赫伯特ˇ胡佛 (HERBERT HOOVER)

美国的自治制度 The American System SelfˇGovernment

        自由主义的确是这种精神的力量ˇ它出自对这一点的深切认识ˇ即若是要保存政治自由ˇ经济自由便不能被剥夺。 

        赫伯特ˇ胡佛(1874ˇ1964)生于爱阿华州ˇ在俄勒冈州长大ˇ入史坦福大学读工程。胡佛因在第一次世界大战期间及其后ˇ欧洲惨遭战祸的地区分发价值一百万美元的食品和其它援助物资的出色工作而赢得国际声誉。1928年当他被共和党提名爲总统候选人时ˇ已是个进步而务实的知名领袖。在救济活动方面的经验本该使他能较好地对付始于1929年10月证券市场崩溃的全国性灾祸ˇ但胡佛反对大规模公共工程计划ˇ反对ˇ失业者直接提供政府援助。

         1932年胡佛在竞选中败于弗兰克林ˇDˇ罗斯福之手ˇ这使许多人得出一个结论ˇ胡佛的有ˇ政府的哲学被明确否定了。但是即便新政在经济上大大扩展了联邦政府的职能ˇ它却并未ˇ胡佛担心的那样损害自治和个人积极性。胡佛所表述的思ˇ以后成爲美国自我形ˇ的一个基本主题ˇ而且在八十年代后期赢得新的国际声誉。八十年代后期社会主义国家开始抛弃中央计划体制ˇ尝试推行政治多元化、市场经济和私营企业。

       这一讲话是胡佛在1928年成功的竞选运动中发表的。

    ……在过去的一百五十年间ˇ我们已建立了一种自治和社会制度的形式ˇ它是我们所独创的ˇ实质上有别于世界上任何别的政体。它是美国的制度ˇ与迄今人类历史上所建立的一切政治和社会制度一样明确肯定。它建构在一个独特的自治观念上ˇ这种观念以分散的地方责任爲基础。而且它还建构在这一观念上ˇ即只有通过ˇ个人提供符合规章的自由权、自由以及平等的机会ˇ个人才能在进步的征程中充分发挥其主动性和创造性。而正是因爲我们坚决主张机会均等ˇ我们的制度才取得了比世界其它国家更快的发展。

    在战争期间我们必然仰赖政府解决每一个经济难题。既然政府爲战争汲取了我国人民的全部能量ˇ也就只能这麽解决问题了。爲了捍卫国家ˇ联邦政府成爲中央集权的专制政府ˇ承担前所未有的责任ˇ实行独裁ˇ接管公民事务。在很大程度上我们暂时把全体人民组织成一个社会主义的国家。无论这种做法在战时有多麽合理ˇ在和平时期连续实行则不仅会毁坏我们美国的制度ˇ而且将断送我们的进步和自由。

    当战争结束时ˇ我国和全世界最重要的问题是ˇ政府是否应继续保持战时对许多生産和分配手段的所有权及经营权。我们面临挑战ˇ必须在和平时期在这二者之间作出选择ˇ要麽是美国质朴个人主义的制度ˇ要麽是欧洲由恰好对立的两种教义形成的哲学ˇˇ家长式统治和国家社会主义。接受这两种教义便意味着通过政府的中央集权破坏自治ˇ意味着破坏个人的主动性和创造性。而我国人民因爲有这种主动性和创造性已发展成举世无双的伟大人民。……

    共和党完全掌权后ˇ它立刻坚决回到我们关于国家以及个人权利与责任的基本观念上。由此它恢复了对美国人民的信任和希望ˇ解放和刺激了企业的发展ˇ使政府从经济活动参与者的位贵重新回到仲裁者的位置。正是由于这些原因ˇ美国人民取得了进步ˇ而世界其余地区停滞不前ˇ有些国家甚至倒退。如果有人研究一下欧洲复原迟缓的原因ˇ他将发ˇ主要是由于 一方面扼杀了私人的积极性ˇ另一方面政府经营管理的担子太重。

    但是在这次竞选运动中有人重又提出了一系列建议ˇ倘若它们被采纳ˇ就等于朝这一方ˇ迈出一大步ˇ摒弃我们美国的制度ˇ听任商业经营管理由政府处理産生破坏性的后果。’因爲我国正面临某些全国性问题ˇˇ酒、农业救济和电力问题ˇˇ引起的困难和困惑ˇ我们的对手建议ˇ我们应让政府深深介入引发这些问题的事务中。实际上ˇ他们抛弃了自己政党的原则ˇ求助于国家社会主义以解决这三个问题所体ˇ的困难。他们提议我们变禁酒爲国家购ˇ酒类。如果他们的农业救济方案有什麽意义的话ˇ它意味着政府将直接或间接地购买、ˇ售农产品并决定其价格。而且我们将经营水力电力业务。换言之ˇ我们面对着一个庞大的政府营业计划。

    因此ˇ一个基本的原则性问题提到美国人民面前ˇ我们是否将背离我们赖以取得比其它国家更大发展的美国的政治和经济制度ˇ以便采纳动摇它根基的那些原则所派生的方法?……

    我ˇ跟你们谈谈这个政府经营商业的规划将会对我们的自治制度和经济制度産生什麽影ˇ。这种影ˇ将涉及每个人的日常生活。它将ˇ弱自由的基础ˇ对膨胀的官僚政治圈子内外的人来说都是如此。……

    它是一种虚假的自由主义ˇ把自由主义解释爲政府经营商业。使我国的商业官僚化的每一步骤都动摇了自由主义ˇˇ政治平等、言论自由、集会自由、出版自由和机会均等ˇˇ的根基。这不是通ˇ更大自由的道路ˇ而是遏制自由的道路。自由主义的创立不是爲扩充官僚政府ˇ而是要ˇ制它。真正的自由主义追求一切合法的自由。它首先坚信ˇ倘若没有这种自由ˇ那麽对所有别的幸福和利益的追求都是徒劳。这一信念是美国一切进步ˇˇ无论是政治上或经济上ˇˇ的基础。

    自由主义的确是这种精神的力量ˇ它出自对这一点的深切认识ˇ即若是要保存政治自由ˇ经济自由便不能被剥夺。即便政府经营商业能够带给我们更高ˇ而不是更低的效率ˇ从根本上反对它的力量仍然不会改变ˇ不会减弱。政府经营商业将损害政治平等。它将增加ˇ而不是减少滥用职权、贪污贿赂ˇˇ。它将扼杀主动性、创造性。它将阻碍领导能力的发展。它将使我们的人民智力愚钝ˇ萎靡不振。它将压制平等的机会。它将摧残自由和进步的精神。正是由于这些原因ˇ首先必须对它进行抵制。一百五十年以来ˇ自由主义在美国的制度ˇ而不是在欧洲的各种制度中找到了它的真谛。

    我不希望自己这番话遭到误解。我正在解释一个总方针。这并不意味着我们的政府将置全面维护公衆利益于不顾ˇ放弃任何一点国家资源。……

    我也不希望被误解爲认定美国是一切自由ˇ谁落在后头谁就吃亏的国家。机会均等和美国个人主义的本质是ˇ无论在商业或政治上这个共和国不存在任何集团或联合体的统治。ˇ反ˇ它既要政治和社会公正ˇ也要求经济公正。它不是一种放任主义的制度。

    我对这一议题感受颇深ˇ因爲在战争时期我在政府经营管理方面有过一些实际经验。那时在国内、国外我都目睹了许多政府在商业中失败的事例。我看到了这种做法的专横、不公正ˇ它损害自治ˇ扼杀激发我国人民进取的本能。我亲眼目睹了停滞状态ˇ生活水平低下ˇ看见在那种制度下劳作的人民ˇ沈沮丧。我的反对不是建立在理论的基础上ˇ并不是由于不能辨认错误或弊病ˇ而是因爲我知道采用这种方法将震撼美国生活的根基ˇ破坏美国进步的真正基础。

    那麽我们美国的制度已结出了什麽硕果呢? 我们国家已成爲一贫如洗的人们充满机会的国度ˇ这不仅是因爲它资源丰富、工业发达ˇ而且因爲有这种让主动性、创造性充分发挥的自由。俄国的自然资源比起我国毫不逊色ˇ她的人民也同样勤劳ˇ然而她却没有这一百五十年由我们的政府和社会制度形式带来的福祉。……

    美国的伟大出自于一种政治社会制度和它所特有的控制经济力量的方式ˇˇ我们美国的制度ˇ这一制度在人类福利问题上所做的伟大试验是史无前例的。我们今天比任何时期、任何国家都更接近从人民的生活中ˇ除贫穷和恐惧的理ˇ。我要再说一遍ˇ按照我们对手的建议偏离我们美国的制度并引入破坏该制度的原则ˇ将危害我国人民的自由ˇ阻碍机会均等ˇ不仅有害于我们自己ˇ而且有损于我们的子孙。

. . .During 150 years we have builded up a form of self-government and a social system which is peculiarly our own. It differs essentially from all others in the world. It is the American system. It is just as definite and positive a political and social system as has ever been developed on earth. It is founded upon a particular conception of self-government in which decentralized local responsibility is the very base. Further than this, it is founded upon the conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom and equal opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise spur on the march of progress. And in our insistence upon equality of opportunity has our system advanced beyond all the world.

      During the war we necessarily turned to the Government to solve every difficult economic problem. The Government having absorbed every energy of our people for war, there was no other solution. For the preservation of the State, the Federal Government became a centralized despotism which undertook unprecedented responsibilities, assumed autocratic powers, and took over the business of citizens. To a large degree we regimented our whole people temporarily into a socialistic state. However justified in time of war if continued in peace time it would destroy not only our American system but with it our progress and freedom as well.

      When the war closed, the most vital of all issues both in our own country and throughout the world "was whether Governments should continue their wartime ownership and operation of many instrumentalities of production and distribution. We were challenged with a peace-time choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines― doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization of government. It would have meant the undermining of the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness. . . .

      When the Republican Party came into full power it went at once resolutely back to our fundamental conception of the State and the rights and responsibilities of the individual. Thereby it restored confidence and hope in the American people, it freed and stimulated enterprise, it restored the Government to its position as an umpire instead of a player in the economic game. For these reasons the American people have gone forward in progress while the rest of the world has halted, and some countries have even gone backwards. If anyone will study the causes of retarded recuperation in Europe, he will find much of it due to the stifling of private initiative on one hand, and overloading of the Government with business on the other.

      There has been revived in this campaign, however, a series of proposals which, if adopted, would be a long step toward the abandonment of our American system and a surrender to the destructive operation of governmental conduct of commercial business. Because the country is faced with difficulty and doubt over certain national problems― that is, prohibition, farm relief and electrical powder― our opponents propose that we must thrust government a long way into the businesses which give rise to these problems. In effect, they abandon the tenets of their own party and turn to State socialism as a solution for the difficulties presented by all three. It is proposed that we shall change from prohibition to the State purchase and sale of liquor. If their agricultural relief program means any I rectly or indirectly buy and sell and fix prices of agricultural products. And we are to go into the hydro-electric-power business. In other words. we are confronted with a huge program of government in business.

      There is, therefore, submitted to the American people a question of fundamental principle. That is: shall we depart from the principles of our American political and economic system. upon which we have advanced beyond all the rest of the world, in order to adopt methods based on principles destructive of its very foundations? ...

      I should like to state to you the effect that this projection of government in business would have upon our system of self-government and our economic system. That effect would reach to the daily life of every man and woman. It would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom not only for those left outside the fold of expanded bureaucracy but for those embraced within it. . . .

      It is a false liberalism that interprets itself into the Government operation of commercial business. Every step of bureaucratizing of the business of our country poisons the very roots of liberalism― that is, political equality, free speech, free assembly, free press, and equality of opportunity. It is the road not to more liberty, but to less liberty. Liberalism should be found not striving to spread bureaucracy but striving tp set bounds to it. True liberalism seeks all legitimate freedom, first in the confident belief that without such freedom the pursuit of all other blessings and benefits is vain. That belief is the foundation of all American progress, political as well as economic.

      Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved. Even if Governmental conduct of business could give us more efficiency instead of less efficiency, the fundamental objection to it would remain unaltered and unabated. It would destroy political equality. It would increase rather than decrease abuse and corruption. It would stifle initiative and invention. It would undermine the development of leadership. It would cramp and cripple the mental and spiritual energies of our people. It would extinguish equality and opportunity. It would dry up the spirit of liberty and progress. For these reasons primarily it must be resisted. For a hundred and fifty years liberalism has found its true spirit in the American system, not in the European systems.

      I do not wish to be misunderstood in this statement. I am defining a general policy. It does not mean that our Government is to part with one iota of its national resources without complete protection to the public interest. ...

      Nor do I wish to be misinterpreted as believing that the United States is free-for-all and devil-take-the-hind-most. The very essence of equality of opportunity and of American individualism is that there shall be no domination by any group or combination in this Republic, whether it be business or political. On the contrary, it demands economic justice as well as political and social justice. It is no system of laissez faire.

      I feel deeply on this subject because during the war I had some practical experience with governmental operation and control. I have witnessed not only at home but abroad the many failures of Government in business. I have seen its tyrannies, its injustices, its destructions of self-government, its undermining of the very instincts which carry our people forward to progress. I have witnessed the lack of advance, the lowered standards of living, the depressed spirits of people working under such a system. My objection is based not upon theory or upon a failure to recognize wrong or abuse, but I know the adoption of such methods would strike at the very roots of American life and would destroy the very basis of American progress. . . .

      And what have been the results of our American system? Our country has become the land of opportunity to those born without inheritance, not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry, but because of this freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to ours. Her people are equally industrious, but she has not had the blessings of 150 years of our form of government and of our social system. . . .

      The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of control of economic forces distinctly its own― our American system― which has carried this great experiment in human welfare further than ever before in all history. We are nearer today to the ideal of the abolition of poverty and fear from the lives of men and women than ever before in any land. And I again repeat that the departure from our American system by injecting principles destructive to it which our opponents propose will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, will destroy equality of opportunity, not alone to ourselves but to our children.