赫伯特‧胡佛 (HERBERT HOOVER)

美國的自治制度 The American System Self－Government

        自由主義的確是這種精神的力量，它出自對這一點的深切認識，即若是要保存政治自由，經濟自由便不能被剝奪。 

        赫伯特‧胡佛(1874－1964)生於愛阿華州，在俄勒岡州長大，入史坦福大學讀工程。胡佛因在第一次世界大戰期間及其後向歐洲慘遭戰禍的地區分發價值一百萬美元的食品和其他援助物資的出色工作而贏得國際聲譽。1928年當他被共和黨提名為總統候選人時，已是個進步而務實的知名領袖。在救濟活動方面的經驗本該使他能較好地對付始於1929年10月證券市場崩潰的全國性災禍，但胡佛反對大規模公共工程計劃，反對向失業者直接提供政府援助。

         1932年胡佛在競選中敗於弗蘭克林‧D‧羅斯福之手，這使許多人得出一個結論：胡佛的有限政府的哲學被明確否定了。但是即便新政在經濟上大大擴展了聯邦政府的職能，它卻並未像胡佛擔心的那樣損害自治和個人積極性。胡佛所表述的思想以後成為美國自我形象的一個基本主題，而且在八十年代後期贏得新的國際聲譽。八十年代後期社會主義國家開始拋棄中央計劃體制，嘗試推行政治多元化、市場經濟和私營企業。

       這一講話是胡佛在1928年成功的競選運動中發表的。

    ……在過去的一百五十年間，我們已建立了一種自治和社會制度的形式，它是我們所獨創的，實質上有別於世界上任何別的政體。它是美國的制度，與迄今人類歷史上所建立的一切政治和社會制度一樣明確肯定。它建構在一個獨特的自治觀念上，這種觀念以分散的地方責任為基礎。而且它還建構在這一觀念上，即只有通過向個人提供符合規章的自由權、自由以及平等的機會，個人才能在進步的征程中充分發揮其主動性和創造性。而正是因為我們堅決主張機會均等，我們的制度才取得了比世界其他國家更快的發展。

    在戰爭期間我們必然仰賴政府解決每一個經濟難題。既然政府為戰爭汲取了我國人民的全部能量，也就只能這麼解決問題了。為了捍衛國家，聯邦政府成為中央集權的專制政府，承擔前所未有的責任，實行獨裁，接管公民事務。在很大程度上我們暫時把全體人民組織成一個社會主義的國家。無論這種做法在戰時有多麼合理，在和平時期連續實行則不僅會毀壞我們美國的制度，而且將斷送我們的進步和自由。

    當戰爭結束時，我國和全世界最重要的問題是，政府是否應繼續保持戰時對許多生產和分配手段的所有權及經營權。我們面臨挑戰，必須在和平時期在這二者之間作出選擇：要麼是美國質樸個人主義的制度，要麼是歐洲由恰好對立的兩種教義形成的哲學──家長式統治和國家社會主義。接受這兩種教義便意味著通過政府的中央集權破壞自治，意味著破壞個人的主動性和創造性。而我國人民因為有這種主動性和創造性已發展成舉世無雙的偉大人民。……

    共和黨完全掌權後，它立刻堅決回到我們關於國家以及個人權利與責任的基本觀念上。由此它恢復了對美國人民的信任和希望，解放和刺激了企業的發展，使政府從經濟活動參與者的位貴重新回到仲裁者的位置。正是由於這些原因，美國人民取得了進步，而世界其餘地區停滯不前，有些國家甚至倒退。如果有人研究一下歐洲復原遲緩的原因，他將發現主要是由於 一方面扼殺了私人的積極性，另一方面政府經營管理的擔子太重。

    但是在這次競選運動中有人重又提出了一系列建議，倘若它們被採納，就等於朝這一方向邁出一大步：摒棄我們美國的制度，聽任商業經營管理由政府處理產生破壞性的後果。』因為我國正面臨某些全國性問題──酒、農業救濟和電力問題──引起的困難和困惑，我們的對手建議，我們應讓政府深深介入引發這些問題的事務中。實際上，他們拋棄了自己政黨的原則，求助於國家社會主義以解決這三個問題所體現的困難。他們提議我們變禁酒為國家購銷酒類。如果他們的農業救濟方案有什麼意義的話，它意味著政府將直接或間接地購買、銷售農產品並決定其價格。而且我們將經營水力電力業務。換言之，我們面對著一個龐大的政府營業計劃。

    因此，一個基本的原則性問題提到美國人民面前：我們是否將背離我們賴以取得比其他國家更大發展的美國的政治和經濟制度，以便採納動搖它根基的那些原則所派生的方法?……

    我想跟你們談談這個政府經營商業的規劃將會對我們的自治制度和經濟制度產生什麼影響。這種影響將涉及每個人的日常生活。它將削弱自由的基礎，對膨脹的官僚政治圈子內外的人來說都是如此。……

    它是一種虛假的自由主義，把自由主義解釋為政府經營商業。使我國的商業官僚化的每一步驟都動搖了自由主義──政治平等、言論自由、集會自由、出版自由和機會均等──的根基。這不是通向更大自由的道路，而是遏制自由的道路。自由主義的創立不是為擴充官僚政府，而是要限制它。真正的自由主義追求一切合法的自由。它首先堅信，倘若沒有這種自由，那麼對所有別的幸福和利益的追求都是徒勞。這一信念是美國一切進步──無論是政治上或經濟上──的基礎。

    自由主義的確是這種精神的力量，它出自對這一點的深切認識，即若是要保存政治自由，經濟自由便不能被剝奪。即便政府經營商業能夠帶給我們更高，而不是更低的效率，從根本上反對它的力量仍然不會改變，不會減弱。政府經營商業將損害政治平等。它將增加，而不是減少濫用職權、貪污賄賂現象。它將扼殺主動性、創造性。它將阻礙領導能力的發展。它將使我們的人民智力愚鈍，萎靡不振。它將壓制平等的機會。它將摧殘自由和進步的精神。正是由於這些原因，首先必須對它進行抵制。一百五十年以來，自由主義在美國的制度，而不是在歐洲的各種制度中找到了它的真諦。

    我不希望自己這番話遭到誤解。我正在解釋一個總方針。這並不意味著我們的政府將置全面維護公眾利益於不顧，放棄任何一點國家資源。……

    我也不希望被誤解為認定美國是一切自由，誰落在後頭誰就吃虧的國家。機會均等和美國個人主義的本質是，無論在商業或政治上這個共和國不存在任何集團或聯合體的統治。相反，它既要政治和社會公正，也要求經濟公正。它不是一種放任主義的制度。

    我對這一議題感受頗深，因為在戰爭時期我在政府經營管理方面有過一些實際經驗。那時在國內、國外我都目睹了許多政府在商業中失敗的事例。我看到了這種做法的專橫、不公正，它損害自治，扼殺激發我國人民進取的本能。我親眼目睹了停滯狀態，生活水平低下，看見在那種制度下勞作的人民消沈沮喪。我的反對不是建立在理論的基礎上，並不是由於不能辨認錯誤或弊病，而是因為我知道採用這種方法將震撼美國生活的根基，破壞美國進步的真正基礎。

    那麼我們美國的制度已結出了什麼碩果呢? 我們國家已成為一貧如洗的人們充滿機會的國度，這不僅是因為它資源豐富、工業發達，而且因為有這種讓主動性、創造性充分發揮的自由。俄國的自然資源比起我國毫不遜色，她的人民也同樣勤勞，然而她卻沒有這一百五十年由我們的政府和社會制度形式帶來的福祉。……

    美國的偉大出自於一種政治社會制度和它所特有的控制經濟力量的方式──我們美國的制度，這一制度在人類福利問題上所做的偉大試驗是史無前例的。我們今天比任何時期、任何國家都更接近從人民的生活中消除貧窮和恐懼的理想。我要再說一遍：按照我們對手的建議偏離我們美國的制度並引入破壞該制度的原則，將危害我國人民的自由，阻礙機會均等，不僅有害於我們自己，而且有損於我們的子孫。

. . .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.