戴維‧利連撤爾
(DAVID LILIENTHAL)

聽證會演說
Confirmation Hearings

   我對這一點深信不疑。

   1946年哈里‧杜魯門總統任命戴維‧利連撒爾領導原子能委員會。利連撤爾(1899─1981)生於伊利諾伊州，畢業於德波大學和哈佛大學法學院。他曾任田納西流域管委會主席。

   在他的國會聯合委員會聽證會上，利連撒爾受到田納西州參議員肯尼思‧D‧麥克凱勒的訪問。麥克凱勒指出，利連撒爾有同情共產主義之嫌。在聽證會上參議員麥克凱勒曾要求瞭解田納西流域管委會生產一噸硝酸銨的成本。利連撒爾說，他將找到有關數據，但當時頭腦裏記不起來了。於是參議員暗示，利連撒爾的這一承認證明了這位被任命者的無能，而且參議員幾次提到利連撒爾「頭腦裏」竟記不住如此重要的資訊。 

   參議員言歸正傳，攻擊要害問題時指出：「其實你的同情心頗帶左派色彩。」利連撤爾答道，他無法簡單地用「是」或「不是」來回答這一斷語，麥克凱勒參議員緊追不捨：「那麼你對共產主義學說抱何種信念?」利連撒爾不假思索，脫口而出的答覆由阿爾弗雷德‧弗蘭德利寫成報導刊登在1947年2月4日的《華盛頓郵報》上。

    這個問題確實一真縈迴在我的頭腦裏，參議員先生。

    我將盡力把它講清楚。比起我反對什麼，我的信念更多地牽涉到我贊成什麼；這就順理成章地把許多東西排除在外了。 

    依照傳統，民主已成為一個肯定的主義、而不僅僅是個否定的主義。

   我相信──而且我也設想，美國憲法正如宗教那樣是建立在個人的正直這個基本前提之上；所有政府，所有私人機構都必須用來促進、保護和捍衛個人的正直和尊嚴。這便是憲法和《人權法案》的根本含義，正如它本質上也是宗教的含義。

   因此，任何使人成為手段而非目的的政府和其他機構，任何置國家或別的組織於人的意義之上的政府和其他機構，任何把強加於人的專橫權力作為政府的一項基本原則的政府和其他機構都是與上述觀念相悖的，所以我堅決反對它們。 

    共產主義哲學和共產主義的政府形態屬於這一範疇，因為它們的基本原則與我們憲法的含義格格不入。共產主義的基本原則是，國家本身便是目的，因而國家對個人行使的權力不受任何倫理標準的約束。

    我完全不相信這種原則。 

    要說一個人不是個共產主義者是件十分容易的事。當然，若是無視我的履歷，有必要叫我斷然表明立場，那麼我將感到非常失望。

   口頭說一說反對共產主義是件十分容易的事。同樣重要的是相信那些能提供令人滿意，有效的替代物的東西。民主便是令人滿意的，肯定的替代物。

   民主在全世界的希望在於，它是個肯定的信仰，而不僅僅是個反對其他一些什麼的信仰，除此以外，再沒別的了。

   民主的一條原則來自一種信仰的核心，該信仰認為，個人第一，人皆是上帝的兒女，因此他們的人格是神聖的。這一原則是一種對公民自由權及其不容侵犯的堅定信仰，它對任何欲通過旁敲側擊，嫁禍於人或含沙射影的手法奪去一個人最寶貴的東西──他的名譽──的人深惡痛絕。有時人們是打著民主的幌子這麼幹的，這就更為不幸。我認為，倘若我們聽任這種劣行繼續肆虐，那麼它會導致我們國家分崩離析，徹底毀滅。

   我深信，假如我們在日常生活中實行民主，民主有能力經受其可能面臨的任何考驗。

   在我們必須遵循的準則中有這麼一條：在我們大張旗鼓地清查國內的顛覆和反民主勢力的同時，不該歇斯底里，旁敲側擊，誹謗攻擊，或以其他不光彩的手法玷污我們所相信的事業，在我國人民中製造分裂──使團體和個人之間互相    仇視，而這種分裂完全是由肆意抨擊，對團體或個人的忠誠的毫無根據的責難。

   我還想補充說明，我的信念部分地建立在我作為英裔美國人一名普通律師所接受的訓練上。正是由於我們所保持的英國人民給予這個國家的基礎和傳統，我們堅決主張在法庭上對證人的可靠性應有最嚴格的規定，避免傳聞證據，排除流言蜚語。而且這也是我們的民主的一個基本點。 

    不論是由於行政機構專橫地對待商業團體或是立法部門的調查活動，只要上述那些原則，──保護個人和個人名譽免遭流言蜚語、道聽途說和未經盤問的證詞所玷污的原則──受到踐踏，那麼我們也就無法實現我們關於民主的理想。

    我對這一點深信不疑。

This I DO carry in my head, Senator.

   I will do my best to make it clear. My convictions are not so much concerned with what Iam against as what I am for; and that excludes a lot of things automatically.

   Traditionally, democracy has been an affirmative doctrine rather than merely a negative one.

    I believe－and I conceive the Constitution of the United States to rest, as does religion, upon the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual; that that is the essential meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is essentially the meaning of religion.

    Any form of government, therefore, and any other institutions which make men means rather than ends, which exalt the state or any other institutions above the importance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of government are contrary to that conception, and, therefore, I am deeply op-posed to them.

    The communistic philosophy as well as the communistic form of government falls within this category, for their fundamental tenet is quite to the contrary. The fundamental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standard to limit them.

    That I deeply disbelieve.

    It is very easy simply to say that one is not a Communist. And, of course, if despite my record it is necessary for me to state this very affirmatively, then it is a great disappointment to me.

    It is very easy to talk about being against communism. It is equally important to believe those things which provide a satisfying and effective alternative. Democracy is that satisfying, affirmative alternative.

    Its hope in the world is that it is an affirmative belief, rather than being simply a belief against something else and nothing more.

    One of the tenets of democracy that grows out of this central core of a belief that the individual comes first, that all men are the children of God and that their personalities are therefore sacred, is a deep belief in civil liberties and their protection, and a repugnance to anyone who would steal from a human being that which is most precious to him－his good name－either by imputing things to him by innuendo or by insinuation. And it is especially an unhappy circumstance that occasionally that is done in the name of democracy. This, I think, can tear our country apart and destroy it if we carry it further.

    I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead, provided only that we practice it in our daily lives.

    And among the things we must practice is this: that while we seek fervently to ferret out the subversive and anti-democratic forces in the country, we do not at the same time, by hysteria, by resort to innuendo, and smears, and other unfortunate tactics, besmirch the very cause that we believe in, and cause a separation among our people－cause one group and one individual to hate another, based on mere attacks, mere unsubstantiated attacks upon their loyalty.

    I want also to add that part of my conviction is based on my training as an Anglo-American common lawyer. It is the very basis and the great heritage of the English people to this country, which we have maintained, that we insist on the strictest rules of credibility of witnesses and on the avoidance of hearsay, and that gossip shall be excluded, in the courts of justice. And that, too, is an essential of our democracy.

   Whether by administrative agencies acting arbitrarily against business organizations, or whether by investigating activities of legislative branches, whenever those principles fail, those principles of the protection of an individual and his good name against besmirchment by gossip, hearsay, and the statements of witnesses who are not subject to cross-examination－then, too, we have failed in carrying forward our ideals in respect to democracy.

   This I deeply believe.