17hoho范文网--中国资料最多的范文网[ QQ:150154016]
加入收藏 | 设为首页 | 联系我们

里根1964年演讲A Time for Choosing

作者:佚名  来源:网络收集  发布时间:2007-7-12 13:25:41  发布人:admin

A Time for Choosing

  1964年,里根为了帮助共和党总统候选人、参议员巴里·戈顿沃特,作了一场题为《一个选择时代》的演讲,令人耳目一新。他在讲话中说:“我们必须捍卫自由,否则自由将离我们而去。”这句话成为当年风靡美国的名言。那次演讲十分成功,可巴里最终还是输给了对手,1965年入主白宫的是民主党人约翰逊总统。可是这番精彩的电视讲话成为他人生中的一个转折点,里根于1966年当选为加州州长,并于1970年连任。随着“水门”丑闻的曝光,里根的政治声望更是与日俱增。1976年,他在挑战尼克松“钦定”继承人杰拉尔德·R·福特时,仅以60票的微弱劣势惜败给对手,结果福特当选第38任美国总统。

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 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 -- [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.

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 r

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 下一页

[1] [2]  下一页

使用firefox浏览本站速度更快、更安全.点击下面连接下载firefox浏览器
【声明】社区刊载此文不代表同意其说法或描述,仅为提供参考信息。转载请注明出处。

热门文章



| 设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 版权申明 |个人简历范文 |求职范文 |