We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim | Lawrence Lessig

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

翻译人员: Minji Seo 校对人员: xuan wang

Once upon a time,

很久很久以前，

there was a place called Lesterland.

有个地方叫做‘莱斯特国’（Lesterland)。

Now Lesterland looks a lot like the United States.

莱斯特国跟美国很像。

Like the United States, it has about 311 million people,

跟美国一样，人口大约有3.11亿，

and of that 311 million people,

而这3.11亿人当中，

it turns out 144,000 are called Lester.

有14.1万人叫莱斯特（Lester)。

If Matt's in the audience,

若麦特（辛普森家庭制作人）在现场，

I just borrowed that, I'll return it in a second,

你的卡通人物借我用一下，

this character from your series.

马上就还。

So 144,000 are called Lester,

那么14.4万人叫莱斯特，

which means about .05 percent is named Lester.

代表0.05%的人叫莱斯特。

Now, Lesters in Lesterland have this extraordinary power.

这些莱斯特在莱斯特国有非凡的权力。

There are two elections every election cycle in Lesterland.

这个国家的每次选举有两种投票。

One is called the general election.

一个叫做大选。

The other is called the Lester election.

另一个叫做莱斯特选。

And in the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote,

在大选，是由公民投票的，

but in the Lester election, it's the Lesters who get to vote.

但在莱斯特选，是由莱斯特们投票的。

And here's the trick.

这其中的窍门是，

In order to run in the general election,

为了参加大选，

you must do extremely well

你必须在莱斯特选中

in the Lester election.

表现得非常出色。

You don't necessarily have to win, but you must do extremely well.

你不必赢，但绝对需要表现地出色。

Now, what can we say about democracy in Lesterland?

那么，关于莱斯特国的民主，我们能说什么？

What we can say, number one,

我们可以说，第一

as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United,

就如同最高法院在联合公民中所说的，

that people have the ultimate influence over elected officials,

人民对当选官员有最终的决定权，

because, after all, there is a general election,

因为毕竟还有大选，

but only after the Lesters have had their way

但这只在莱斯特们依照自己所愿

with the candidates who wish to run in the general election.

让他们想要的候选人参加大选之后。

And number two, obviously, this dependence upon the Lesters

第二呢，很明显，取决于莱斯特们的选择

is going to produce a subtle, understated,

会产生一个微妙，低调

we could say camouflaged, bending

甚至是可以说隐蔽的妥协

to keep the Lesters happy.

只为让莱斯特们满足。

Okay, so we have a democracy, no doubt,

毫无疑问的，我们确实有民主，

but it's dependent upon the Lesters

但这民主取决于莱斯特们

and dependent upon the people.

同时也取决于人民。

It has competing dependencies,

他们有互相竞争关系，

we could say conflicting dependencies,

根据莱斯特们是谁，

depending upon who the Lesters are.

我们也可以说是相互冲突的关系。

Okay. That's Lesterland.

这就是莱斯特国。

Now there are three things I want you to see now that I've described Lesterland.

了解了莱斯特国之后，我想让大家知道三件事情。

Number one, the United States is Lesterland.

第一，美国就是莱斯特国。

The United States is Lesterland.

美国就是莱斯特国。

The United States also looks like this, also has two elections,

美国也是如此，也有两次投票，

one we called the general election,

一个叫做大选，

the second we should call the money election.

另一个我们应该叫做‘钱选’。

In the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote,

在大选中，是由公民投票的，

if you're over 18, in some states if you have an ID.

只要你年满18岁，在一些州你要有身份证(就可以投票）。

In the money election, it's the funders who get to vote,

在钱选，则是由投资人投票的，

the funders who get to vote, and just like in Lesterland,

也和莱斯特国一样

the trick is, to run in the general election,

窍门在于要参选大选

you must do extremely well in the money election.

这些投资人必须在钱选中表现得非常出色

You don't necessarily have to win. There is Jerry Brown.

你不必赢，比如杰利·布朗。

But you must do extremely well.

但你必须表现得非常出色。

And here's the key: There are just as few relevant funders

关键在这-美国的投资人数量

in USA-land as there are Lesters in Lesterland.

跟莱斯特国的莱斯特们一样少。

Now you say, really?

你可能会说：“是真的？”

Really .05 percent?

真的才0.05%？

Well, here are the numbers from 2010:

这些是2010年的数据：

.26 percent of America

0.26%的美国人

gave 200 dollars or more to any federal candidate,

把200美金或以上给了任何一位候选人，

.05 percent gave the maximum amount to any federal candidate,

0.05%把最高上限金额给了任何一位候选人，

.01 percent -- the one percent of the one percent --

0.01%也就是百分之一的百分之一

gave 10,000 dollars or more to federal candidates,

把1万美金或以上给了候选人，

and in this election cycle, my favorite statistic

而在这轮选举，我最爱的一个数据

is .000042 percent

是0.000042%

— for those of you doing the numbers, you know that's 132 Americans —

那些正在计算的人，会知道这是132个美国人－

gave 60 percent of the Super PAC money spent

他们提供了超级政治促进会（Super PAC)花在

in the cycle we have just seen ending.

刚结束的这场选举的资金中的60%。

So I'm just a lawyer, I look at this range of numbers,

我只是个律师，看了这些数字之后，

and I say it's fair for me to say

我想我可以很公正地说

it's .05 percent who are our relevant funders in America.

在美国，0.05%的人口才是相关投资者。

In this sense, the funders are our Lesters.

照这么说，这些投资者就是我们的莱斯特们。

Now, what can we say about this democracy in USA-land?

那么，关于美国的民主，我们能说什么?

Well, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United,

就如同最高法院在联合公民中所说的

we could say, of course the people have the ultimate influence

我们可以说，人民当然对当选

over the elected officials. We have a general election,

有最终的决定权。我们有大选，

but only after the funders have had their way

但我们只能从投资人们先选出来的

with the candidates who wish to run in that general election.

那些希望参加的候选人中选。

And number two, obviously,

第二呢，很明显

this dependence upon the funders

这种取决于投资者的选择

produces a subtle, understated, camouflaged bending

会产生一个微妙，低调，甚至是可以说隐蔽的妥协

to keep the funders happy.

来满足投资人。

Candidates for Congress and members of Congress

国会候选人和国会议员

spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time

都会花大约30%到70%的时间

raising money to get back to Congress

筹备资金好让他们回到国会

or to get their party back into power,

或是让他们的党派重新掌权，

and the question we need to ask is, what does it do to them,

我们需要问的是，对这些人到底有什么好处

these humans, as they spend their time

他们把时间花在

behind the telephone, calling people they've never met,

打电话给那些他素不相识的人

but calling the tiniest slice of the one percent?

打给那些非常小众的一群人？

As anyone would, as they do this,

就像每个人都会做的，

they develop a sixth sense, a constant awareness

他们会逐渐产生一种"第六感"

about how what they do might affect their ability to raise money.

明白自己所做的将如何影响本身等集资金的能力。

They become, in the words of "The X-Files,"

套X档案的说法，他们会变成

shape-shifters, as they constantly adjust their views

变形人，因为他们会为了等集更多资金

in light of what they know will help them to raise money,

不断调整他们的观点

not on issues one to 10,

不是从1到10的问题上去调整

but on issues 11 to 1,000.

而是从11到1000。

Leslie Byrne, a Democrat from Virginia,

来自维吉尼亚州的民主党成员，莱思丽·柏恩，

describes that when she went to Congress,

说她刚到国会的时候，

she was told by a colleague, "Always lean to the green."

一位同僚对她说：“千万要向绿色靠拢。”

Then to clarify, she went on,

为了澄清一下，她接着说，

"He was not an environmentalist." (Laughter)

“他不是个环保主义者。”（笑声）

So here too we have a democracy,

那么我们也是有民主的，

a democracy dependent upon the funders

一个取决于投资者

and dependent upon the people,

和人民的民主

competing dependencies,

有着相互竞争的关系

possibly conflicting dependencies

取决于投资者是谁

depending upon who the funders are.

这很可能是相互冲突的关系。

Okay, the United States is Lesterland, point number one.

好，美国就是莱斯特国，这是第一点。

Here's point number two.

接下来，第二点

The United States is worse than Lesterland,

美国比莱斯特国更糟，

worse than Lesterland because you can imagine in Lesterland

比莱斯国更糟因为你可以想象在莱斯特国

if we Lesters got a letter from the government that said,

如果莱斯特们收到一封来自政府的信，写着：

"Hey, you get to pick who gets to run in the general election,"

“嘿，你们可以挑参加大选的候选人。”

we would think maybe of a kind of aristocracy of Lesters.

我们或许会觉得莱斯特们是有特权的阶层。

You know, there are Lesters from every part of social society.

你知道，有来自社会各阶级的莱斯特。

There are rich Lesters, poor Lesters, black Lesters, white Lesters,

有钱的莱斯特，穷莱斯特，黑人莱斯特，白人莱斯特，

not many women Lesters, but put that to the side for one second.

没太多女莱斯特，但先把这撇开不谈。

We have Lesters from everywhere. We could think,

我们有来自各地的莱斯特，我们可以想，

"What could we do to make Lesterland better?"

“我们能做什么让莱斯特国更好？”

It's at least possible the Lesters would act for the good of Lesterland.

至少有个可能莱斯特们是为了莱斯特国的利益着想。

But in our land, in this land, in USA-land,

但在我们的国家，这国家，在美国，

there are certainly some sweet Lesters out there,

当然也有些可爱的好莱斯特们，

many of them in this room here today,

今天在场的很多都是，

but the vast majority of Lesters act for the Lesters,

但是大部分的莱斯特是为了莱斯特们的利益着想，

because the shifting coalitions that are comprising the .05 percent

因为由这0.05%的人口组成的联盟

are not comprising it for the public interest.

并不是为了大众的利益而组成的。

It's for their private interest. In this sense, the USA is worse than Lesterland.

是为了他们个人的利益，也就是说，美国比莱斯特更糟。

And finally, point number three:

终于来到第三点，

Whatever one wants to say about Lesterland,

无论谁想评论莱斯特国，

against the background of its history, its traditions,

针对他的历史背景或传统

in our land, in USA-land, Lesterland is a corruption,

在我们的国家，在美国，莱斯特国是个腐败贪污的国家，

a corruption.

腐败贪污。

Now, by corruption I don't mean brown paper bag cash

但是，当我说腐败贪污，不是说国会议员之间

secreted among members of Congress.

的秘密现金纸袋交易。

I don't mean Rod Blagojevich sense of corruption.

我也不是指罗德布拉戈耶维奇的那类的腐败贪污。

I don't mean any criminal act.

我不是指任何犯罪行为。

The corruption I'm talking about is perfectly legal.

我所说的腐败贪污是完全合法。

It's a corruption relative to the framers' baseline for this republic.

是针对这个共和国制定者的底线的腐败贪污。

The framers gave us what they called a republic,

制定者给我们他们所谓的共和国，

but by a republic they meant a representative democracy,

但共和国他们真正指的是一个代表性民主，

and by a representative democracy, they meant a government,

而他们指的代表性民主，是政府，

as Madison put it in Federalist 52, that would have a branch

如同麦迪逊在联邦党人文集第52篇中提到，会有一派

that would be dependent upon the people alone.

只取决于人民。

So here's the model of government.

这就是政府的模式。

They have the people and the government

有人民和政府

with this exclusive dependency,

单纯的相互依赖，

but the problem here is that Congress has evolved a different dependence,

但问题在于国会改变了这依赖关系，

no longer a dependence upon the people alone,

不再是只取决于人民，

increasingly a dependence upon the funders.

逐渐转变成对投资者的依赖。

Now this is a dependence too,

这也是一种依赖关系，

but it's different and conflicting from a dependence upon the people alone

但是跟单纯取决于人民的那种依赖性，不同且相冲突

so long as the funders are not the people.

因为投资者并不是那些人民。

This is a corruption.

这就是一种贪污腐败。

Now, there's good news and bad news about this corruption.

然而，贪污腐败有好坏两面。

One bit of good news is that it's bipartisan,

好的一部分是两个政党，

equal-opportunity corruption.

同等机会的贪污腐败。

It blocks the left on a whole range of issues that we on the left really care about.

这阻挡了左派真正关心的一系列的问题 （气候变化，合理的医疗保健，食品安全，金融改革）

It blocks the right too, as it makes

同时也阻挡右派，因为它让

principled arguments of the right increasingly impossible.

右派的主要论点越来越不可能。

So the right wants smaller government.

右派想要小的政府。

When Al Gore was Vice President, his team had an idea

艾尔高尔任职副总统的时候，他的幕僚有个想法

for deregulating a significant portion of the telecommunications industry.

对大量的电信公司解除管制。

The chief policy man took this idea to Capitol Hill,

政策首长把这个想法带到国会山莊，

and as he reported back to me,

他回报给我的时候，

the response was, "Hell no!

答复是：“死都不行！

If we deregulate these guys,

如果我们对这些人解除管制

how are we going to raise money from them?"

我们怎么从他们那里筹集资金？”

This is a system that's designed to save the status quo,

这是一个为了维持现状而设计的系统

including the status quo of big and invasive government.

包含维持大且有侵略性的政府现状。

It works against the left and the right,

他可以压制左右两派，

and that, you might say, is good news.

因此你可以说是好的一面。

But here's the bad news.

但也有坏的一面。

It's a pathological, democracy-destroying corruption,

这是个病态，毁灭民主的贪污腐败，

because in any system

因为在任何系统中

where the members are dependent upon

会员在竞选中依赖极少部分的人

the tiniest fraction of us for their election,

会员在竞选中依赖极少部分的人，

that means the tiniest number of us,

代表我们之中的极少数，

the tiniest, tiniest number of us,

极少，极少数的我们，

can block reform.

可以阻止改革。

I know that should have been, like, a rock or something.

我知道我本来应该放颗石头或其他东西。

I can only find cheese. I'm sorry. So there it is.

但我只能找到芝士，不好意思将就一下。

Block reform.

阻止改革。

Because there is an economy here, an economy of influence,

因为存在经济，一个受影响的经济，

an economy with lobbyists at the center

一个以说客为中心的经济，

which feeds on polarization.

靠对立而活。

It feeds on dysfunction.

靠失序而活。

The worse that it is for us,

情况对我们来说越糟，

the better that it is for this fundraising.

就对募资越有利。

Henry David Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking

亨利·戴维·梭罗说过：“有一千人在砍罪恶的树枝

at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

但只有一个人在砍罪恶的根。”

This is the root.

这就是‘根’。

Okay, now, every single one of you knows this.

那么现在我们每个人都知道这问题。

You couldn't be here if you didn't know this, yet you ignore it.

若你不知道你就不可能在这里，但你却视而不见。

You ignore it. This is an impossible problem.

你视而不见，因为这是个不可能解决的问题。

You focus on the possible problems,

你关注那些可能的解决的问题，

like eradicating polio from the world,

如同从地球上根绝小儿麻痹，

or taking an image of every single street across the globe,

或是拍摄世界上的每一条街，

or building the first real universal translator,

或是建造第一个万能翻译机，

or building a fusion factory in your garage.

或是在你的车库建核融合厂。

These are the manageable problems, so you ignore —

这些都是可以处理的问题，所以

(Laughter) (Applause) —

（笑声）（掌声）

so you ignore this corruption.

你对贪污腐败视而不见。

But we cannot ignore this corruption anymore.

但我们不能继续对贪污腐败视而不见了。

(Applause)

（掌声）

We need a government that works.

我们需要一个有在做事的政府。

And not works for the left or the right,

不是为左派或右派做事的政府，

but works for the left and the right,

而是为左派和右派做事的政府，

the citizens of the left and right,

为左派和右派的公民，

because there is no sensible reform possible

因为在我们终结贪污腐败前

until we end this corruption.

不可能会有合理的改革。

So I want you to take hold, to grab the issue you care the most about.

因此我希望你们抓住你们最关心的问题。

Climate change is mine, but it might be financial reform

气候变迁是我最关心的，但这也可能是经济改革

or a simpler tax system or inequality.

或是一个简单点的税制或不平等问题。

Grab that issue, sit it down in front of you,

抓住那个问题，把它放在面前，

look straight in its eyes, and tell it there is no Christmas this year.

直视它双眼，跟它说你今年不会过圣诞节。

There will never be a Christmas.

永远不会有圣诞节。

We will never get your issue solved

在我们解决这个腐败问题前

until we fix this issue first.

我们永远不会解决你的问题。

So it's not that mine is the most important issue. It's not.

不是说我的问题最重要，因为真的不是。

Yours is the most important issue, but mine is the first issue,

你们的问题最重要，但我的是首要问题，

the issue we have to solve before we get to fix

是解决我们所关心的问题前

the issues you care about.

首先应该解决的问题。

No sensible reform, and we cannot afford

没有合理的改革，我们是承担不起

a world, a future, with no sensible reform.

一个没有合理改革的世界和未来的。

Okay. So how do we do it?

好，那我们怎么做?

Turns out, the analytics here are easy, simple.

事实证明，计算起来很简单明了。

If the problem is members spending an extraordinary

如果问题是出在国会议员花超多时间

amount of time fundraising from the tiniest slice of America,

向极小部分的美国人募资

the solution is to have them spend less time fundraising

解决办法就是让他们花少点时间募资

but fundraise from a wider slice of Americans,

但让他们向更多的美国人募资，

to spread it out,

把范围扩大，

to spread the funder influence so that we restore the idea

让投资者的影响力扩展，好让我们恢复

of dependence upon the people alone.

那种仅依靠人民的依赖关系。

And to do this does not require a constitutional amendment,

这不需要修宪

changing the First Amendment.

或修改宪法第一修正案。

To do this would require a single statute,

我们只需要一个单一法令，

a statute establishing what we think of

一项奠定我们对于

as small dollar funded elections,

小金额资助选举想法的法令，

a statute of citizen-funded campaigns,

一项公民资助竞选的法令，

and there's any number of these proposals out there:

外界已经有很多的提议：

Fair Elections Now Act,

立即公平竞选法案、

the American Anti-Corruption Act,

美国反贪污法案、

an idea in my book that I call the Grant and Franklin Project

我书里面的"格兰特和富兰克林计划"

to give vouchers to people to fund elections,

提倡给人民票券让他们资助竞选，

an idea of John Sarbanes called the Grassroots Democracy Act.

还有约翰·萨博尼的基层民主法案。

Each of these would fix this corruption

以上每一个都可以解决贪污

by spreading out the influence of funders to all of us.

让投资者的影响力扩展到我们每个人身上。

The analytics are easy here.

解决方案是简单明了的。

It's the politics that's hard, indeed impossibly hard,

难在政治，确实极其困难，

because this reform would shrink K Street,

因为这样的改革会削减华盛顿K街，

and Capitol Hill, as Congressman Jim Cooper,

国会山莊，如同国会议员吉米·库柏，

a Democrat from Tennessee, put it,

一名田纳西州的民主党党员说的，

has become a farm league for K Street, a farm league for K Street.

它成为华盛顿K街的一个联盟。

Members and staffers and bureaucrats have

会员、工作人员和官僚脑海里想着一个

an increasingly common business model in their head,

逐渐相同的商业模式，

a business model focused on their life after government,

这商业模式专注在他们执政后的生活

their life as lobbyists.

也就是说客生活。

Fifty percent of the Senate between 1998 and 2004

1998年到2004年之间，参议院有50%的人

left to become lobbyists, 42 percent of the House.

，白宫有42%的人，出走当说客。

Those numbers have only gone up,

这些数字只增不减，

and as United Republic calculated last April,

去年4月联合共和国(United Republic)计算，

the average increase in salary for those who they tracked

他们有在追踪的人，薪水平均增幅为

was 1,452 percent.

1,452%。

So it's fair to ask, how is it possible for them to change this?

我们可以问，他们怎么可能改变这情况?

Now I get this skepticism.

我可以理解这种怀疑。

I get this cynicism. I get this sense of impossibility.

我明白这种无奈，这种不可能性。

But I don't buy it.

但我不同意。

This is a solvable issue.

这是个可以解决的问题。

If you think about the issues our parents tried to solve

若你想想我们父母在20世纪

in the 20th century,

试着解决的问题，

issues like racism, or sexism,

像是种族歧视或两性不平等，

or the issue that we've been fighting in this century, homophobia,

或是我们在这世纪奋战的问题: 同性恋恐惧症，

those are hard issues.

那些都是很困难的问题。

You don't wake up one day no longer a racist.

你不会睡一觉起来就不再是种族主义者。

It takes generations to tear that intuition, that DNA,

这得花上好几个世代才能从一个人的灵魂

out of the soul of a people.

中破除那种观念，那种基因。

But this is a problem of just incentives, just incentives.

但这只是个动机问题，只有动机。

Change the incentives, and the behavior changes,

动机改变了，行为就跟着改变，

and the states that have adopted small dollar funded systems

那些采用小金额资助制度的几个州

have seen overnight a change in the practice.

已经很快地看到实际的效果。

When Connecticut adopted this system,

当康乃狄克州(Connecticut)采用这制度之后，

in the very first year, 78 percent of elected representatives

在第一年，78%的当选代表

gave up large contributions and took small contributions only.

放弃了大额助选金而选择只收取小额助选金。

It's solvable,

这是是解决得了的，

not by being a Democrat,

不是通过作为一个民主党党员，

not by being a Republican.

不是通过作为一个共和党党员。

It's solvable by being citizens, by being citizens,

而是通过作为公民解决的，

by being TEDizens.

通过作为TED成员解决的。

Because if you want to kickstart reform,

因为若你想要发起一项改革，

look, I could kickstart reform

我可以发起一项改革，

at half the price of fixing energy policy,

只用到解决能源政策所需的一半金额，

I could give you back a republic.

我可以还给你一个共和国。

Okay. But even if you're not yet with me,

好，若你还不同意我的想法，

even if you believe this is impossible,

甚至觉得这是不可能的，

what the five years since I spoke at TED has taught me

过去五年我在TED的演讲经验告诉我，

as I've spoken about this issue again and again is,

我一而再再而三的讨论这个议题，

even if you think it's impossible, that is irrelevant.

就算你觉得这是不可能，没关系。

Irrelevant.

没关系。

I spoke at Dartmouth once, and a woman stood up after I spoke,

我曾在达特茅斯演讲一次，我讲完之后有一位女士站起来，

I write in my book, and she said to me,

我有写在我书里，她告诉我，

"Professor, you've convinced me this is hopeless. Hopeless.

"教授，你说服我这没希望了，没希望了。

There's nothing we can do."

我们束手无策了。”

When she said that, I scrambled.

当她这么说，我慌了。

I tried to think, "How do I respond to that hopelessness?

我试着想：“我该怎样回应这种绝望?”

What is that sense of hopelessness?"

“这种绝望是什么感觉?"

And what hit me was an image of my six-year-old son.

让我顿悟的是我六岁的儿子。

And I imagined a doctor coming to me and saying,

我想像一位医生向我走来并告诉我：

"Your son has terminal brain cancer, and there's nothing you can do.

“你儿子有晚期脑癌，没有办法了。

Nothing you can do."

你束手无策了。”

So would I do nothing?

我真的什么都不做吗?

Would I just sit there? Accept it? Okay, nothing I can do?

我就坐在这？坦然接受？我什么都不能做吗?

I'm going off to build Google Glass.

那我就去做研发谷歌眼镜好了。

Of course not. I would do everything I could,

当然不是。 我会尽力而为，

and I would do everything I could because this is what love means,

我会尽力而为因为这就是爱，

that the odds are irrelevant and that you do

这无关输赢，你就做所有你能够做的

whatever the hell you can, the odds be damned.

管他输还是赢。

And then I saw the obvious link, because even we liberals

然后我就看到其中的显然连系，因为即便是我们这些自由派人士

love this country.

都爱这个国家。

(Laughter)

(笑声)

And so when the pundits and the politicians

所以当权威人士或政客

say that change is impossible,

说这改变是不可能的，

what this love of country says back is,

爱国情操会这么回答：

"That's just irrelevant."

“这不重要。”

We lose something dear,

若我们失去共和，

something everyone in this room loves and cherishes,

失去在场所有人共同珍惜的东西，

if we lose this republic, and so we act

我们就要采取行动

with everything we can to prove these pundits wrong.

尽其所能地去证明这些权威人士是错的。

So here's my question:

那么这是我的问题：

Do you have that love?

你有这份爱吗?

Do you have that love?

你有这份爱吗?

Because if you do,

因为如果你有，

then what the hell are you, what are the hell are we doing?

那我们到底在做什么?

When Ben Franklin was carried from the constitutional convention

1787年9月，当本·富兰克林(Ben Franklin)从制宪会议离开

in September of 1787, he was stopped in the street by a woman who said,

他在街上被一位女性拦下来问说，

"Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?"

"富兰克林先生，你造就了什么?"

Franklin said, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

富兰克林回答："一个共和，若你们能继续保持它。”

A republic. A representative democracy.

一个共和，一个代表性的民主。

A government dependent upon the people alone.

一个’单独‘取决于人民的政府。

We have lost that republic.

我们已经失去了这个共和。

All of us have to act to get it back.

我们所有人必须要行动起来，把它找回来。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢你们。

(Applause)

(掌声)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)

谢谢 (掌声)