Ronald Reagan: Vrijeme biranja (27. listopada 1964.)

Submitted by Vedran Miletić on pet, 10/27/2017 - 06:30

Napomena: Tekst koji slijedi je prijevod Reaganovog govora "Vrijeme biranja", održanog 27. listopada 1964. godine u sklopu predsjedničke kampanje republikanskog kandidata Barryja Goldwatera. Iako Goldwateru nije donio pobjedu na predsjedničkim izborima, ovaj je tekst vrlo važan jer se radi o Reaganovom debitantskom nastup na američkoj političkoj sceni; Reagan je nastavio u istom smjeru i 16 godina kasnije sam pobijedio u utrci za predsjednika SAD-a (kako je politički komentar George Will rekao, Goldwater je pobijedio 1964. godine, samo je trebalo 16 godina da prebroje glasove). Autor prijevoda ovom objavom ne iskazuje slaganje sa svakom pojedinačnom idejom koju Reagan iznosi i prijevod objavljuje zato što smatra da je, za razumijevanje slobodarske perspektive, ovo jedan od temeljnih političkih govora koji treba poznavati. Transkript govora (arhivirana verzija) je preuzet iz Predsjedničke knjižnice i muzeja Ronalda Reagana.

Hvala vam. Hvala vam puno. Hvala vam i dobra večer. Sponzor je identificiran, ali, za razliku od većine televizijskih programa, izvođač nije dobio tekst. Zapravo, dopušteno mi je odabrati vlastite riječi i raspravljati o vlastitim idejama na temu izbora s kojim se suočavamo u idućih nekoliko tjedana.

Veći dio svog života proveo sam kao Demokrat. Nedavno sam uvidio da bi pristajalo slijediti drugi smjer. Vjerujem da problemi s kojima smo suočeni prelaze granice stranaka. Sada, jedna strana u ovoj kampanji govori nam da su pitanja kojima se bavimo na ovim izborima održavanje mira i blagostanja. Korištena je fraza: "Nikad nam nije bilo tako dobro."

Ali imam neugodan osjećaj da ovo blagostanje nije nešto na čemu možemo temeljiti naše nade za budućnost. Nijedna nacija u povijesti nije preživjela porezno opterećenje koje je doseglo trećinu njenog nacionalnog dohotka. Danas, 37 centi od svakog dolara zarađenog u ovoj zemlji je udio koji uzimaju sakupljači poreza, a unatoč tome naša vlada nastavlja trošiti 17 milijuna dolara dnevno više nego što uprihođuje. Nismo balansirali naš budžet 28 od zadnjih 34 godine. Podigli smo ograničenje duga tri puta u zadnjih dvanaest mjeseci i sada je naš nacionalni dug jedan i pol puta veći nego spojeni svi dugovi svih nacija svijeta. Imamo 15 milijardi dolara u zlatu u našoj riznici; nismo vlasnici ni jedne unce (op.prev. mjera za težinu). Strana potražnja za dolarima iznosi 27,3 milijarde dolara. I mi smo upravo objavili da će dolar iz 1939. godine sada kupiti 45 centi u svojoj čitavoj vrijednosti.

Što se tiče mira koji bismo sačuvali, pitam se tko bi među nama želio pristupiti ženi ili majci čiji je suprug ili sin umro u Južnom Vijetnamu i pitati ih ako misle da je to mir koji treba održati na neodređeno vrijeme. Misle li mir ili misle da samo želimo da nas ostave na miru? Ne može postojati pravi mir dok jedan Amerikanac umire na nekom mjestu na svijetu za nas ostale. Mi smo u ratu s najopasnijim neprijateljem s kojim se čovječanstvo ikada suočilo u svom dugom usponu iz močvare do zvijezda, a rečeno je da ako izgubimo taj rat i pritom izgubimo i našu slobodu, povijest će zapisali s najvećim iznenađenjem da su oni koji su najviše imali za izgubiti učinili najmanje kako bi spriječili da se to dogodi. Pa mislim da je vrijeme da se pitamo jesmo li još uvijek upoznali slobode koje su nam namijenili Očevi osnivači.

Nedavno su dva moja prijatelja razgovarali s kubanskim izbjeglicom, poslovnim čovjekom koji je pobjegao od Castra, a usred njegove priče jedan od mojih prijatelja se okrenuo drugom i rekao: "Ne znamo koliko smo sretni." I Kubanac je zastao i rekao: "Koliko ste vi sretni? Ja sam imao mjesto gdje mogu pobjeći." I u toj rečenici nam je ispričao čitavu priču. Ako izgubimo slobodu ovdje, nema mjesta za bijeg. Ovo je posljednje stajalište na zemlji.

A ta ideja da je vlada obavezna prema ljudima, da nema drugog izvora moći osim suverenog naroda, još uvijek je najnovija i jedinstvena ideja u čitavoj dugoj povijesti čovjekovog odnosa prema čovjeku.

Ovo je pitanje ovih izbora: vjerujemo li u našu sposobnost za vladanja nama samima ili odbacujemo Američku revoluciju i priznajemo da bi mala intelektualna elita u dalekom glavnom gradu mogla planirati naše živote za nas bolje nego što ih mi možemo planirati sami.

Vama i meni je sve više rečeno da moramo birati između lijevo ili desno. Pa, volio bih predložiti da nema takve stvari kao lijevo ili desno. Postoji samo gore ili dolje: [gore] uz čovjekov stari – san iz davnih godina, konačno postignuće u individualnoj slobodi u skladu sa zakonom i redom, ili dolje do mravlje hrpe totalitarizma. I bez obzira na njihovu iskrenost, njihove humanitarne motive, oni koji bi prodali našu slobodu za sigurnost krenuli su tim smjerom prema dolje.

U ovom trenutku prikupljanja glasova koriste se pojmovi poput "Velikog društva" ili, kako nam je predsjednik pričao prije nekoliko dana, moramo prihvatiti veću vladinu aktivnost u poslovima ljudi. Ali oni su bili malo eksplicitniji u prošlosti i među sobom; i sve stvari koje ću sad citirati pojavile su se u tisku. To nisu republikanske optužbe. Na primjer, oni imaju glasove koji kažu: "Hladni rat će završiti našim prihvaćanjem ne-nedemokratskog socijalizma." Drugi glas kaže: "Motiv dobiti je staromodan. Moraju ga zamijeniti poticaji socijalne države." Ili, "Naš tradicionalni sustav individualne slobode nije u stanju riješiti složene probleme 20. stoljeća." Senator Fullbright je na Sveučilištu Stanford rekao da je Ustav staromodan. Predsjednika je naveo kao "našeg moralnog učitelja i našeg vođu", a on kaže da je "sputan u svom zadatku ograničenjima vlasti koja mu je nametnuta ovim zastarjelim dokumentom". Mora biti "oslobođen", kako bi "mogao učiniti za nas" ono što zna da "je najbolje". I senator Clark iz Pennsylvanije, drugi glasnogovornik, definira liberalizam kao "ispunjavanje materijalnih potreba mase kroz punu moć centralizirane vlade".

Pa ja, primjera radi, zamjeram kad se predstavnik naroda odnosi prema vama i meni, slobodnim muškarcima i ženama ove zemlje, kao "masama". Ovo je izraz koji nismo primijenili na sebe u Americi. No, iznad toga, "punu snagu centralizirane vlade" – to je upravo bila stvar koju su Očevi osnivači pokušavali svesti na minimum. Znali su da vlasti ne kontroliraju stvari. Vlada ne može kontrolirati gospodarstvo bez kontrole ljudi. I znaju kada vlada odluči učiniti to, mora koristiti silu i prisilu kako bi postigla svoju svrhu. Oni su također znali, ovi Očevi osnivači, da, izvan svoje legitimne funkcije, vlada ne čini ništa ni dobro ni ekonomično kao privatni sektor gospodarstva.

Sada nemamo boljeg primjera od uključivanja vlade u poljoprivredna gospodarstva tijekom posljednjih 30 godina. Od 1955. godine trošak ovog programa gotovo se udvostručio. Jedna četvrtina poljoprivrede u Americi odgovorna je za 85 posto poljoprivrednog viška. Tri četvrtine uzgoja je na slobodnom tržištu i vidjelo je povećanje potrošnje po stanovniku od svih svojih proizvoda od 21 posto. Vidite, ta jedna četvrtina poljoprivrede – ta je regulirana i kontrolirana od strane savezne vlade. U zadnje tri godine smo potrošili 43 dolara u programu hrane za žitarice za svaki dolar bušel (op.prev. mjera za težinu) kukuruza koji ne raste.

Senator Humphrey prošlog je tjedna napisao da će Barry Goldwater, kao predsjednik, tražiti uklanjanje poljoprivrednika. Trebao bi malo bolje odraditi domaću zadaću, jer će saznati da smo imali pad od 5 milijuna stanovnika koji se bave poljoprivredom pod ovim vladinim programim. Također će utvrditi da je demokratska administracija pokušala dobiti od Kongresa proširenje poljoprivrednog programa da uključi one tri četvrtine koje su sada slobodne. Naći će da su tražili i pravo zatvaranja poljoprivrednika koji ne bi vodili knjige kako ih propisuje savezna vlada. Ministar poljoprivrede zatražio je pravo plijenjenja poljoprivrednih gospodarstava i prodaje drugim osobama. I, sadržana u istom programu, bila je odredba koja bi dopustila saveznoj vladi da ukloni 2 milijuna poljoprivrednika sa zemlje.

Istodobno, došlo je do povećanja zaposlenika Ministarstva poljoprivrede (engl. Department of Agriculture). Sada postoji jedan za svakih 30 farmi u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, i još uvijek nam ne mogu reći kako je 66 brodova zrna na putu prema Austriji nestalo bez traga, a Billie Sol Estes (op.prev. poslovan čovjek i financijer poznat po prijevarama koje su zakomplicirale njegov odnos s predsjednikom Lyndonom Johnsonom) nikada nije napustio obalu.

Svaki odgovorni poljoprivrednik i gospodarsko društvo više su puta zatražili od vlade da oslobodi poljoprivredna gospodarstva, ali kako – tko su poljoprivrednici da znaju što je najbolje za njih? Poljoprivrednici pšenice glasovali su protiv programa pšenice. Ipak, vlada ga je provela. Sada cijena kruha raste; cijena pšenice poljoprivredniku se smanjuje.

U međuvremenu, natrag u gradu, pod urbanom obnovom nastavlja se napad na slobodu. Prava privatnog vlasništva su tako razrijeđena su da je javni interes gotovo sve što nekoliko vladinih planera odlučuje da bi to trebalo biti. U programu koji uzima od potrebitih i daje pohlepnima, vidimo takve prizore kao u Clevelandu u državi Ohio, građevina od milijun i pol dolara dovršena prije samo tri godine mora biti uništena kako bi se stvorilo mjesto za ono što vladini dužnosnici nazivaju "kompatibilnijom upotrebom zemlje". Predsjednik nam govori da će sada početi graditi javne stambene jedinice u tisućama, gdje smo do sada izgradili samo stotine. No, FHA (op.prev. Federal Housing Administration, može se prevesti kao Savezna uprava za stambena pitanja) i Uprava za veterane (engl. Veterans Administration, op.prev. ekvivalent sadašnjeg Department of Veteran Affairs) kažu da imaju 120.000 stambenih jedinica koje su preuzeli putem ovrhe hipoteka. Tri desetljeća nastojali smo riješiti probleme nezaposlenosti kroz planiranje od strane vlade, a što više planova propadne, to planeri više planiraju. Najnovija je agencija za prenamjenu područja.

Upravo su objavili da je Rice County, Kansas, depresivno područje. Rice County, Kansas, ima dvije stotine naftnih bušotina, a 14.000 ljudi tamo ima više od 30 milijuna dolara na depozitu u osobnim štednjama u svojim bankama. Ali kad vam vlada kaže da ste depresivni, legnite i budite depresivni.

Imamo toliko mnogo ljudi koji ne mogu vidjeti debelog čovjeka koji stoji pored tankog, a da ne dođe do zaključka da je debeli muškarac postao takav iskoristivši tankog. Zato će riješiti sve probleme ljudske bijede putem vladinog i vladinog planiranja. Pa, sada, ako je vladino planiranje i socijalna pomoć odgovor – i imali su gotovo 30 godina – ne bismo li trebali očekivati ​​da nam vlada ponekad pročita rezultate? Ne bi li nam trebali govoriti o padu svake godine u broju ljudi koji trebaju pomoć? Smanjenje potrebe za javnim stanovima?

Ali obrnuto je točno. Svake godine potreba se povećava; program se povećava. Rečeno nam je prije četiri godine da je svake noći 17 milijuna ljudi gladno odlazilo u krevet. To je vjerojatno istina. Svi su bili na dijeti. Ali sada nam je rečeno da je 9,3 milijuna obitelji u ovoj zemlji pogođeno siromaštvom na temelju zarade manje od 3000 dolara godišnje. Trošak socijalne skrbi je 10 puta veći nego u mračnoj dubini Velike gospodarske krize. Trošimo 45 milijardi dolara na socijalnu pomoć. Sada napravite malo aritmetike, i vidjet ćete da ako podijelimo 45 milijardi dolara jednako između onih 9 milijuna siromašnih obitelji, mogli bismo svakoj obitelji davati 4600 dolara godišnje. A ovo, dodano njihovim trenutnim prihodima, trebalo bi ukloniti siromaštvo. Izravna pomoć siromašnima, međutim, kreće se oko samo 600 dolara po obitelji. Čini se da na nekom mjestu mora postojati nekakav dodatni trošak.

Sada – pa, sada objavljujemo "rat protiv siromaštva" ili "vi, također, možete biti Bobby Baker". Sada zar oni iskreno očekuju da vjerujemo da, ako dodamo milijardu dolara na 45 milijardi koju potrošimo, još jedan program na 30-ak koje imamo – i zapamtite, ovaj novi program ne zamjenjuje, već samo duplicira postojeće programe – zar oni vjeruju da će siromaštvo magijom iznenada nestati? Pa, pravednosti radi, moram objasniti da postoji jedan dio novog programa koji nije dupliciran. Ovo je značajka mladih. Sada ćemo riješiti problem s prekidom školovanja, maloljetničku delinkvenciju, ponovno uspostavljajući nešto poput starih CCC kampova (op.prev. Civilian Conservation Corps, program za nezaposlene i neoženjene muškarce unutar New Deala) te ćemo staviti naše mlade ljude u ove kampove. Ali ponovo odradimo malo aritmetike i pronalazimo da ćemo svake godine potrošiti samo na sobu i pansion za svaku mladu osobu kojoj pomažemo 4700 dolara godišnje. Možemo ih poslati na Harvard za 2700! Naravno, nemojte me krivo shvatiti. Ne predlažem da je Harvard odgovor na maloljetničku delinkvenciju.

Ali ozbiljno, što radimo onima kojima želimo pomoći? Nedavno me sudac nazvao ovdje u Los Angelesu. Ispričao mi je o mladoj ženi koja je došla pred njega zbog razvoda. Imala je šestero djece, trudna je sa sedmim. Prilikom ispitivanja je otkrila da joj je muž radnik koji mjesečno zarađuje 250 dolara. Željela je razvod da dobije povišicu od 80 dolara. Ona ima pravo na 330 dolara mjesečno u Programu pomoći za djecu koja ovise o roditeljima. Dobila je ideju od dvije žene u njezinom susjedstvu koje su već učinile tu stvar.

Ipak, kad god vas i ja propitujemo sheme dobrotvoraca, osuđeni smo da se protivimo njihovim humanitarnim ciljevima. Kažu da smo uvijek "protiv" stvari – nikada nismo "za" nešto.

Pa, problem s našim liberalnim prijateljima nije da su neznalice; to je samo da znaju toliko toga što nije tako [kako oni misle da jest].

Sada, mi jesmo za odredbu da siromaštvo ne bi trebalo slijediti povodom nezaposlenosti zbog starosti, pa smo u tu svrhu prihvatili socijalnu sigurnost kao korak prema rješavanju problema.

No, mi smo protiv onih kojima je povjeren ovaj program kada prakticiraju obmane glede njegovih fiskalnih nedostataka, kada optužuju da bilo kakva kritika programa znači da želimo okončati isplate onim ljudima čiji život ovisi o njima. Nazvali su to "osiguranje" za nas u stotinu milijuna komada literature. Ali onda su se pojavili pred Vrhovnim sudom i svjedočili da je to program socijalne skrbi. Oni koriste samo pojam "osiguranje" kako bi ga prodali ljudima. I rekli su da su pristojbe za socijalnu sigurnost porez za opću uporabu vlade, a vlada je iskoristila taj porez. Nema fonda jer se Robert Byers, predsjednik aktuara (op.prev. matematičari koji se bave financijama), pojavio pred kongresnim odborom i priznao da je socijalna sigurnost u ovom trenutku rupa od 298 milijardi dolara. Ali on je rekao da ne bi trebalo biti nikakvih razloga za zabrinutost, jer sve dok imaju moć da prikupljaju poreze, uvijek se može oduzeti ljudima sve što im je potrebno kako bi ih se izbavilo iz nevolja. I oni to rade upravo to.

Mladi muškarac, 21 godina, koji radi na prosječnoj plaći – njegov doprinos za socijalnu sigurnost bi na otvorenom tržištu kupio policu osiguranja koja će jamčiti 220 dolara mjesečno u trenutku kad navrši 65 godina. Vlada obećava 127. On je mogao živjeti sve dok nema 31 godinu, a zatim izvući policu koja bi platila više od socijalne sigurnosti. Sada, zar nam toliko nedostaje u poslovnom smislu da ne možemo staviti ovaj program na čvrstu osnovu, tako da ljudi koji zahtijevaju takve isplate će uvidjeti da ih mogu dobiti kada trebaju doći – da kredenac nije ogoljen (op.prev. fraza koja znači da nema hrane ili nema novaca)?

Barry Goldwater misli da možemo.

Istodobno, ne možemo li uvesti dobrovoljne osobine koje bi omogućile građaninu koji može samostalno bolje izvesti [policu osiguranja od socijalne sigurnosti] da može opravdano ne sudjelovati nakon iznošenja dokaza da je predvidio za neprihođujuće godine? Ne bi li mogli dopustiti udovici s djecom da radi, a da pritom ne izgubi koristi koje je navodno platio njezin pokojni muž? Ne biste li vi i ja morali moći proglasiti tko će biti naši korisnici pod ovim programom, što ne možemo učiniti? Mislim da smo za to da kažemo našim starijim građanima da nikome u ovoj zemlji ne treba biti uskraćena medicinska skrb zbog nedostatka sredstava. Ali mislim da smo protiv prisiljavanja svih građana, bez obzira na potrebu, u obvezni vladin program, pogotovo kada imamo takve primjere, kako je najavljeno prošlog tjedna, kada je Francuska priznala da je njihov program Medicare sada bankrotirao. Došli su do kraja puta.

Osim toga, je li Barry Goldwater bio tako neodgovoran kad je predložio da naša vlada odustane od programa namjerne i planirane inflacije, tako da kada dobijete svoju mirovinu za socijalnu sigurnost, dolar će kupiti koliko dolar vrijedi, a ne koliko 45 centi vrijedi?

Mislim da smo za međunarodnu organizaciju gdje narodi svijeta mogu tražiti mir. Ali mislim da smo protiv podređivanja američkih interesa organizaciji koja je postala tako strukturno nezdrava da danas možete prikupiti dvije trećine glasova na katu Opće skupštine [Ujedinjenih naroda] među narodima koji čine manje od 10 posto svjetske populacije. Mislim da smo protiv licemjerja da oštro kritiziramo naše saveznike jer se tu i tamo drže kolonije, dok se bavimo zavjerom tišine i nikad ne otvaramo usta o milijunima ljudi koji su bili zarobljeni u sovjetskim kolonijama u satelitskim zemljama.

Mislim da smo za pomaganje našim saveznicima dijeljenjem naših materijalnih blagoslova s ​​onim narodima koji dijele naša temeljna uvjerenja, ali se protivimo razdjeli novca od vlade do vlade, stvarajući birokraciju, ako ne i socijalizam, diljem svijeta. Mi smo krenuli pomoći 19 zemalja. Pomažemo 107. Potrošili smo 146 milijardi dolara. S tim novcem smo kupili jahtu od 2 milijuna dolara za Haile Selassie (op.prev. tadašnji car Etiopije). Kupili smo odijela za grčke pogrebnike, dodatne žena za dužnosnike iz Kenije. Kupili smo tisuću televizora za mjesto gdje nema struje. U posljednjih šest godina, 52 zemlje su kupile 7 milijardi dolara našeg zlata, a svih 52 dobivaju inozemnu pomoć iz ove zemlje.

Nijedna se vlada nije dobrovoljno smanjila u veličini. Tako programi vlade, jednom pokrenuti, nikada ne nestanu.

Zapravo, ured vlasti je najbliža stvar vječnom životu koju ćemo ikada vidjeti na ovoj zemlji.

Savezni zaposlenici – savezni zaposlenici broje dva i pol milijuna; i savezna, državna i lokalna, jedna šestina radne snaga nacije je zaposlena od strane vlade. Ti razmnožavajući uredi s tisućama propisa koštali su nas mnoge od naših ustavnih zaštitnih mjera. Koliko nas je shvatilo da danas federalni agenti mogu upasti u čovjekovu imovinu bez naloga? Oni mogu izreći novčanu kaznu bez formalne rasprave, a kamoli suđenja porote? I mogu preuzeti i prodati njegovu imovinu na aukciji kako bi izvršili plaćanje te novčane kazne. U Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier je izašao izvan ograničenja dodjeljene zemlje prilikom sađenja riže. Vlada je dobila presudu od 17.000 dolara. Američki maršal prodao je njegovu farmu od 960 hektara na aukciji. Vlada je rekla da je to potrebno kao upozorenje drugima da učini da sustav funkcionira.

Zadnjeg 19. veljače na Sveučilištu u Minnesoti, Norman Thomas, šest puta kandidat za predsjednika na listi Socijalističke stranke, rekao je: "Ako Barry Goldwater postane predsjednik, zaustavit će napredak socijalizma u Sjedinjenim Državama." Mislim da je to upravo ono što će učiniti.

Ali, kao bivši demokrat, mogu vam reći da Norman Thomas nije jedini čovjek koji je povukao ovu paralelu socijalizma sa sadašnjom upravom jer je 1936. god. sam gospodin Demokrat, Al Smith, veliki Amerikanac, došao pred Američki narod i optužio da je vodstvo njegove stranke vodilo stranku Jeffersona, Jacksona i Clevelanda niz put pod zastava Marxa, Lenjina i Staljina. I otišao je iz svoje stranke i nikada se nije vratio do dana kada je umro, jer do danas, vodstvo te stranke uzima tu stranku, časnu stranku, niz put na sliku i priliku radničke Socijalističke stranke Engleske.

Sada, nije potrebno izvesti izvlaštenje ili oduzimanje privatne imovine ili poduzeća da se ljudima nametne socijalizam. Što to znači da li držite čin u – ili vlasništvo vašeg poduzeća ili imovine ako vlada ima moć života i smrti nad tim poduzećem ili imovinom? I takva [zakonska] mašinerija već postoji. Vlada može pronaći neke optužbe da se protiv bilo kakvog koncerna koju odluči progoniti. Svaki poslovni čovjek ima svoju priču o uznemiravanju. Negdje je došlo do perverzije. Naša prirodna, neotuđiva prava sada se smatraju danima od vlade, a sloboda nikad nije bila toliko krhka, tako blizu sklizanja iz našeg dohvata kao što je to u ovom trenutku.

Naši demokratski protivnici nisu spremni raspravljati o tim pitanjima. Žele vas i mene uvjeriti da je ovo natjecanje između dva čovjeka – da biramo samo između dvije osobnosti.

Pa što je od ovoga čovjeka što bi uništili – i uništavajući, uništili bi ono što predstavlja, ideje koje vi i ja držimo dragima? Je li on drski i plitki i čovjek brz na obaraču koji kažu da jest? Pa, imao sam povlasticu da ga poznajem "kada". Znao sam ga dugo prije nego što je ikada sanjao da pokuša obavljati visoke dužnosti, a ja vam mogu osobno reći da nikad nisam poznavao čovjeka u svom životu za kojeg sam vjerovao da je tako nesposoban učiniti nepoštenu ili nečasnu stvar.

To je čovjek koji je, u svom poslu prije ulaska u politiku, pokrenuo plan dijeljenja dobiti prije nego što su to sindikati ikada pomislili. Stavio je zdravstveno osiguranje za sve svoje zaposlenike. Uzeo je 50 posto dobiti prije oporezivanja i postavio mirovinski program, plan mirovina za sve svoje zaposlenike. Poslao je mjesečne čekove za život zaposleniku koji je bio bolestan i nije mogao raditi. On pruža skrb za djecu majki koje rade u trgovinama. Kada je Meksiko bio opustošen poplavama Rio Grandea, on se popeo na zrakoplov i dolje prenosio medicinu i opskrbu.

Bivši GI mi je rekao kako ga je upoznao. Bilo je to tjedan dana prije Božića tijekom Korejskog rata, a bio je u zračnoj luci u Los Angelesu pokušavajući doći kući do Arizone za Božić. I rekao je da je tamo bilo puno vojnika i da nije bilo mjesta na zrakoplovima. A onda se iz zvučnika začuo glas koji kaže: "Bilo koji muškarac u uniformi koji želi prijevoz u Arizonu, idite na pistu tu i tu" i oni su otišli tamo, a tu je bio čovjek po imenu Barry Goldwater koji je sjedio u svom zrakoplovu. Svaki dan u tjednima prije Božića, čitav dan, napunio bi zrakoplov, letio u Arizonu, odveo ih u svoje domove, vraćao se natrag da bi dobio još jedno punjenje.

Tijekom užurbanog i na djelić sekunde isplaniranog vremena kampanje, ovo je čovjek koji je odvojio vrijeme da sjedne pokraj stare prijateljice koja umire od raka. Njegovi menadžeri kampanje bili su razumljivo nestrpljivi, ali je rekao: "Nije preostalo mnogo ljudi koje je briga što joj se dogodi. Volio bih da zna da me je briga." Ovo je čovjek koji je rekao svom 19-godišnjem sinu: "Nema temelja kao stijena iskrenosti i pravednosti, a kad počneš graditi svoj život na toj stijeni, uz cement od vjere u Boga koji imaš, onda imaš pravi početak." Ovo nije čovjek koji bi bezbrižno mogao slati sinove drugih ljudi u rat. I to je tema ove kampanje koja čini sve ostale probleme o kojima sam razgovarao akademskim, osim ako shvatimo da smo u ratu koji moramo pobijediti.

Oni koji bi razmijenili našu slobodu za jušnu kuhinju socijalne države rekli su nam da imaju utopijsko rješenje mira bez pobjede. Oni nazivaju svoje politiku "prilagodbom". I kažu da, ako izbjegnemo ikakav izravni sukob s neprijateljem, zaboravit će na svoje zle načine i naučiti voljeti nas. Svi koji se protive njima optuženi su kao ratni huškači. Kažu da nudimo jednostavne odgovore na složene probleme. Pa, možda postoji jednostavan odgovor – nije lagan odgovor – ali jednostavan: ako vi i ja imamo hrabrosti reći našim izabranim dužnosnicima da želimo da se naša nacionalna politika temelji na onome što znamo u našim srcima da je moralno ispravno.

Ne možemo kupiti našu sigurnost, našu slobodu od prijetnje bombom time što ćemo učiniti tako veliko nemoralnost kao što je reći milijardu ljudskih bića koja su sada zarobljena iza željezne zavjese: "Odustanite od svojih snova slobode, jer, da bi spasili naše vlastite kože, spremni ste se dogovoriti s vašim gospodarima robova." Alexander Hamilton je rekao: "Zemlja koja može voljeti sramotu od opasnosti je spremna za gospodara i zaslužuje ga." Sada postavimo zapis pravo. Nema argumenata oko izbora između mira i rata, ali postoji samo jedan zajamčeni način da možete imati mir – i to možete dobiti sljedeće sekunde – predaja.

Doduše, postoji rizik u bilo kojem smjeru koji slijedimo osim ovoga, ali svaka lekcija iz povijesti nam govori da veći rizik leži u smirivanju, a to je sablast s kojom se naši dobronamjerni liberalni prijatelji odbijaju suočiti – da je njihova politika prilagodbe smirivanje i ne daje nikakav izbor između mira i rata, samo između borbe ili predaje. Ako se nastavimo prilagođavati, nastavimo odstupati i povlačiti se, na kraju se moramo suočiti s konačnim zahtjevom – ultimatumom. A što onda – kada je Nikita Hruščov rekao svojim ljudima da zna što će naš odgovor biti? Rekao im je da se povlačimo pod pritiskom hladnog rata, a jednog dana kad dođe vrijeme da dostavi konačni ultimatum, naša predaja bit će dobrovoljna jer ćemo tada biti oslabljeni iznutra duhovno, moralno i ekonomski. On to vjeruje jer je s naše strane čuo glasove koji su se molili za "mir po svaku cijenu" ili "bolje crven nego mrtav" ili, kako je to rekao jedan komentator, radije bi "živio na svojim koljenima nego umro na nogama". U tome leži put za rat, jer ti glasovi ne govore za nas ostale.

Vi i ja znamo i ne vjerujemo da je život toliko drag i da je mir tako sladak da se može kupiti po cijeni lanaca i ropstva. Ako ni za što u životu ne vrijedi umrijeti, kada je to počelo – samo pred ovim neprijateljem? Ili je Mojsije trebao reći Izraelcima da žive u ropstvu pod faraonima? Je li Krist trebao odbiti križ? Jesu li domoljubi na mostu Concord trebali odbaciti oružje i odbiti ispaliti pucnje koji su se čuli oko svijeta? Povijesni mučenici nisu bili budale, a naši časni mrtvi koji su dali svoje živote da zaustave napredak nacista, nisu umirali uzalud. Gdje je, dakle, put ka miru? Pa to je, nakon svega, jednostavan odgovor.

Vi i ja imamo hrabrosti reći našim neprijateljima, "Postoji cijena koju nećemo platiti." "Postoji točka iza koje ne smijete napredovati." I ovo ovo je značenje izraza "mir kroz snagu" Barryja Goldwatera. Winston Churchill je rekao: "Sudbina čovjeka ne mjeri se kroz materijalne proračune. Kada se velike sile kreću u svijetu, saznajemo da smo duše, a ne životinje." Rekao je i: "Nešto se događa u vremenu i prostoru, i izvan vremena i prostora, što, bilo da nam se to sviđa ili ne, piše dužnost."

Vi i ja imamo susret s sudbinom.

Čuvati ćemo za našu djecu ovu, posljednju najbolju nadu čovjeka na zemlji ili ćemo ih kazniti da poduzmu posljednji korak u tisuću godina tame.

Imat ćemo na umu i zapamtiti da Barry Goldwater vjeruje u nas. Vjeruje da vi i ja imamo sposobnost i dostojanstvo i pravo da donosimo vlastite odluke i utvrđujemo svoju sudbinu.

Hvala vam puno.

Izvorni tekst na engleskom jeziku:

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 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 Fullbright 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 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.

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 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent 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.

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.

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 [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.

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 [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.

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 [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.

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 neighborhoodwho'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've 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'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.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So 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 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.

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've 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'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.

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.