主题:破除票选即民主的巫思 -- 迷惑不解
I seem to have heard of it before. Indeed, it was at Westminster that I received a very large part of my education in politics, dialectic, rhetoric, and one or two other things. In fact we have both been educated at the same, or similar, or, at any rate, kindred establishments.
It is also an honour, perhaps almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties, and responsibilities-unsought but not recoiled from-the President has travelled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too. The President has told you that it is his wish, as I am sure it is yours, that I should have full liberty to give my true and faithful counsel in these anxious and baffling times. I shall certainly avail myself of this freedom, and feel the more right to do so because any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. Let me, however, make it clear that I have no official mission or status of any kind, and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here but what you see.
I can therefore allow my mind, with the experience of a lifetime, to play over the problems which beset us on the morrow of our absolute victory in arms, and to try to make sure with what strength I have that what has been gained with so much sacrifice and suffering shall be preserved for the future glory and safety of mankind.
The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.
When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.
To give security to these countless homes, they must be shielded from the two giant marauders, war and tyranny. We all know the frightful disturbances in which the ordinary family is plunged when the curse of war swoops down upon the bread-winner and those for whom he works and contrives. The awful ruin of Europe, with all its vanished glories, and of large parts of Asia glares us in the eyes. When the designs of wicked men or the aggressive urge of mighty States dissolve over large areas the frame of civilised society, humble folk are confronted with difficulties with which they cannot cope. For them all is distorted, all is broken, even ground to pulp.
When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks the earth. None can compute what has been called "the unestimated sum of human pain." Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that.
Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step-namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organisation has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars-though not, alas, in the interval between them-I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organisation must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organisation. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organisation. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the First World War, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith.
具有政治意义的自由和民主的词汇我都标出来了,从数量上说是旗鼓相当。但是,从语义上说,标榜国家的修饰用的都是民主一词。
丘吉尔发表铁幕演说的目的就是乞求以美国为首的西方国家一起围堵苏联,在这个意义上他三次提到“西方民主国家”/ Western Democracies 。对苏联的用语则是独裁者、寡头集团、警察政府.....,从没用民主来描绘过苏联,反倒是说“(东欧)除了捷克,没有真实的民主”。
=========
为什么会有“西方标榜自由”的说法?这个是不是来自文艺作品呢?早期的007系列电影就是这么个做法,常有忽悠人投奔自由世界的台词。文艺作品这么设计是因为,很多人都喜欢自由而不喜欢民主。
票选民主的一个规则是少数者要认输。这个政治术语叫做“忠诚反对”。这个规则让人很不舒服(是啊,忙活半天却被人否定了,谁会舒服?)。每个人都有一个心魔——想干啥就干啥的”皇帝梦“,只有外界的压力才能抑制这个魔鬼。如果没有袁世凯被孙中山、冯国璋、蔡锷气死在前,蒋介石是一定想做皇帝的。
丘吉尔曾经抱怨,自己刚带领英国人打赢了德国就被英国人抛弃了。这或多或少的说明丘吉尔自己也不喜欢民主而不自由的英国,只不过是没办法而已。
- 相关回复 上下关系8
压缩 4 层
🙂感觉政治问题没有好好理会和学习。 真历啊 字81 2021-04-12 18:50:44
🙂本朝国名里之所以不包含 2 天空不空 字144 2021-04-12 09:42:13
🙂你可能记错了 4 yaodao 字127 2021-04-12 08:51:34
🙂我们应该是看的同一个版本吧
🙂赞考据,讲究 2 yaodao 字45 2021-04-13 00:41:30
🙂补充 2 普鲁托 字4039 2021-04-12 23:31:37
🙂补充 1 普鲁托 字7531 2021-04-12 23:19:43
🙂演说太长,得分三次来发 2 普鲁托 字9513 2021-04-12 23:18:40