加入政府的計劃。尤其我們還有前車之鑒。就在上周，法國宣布醫(yī)保計劃破產(chǎn)。這條路已經(jīng)走到了盡頭。

再者，巴里·戈德華特不負責任了嗎?他建議我國政府停止搞那種精心策劃的人為的通貨膨脹。這樣將來你得到的養(yǎng)老金，1美元還值1美元，而不是只值45美分?

我認為我們要支持一個讓世界各國能夠尋求和平的國際組織。但我們要反對凌駕于美國利益之上的組織，即便是獲得了聯(lián)合國大會三分之二的支持票。因為這個組織的結構不健全，它代表的人口還不到世界總人口的十分之一。

我認為我們要反對那種虛偽。一邊抨擊我們盟國，因為他們這兒或那兒還堅持著一個殖民地，一邊卻暗地里搞陰謀詭計，對蘇聯(lián)的殖民地，蘇聯(lián)衛(wèi)星國中受奴役的千百萬人三緘其口。

我認為我們要支持那些與我們志同道合的盟國，與他們分享我們的物資。而不是在各國政府之間亂捐鈔票，這些國家不是搞社會主義就是在搞官僚主義。我們的目標是要幫助19個國家，但如今我們幫助了107個。

我們花費了1,460億美元。這些錢我們讓海爾·塞拉西買了200萬的游艇，讓希臘的殯儀官穿了禮服，讓肯尼亞政府官員有了情婦，我們買了1,000臺電視機，結果卻送到一個連電都沒有的地方。

過去的六年里，共有52個國家購買了我國的黃金，價值70億美元。而這些國家全部都接受過我國的援助。

沒有政府會主動縮減自身的規(guī)模。因此，政府的計劃一經(jīng)推出永不消失。其實，政府官僚機制是我們在地球上看到的最不容易滅絕的東西。

聯(lián)邦雇員擁有250萬之眾，而本國六分之一的勞動力受雇于聯(lián)邦、州與地方政府。這些官僚機構猛增，成千上萬條的管制侵蝕了我們的憲政保障。究竟有多少人意識到，如今連逮捕證都不帶的聯(lián)邦特工就能私闖民宅?他們可以不經(jīng)過正式聽證而執(zhí)行罰款，更不用說陪審團的判決機制了?他們可以通過查封和拍賣別人的財產(chǎn)來強制執(zhí)行罰款。

在阿肯色州奇科縣，詹姆斯·威爾種植水稻的用地超標了。于是，政府獲得了17,000元的判罰。法院執(zhí)行官把他960英畝的農(nóng)場拍賣掉了。政府還說這非常必要，可以警告其他的人，讓這個機制起作用。

去年二月在明尼蘇達大學，諾曼·托馬斯這位獲得社會黨六次提名的總統(tǒng)候選人說：“如果巴里·戈德華特成為總統(tǒng)，他會停止美國走向極權的道路。”我想正是如此。

作為一個前民主黨人，我告訴你們，不只是諾曼·托馬斯把現(xiàn)政府比作社會主義。早在1936年，民主黨人阿爾·史密斯，這個偉大的美國人，就曾在美國民眾面前指控他的黨領袖背離了杰斐遜、杰克遜和克利夫蘭的路線，而跑到了反方的麾下。他退黨了，直到死也沒有回頭。因為直到那一天，該黨的領袖還在帶領著這個光榮的黨，沿著英格蘭的勞工社會黨的路線走下去。

現(xiàn)在都不用霸占或沒收私有財產(chǎn)和企業(yè)，或對老百姓強制推行極權。什么意思呢?如果政府掌握了企業(yè)和財產(chǎn)的生殺大權，即使你擁有房契或者在自己公司做官，又有什么用呢?這種機制已經(jīng)存在了。

政府隨隨便便就能找到一些罪名來控告你。凡是生意人都有過被騷擾的經(jīng)歷。有些地方莫名其妙的事也會發(fā)生。我們天賦的不可剝奪的權利，如今被認為是政府的一種特許，自由從未如此脆弱，幾乎此刻就要從我們手中滑落。

我們民主黨的對手似乎不愿意討論這些問題。他們想要讓你和我都相信這是兩個男人在競爭，我們只需要根據(jù)兩人的人品做出選擇而已。

那么，他們要在哪一點上擊垮他(巴里·戈德華特)呢?擊垮他所代表的理念，那是你和我都珍惜的理念。他是所謂的輕浮和淺薄，喜歡滿嘴放炮的人嗎?我有幸能夠認識他，在他還沒有參選之前，我早就認識他了。就我個人而言，我可以告訴你，我可以打保票他是最不會去做那種不誠實或不光彩的事的人。

在進入政壇之前，他有自己的公司。他制定了一項讓員工分享利潤的計劃，這點他比工會想到得還要早。他為公司里的所有員工購買了健康和醫(yī)療保險。他把稅前利潤的50%用來為所有員工設立一項退休計劃。他每月都送一位患病，無法上班的員工去檢查身體。他給在店面工作的母親提供兒童保育費。墨西哥的蘭德河發(fā)洪水的時候，他駕駛自己的飛機為災民送去藥品和物資。

一名前海外軍人告訴我，他見過巴里·戈德華特。那是在戰(zhàn)爭時期，某個圣誕節(jié)的前一周，他在洛杉磯亞利桑那州機場要搭飛機回家過圣誕節(jié)。他說，當時軍人很多，飛機上已經(jīng)沒有多余的座位。這時，喇叭里傳來了一個聲音說：“凡是想搭機去亞利桑那州的各位軍人請去跑道。”于是，他們就下去了，有一個叫巴里·戈德華特的人在飛機里等他們。在圣誕節(jié)前幾周，巴里·戈德華特每天都會過來，從早到晚地運送客人，送他們?nèi)喞Ｄ侵?，送他們回家，然后飛回來，再運一次。

即使在這個分秒必爭的選戰(zhàn)時刻，他也會抽出時間去陪一位罹患癌癥即將離世的老朋友。他的競選經(jīng)紀人很不理解，但是他(巴里·戈德華特)說：“沒有多少左派會在乎她。我想讓她知道我在乎她。”

他曾對自己十九歲的兒子說：“沒有什么根基勝過誠實和公平這樣的磐石，你要把你的人生建在這塊磐石之上，用你對上帝的信仰來加固，這才是你人生的真正起點。”

他并不是那種不停地慫恿別人孩子去打仗的人。選戰(zhàn)的這個議題使我之前討論過的問題顯得不切實際，除非我們意識到這場戰(zhàn)爭我們一定要取得勝利。

那些人為了要福利國家的“流動廚房”而出賣我們的自由。他們對我們說，他們有烏托邦式的和平解決方案，用不著獲得戰(zhàn)爭的勝利。他們稱他們的政策為“和解”。他們說，如果我們能避免與敵人正面交鋒，敵人就會放棄自己的罪惡活動，并且會逐漸喜歡我們。凡是反對他們方案的人都被他們指控為戰(zhàn)爭販子。

他們說，我們?yōu)閺碗s的問題提供了簡單的答案。也許有一個簡單的答案，但是不容易做到，除非你和我鼓足勇氣告訴當選的官員，我們希望國家政策在道義上是正確的，能對得起我們的良心。

我們不能為了自己的安全和自由不受炸彈的威脅，而出賣良心地對鐵幕下飽受奴役的10億人說：“放棄你們的自由夢想吧，因為我們要明哲保身，我們要和你們的主子做交易。”亞歷山大·漢密爾頓說：“如果一個國家寧受屈辱也不愿意鋌而走險，那么它在邀請一個主子，活該被它奴役。”

現(xiàn)在，我們要以正視聽。所謂要和平還是要戰(zhàn)爭都是空談，想要那種打保票的和平，只有一個辦法，而且立刻就能實現(xiàn)，那就是“投降”。

的確，除投降之外，我們?nèi)魏蔚淖龇ǘ加酗L險，但所有的歷史教訓都告訴我們，綏靖政策的風險更大。他們的和解政策就是綏靖政策，我們好心的自由派朋友們卻回避了魔咒。和平與戰(zhàn)爭沒得選，要么戰(zhàn)斗，要么投降。

如果我們堅持和解，繼續(xù)退讓和撤退，最終我們不得不面對最后的命令，最后通牒。接著，赫魯曉夫會告訴他的人，他知道我們會怎樣反應?他會說我們因為迫于冷戰(zhàn)的壓力而撤兵了。某天到了下最后通牒的時候，我們會主動地投降，因為到那時我們在精神上、道義上、經(jīng)濟上都被削弱了。他如此確信，因為從我們這里他聽到了懇求的聲音“為了求和，不惜任何代價”或“寧可被共產(chǎn)，也不要死于核戰(zhàn)”，或正如一位評論家所說的那樣，他寧愿“跪著生，也不要死在他的腳下。”通往戰(zhàn)爭的道路就在那一點上，因為這些話不代表我們的聲音。

你和我都知道，我們不相信“生命如此寶貴，和平如此甜美，以至于不惜以枷鎖和奴役為代價去換取它們”。(出自帕特里克·亨利)難道生命中沒有什么值得犧牲的，什么時候才開始這樣，是因為面前有這樣的敵人嗎?

摩西應該告訴為奴的以色列人聽命于法老嗎?基督曾拒絕背負十字架嗎?愛國的勇士們應該在康科德橋就把槍扔掉，不該打響驚動世界的那一槍嗎?歷史上的烈士不是笨蛋，我們這些光榮的逝者用他們的生命阻止了納粹的擴張，他們沒有白死。通往和平的道路在哪里?答案非常簡單。

你和我鼓起勇氣告訴我們的敵人：“我們不買這個賬。”“有一點更為重要，就是他們必須停止擴張。”這就意味著，巴里·戈德華特的那句話：“和平要靠實力。”溫斯頓·丘吉爾說過：“人的命運不是以物質(zhì)積累來衡量的，當世界上偉大的軍隊在前進的時候，我們意識到我們是靈魂的人，而非動物。”他說：“有件事正在時空或超時空中發(fā)生著，不管我們喜歡還是不喜歡，那叫做責任。”

命運讓你和我走到一起。

為了我們的孩子，我們一定要保守住人類最后的憧憬，否則我們將會讓他們跌入千年的黑暗。

我們要銘記，巴里·戈德華特有顆忠于我們的心。他相信，你和我都有能力，有尊嚴，有權利自己做決定，決定自己的命運。

非常感謝。