Once upon a time, there was a place called Lesterland. Now Lesterland looks a lot like the United States. Like the United States, it has about 311 million people, and of that 311 million people, it turns out 144,000 are called Lester. If Matt's in the audience, I just borrowed that, I'll return it in a second, this character from your series. So 144,000 are called Lester, which means about .05 percent is named Lester. Now, Lesters in Lesterland have this extraordinary power. There are two elections every election cycle in Lesterland. One is called the general election. The other is called the Lester election. And in the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote, but in the Lester election, it's the Lesters who get to vote. And here's the trick. In order to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the Lester election. You don't necessarily have to win, but you must do extremely well.
Njehere e nje kohe, ishte nje vend i quajtur "Lesterland". Tani "Lesterland" duket si Shtetet e Bashkuara. Si dhe Shtetet e Bashkuara, ka rreth 311 milion njerez, dhe prej atyre 311 milion njerezve, na del qe 144,000 quhen Lester. Nese Matt eshte ne publik, thjesht e morra hua, do ta kthej ne nje sekond, kete karakter nga serite e tua. Pra 144,000 quhen Lester, qe do te thote qe rreth 0.05% quhet Lester. Tani, Lester-at ne "Lesterland" kane kete fuqine e jshtezakonshme. Ka dy zgjedhje cdo cikel zgjedhjesh ne "Lasterland". Njera quhet zgjedhjet e pergjithshme. Tjetra quhet " Zgjedhjet Lester". Dhe ne zgjedhjet e pergjithshme, jane qytetaret ate te cilet votojne, por ne "Zgjedhjet Lester", jane Lester-at te cilet votojne. Dhe ketu eshte hileja. Ne menyre qe te kandidojne per zgjedhjet e pergjithshme, ju duhet te dilni jashtezakonisht mire ne "Zgjedhjet Lester". Nuk duhet domosdoshmerisht te fitoni, por ju duhet te dilni jashtezakonisht mire.
Now, what can we say about democracy in Lesterland? What we can say, number one, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, that people have the ultimate influence over elected officials, because, after all, there is a general election, but only after the Lesters have had their way with the candidates who wish to run in the general election. And number two, obviously, this dependence upon the Lesters is going to produce a subtle, understated, we could say camouflaged, bending to keep the Lesters happy. Okay, so we have a democracy, no doubt, but it's dependent upon the Lesters and dependent upon the people. It has competing dependencies, we could say conflicting dependencies, depending upon who the Lesters are. Okay. That's Lesterland.
Tani, cfare mund te themi ne rreth demokracise ne "Lesterland". Cfare ne mund te themi, numer nje, sic tha dhe Gjykata e Larte ne Qytetaret e Bashkuar, qe populli ka influencen perfundimtare mbi zyrtaret e zgjedhur, sepse, ne fund te fundit, jane zgjedhje te pergjithshme, por vetem pasi Lester-at te kene pasur mundesine per te caktuar se cili kanditat do te kandidoje per zgjedhjet e pergjithshme. Dhe numri dy, natyrisht, kjo varesi prej Lester-ve do te prodhoje nje delikatese, te kuptueshme, ne mund te themi te fshehte, te nenshtruar per te mbajtur Lester-at te lumtur. Ne rregull, keshtu qe ne kemi nje demokraci, pa dyshim, por qe varet tek Lester-at dhe qe varet tek populli. Ajo ka nje varesi te konkurueshme, ne mund te themi nje varesi konfliktuale, ne varesi se kush jane Lester-at. Ne rregull, Ky eshte "Lesterland".
Now there are three things I want you to see now that I've described Lesterland. Number one, the United States is Lesterland. The United States is Lesterland. The United States also looks like this, also has two elections, one we called the general election, the second we should call the money election. In the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote, if you're over 18, in some states if you have an ID. In the money election, it's the funders who get to vote, the funders who get to vote, and just like in Lesterland, the trick is, to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the money election. You don't necessarily have to win. There is Jerry Brown. But you must do extremely well. And here's the key: There are just as few relevant funders in USA-land as there are Lesters in Lesterland.
Tani jane tre gjera qe une dua qe ju te shikoni tani qe ju kam pershkruar Lesterland. Numeri nje, Shtetet e Bashkuara eshte "Lesterland". Shtetet e Bashkuara eshte "Lesterland". Shtetet e Bashkuara gjithashtu ngjan si kjo, gjithashtu ka dy zgjedhje, nje qe ne e quajme zgjedhjet e pergjithshme, te dyten ne duhet ta quajme "Zgjedhjet e para-se". Ne zgjedhjet e pergjithshme, jane qytetaret te cilet duhet te votojne, nese je mbi 18 vjec, ne disa shtete nese ke nje ID (karte identiteti). Ne zgjedhjet e parase, jane financuesit ata te cilet votojne, financuesit te cilet votojne, dhe po ashtu si ne "Lesterland", hileja eshte, per te kandiduar ne zgjedhjet e pergjithshme, ti duhet tja dalesh jashtezakonisht mire ne zgjedhjet e parase. Jo domosdoshmerisht duhet te fitosh. Ja ku eshte Jerry Brown. Por duhet tja dalesh jashtezakonisht mire. Dhe ky eshte celsi: Ka vetem pak financues te rendesishem ne token Amerikane sic jane Lester-at ne "Lesterland".
Now you say, really? Really .05 percent? Well, here are the numbers from 2010: .26 percent of America gave 200 dollars or more to any federal candidate, .05 percent gave the maximum amount to any federal candidate, .01 percent -- the one percent of the one percent -- gave 10,000 dollars or more to federal candidates, and in this election cycle, my favorite statistic is .000042 percent — for those of you doing the numbers, you know that's 132 Americans — gave 60 percent of the Super PAC money spent in the cycle we have just seen ending. So I'm just a lawyer, I look at this range of numbers, and I say it's fair for me to say it's .05 percent who are our relevant funders in America. In this sense, the funders are our Lesters.
Tani ju po thoni, me te vertete? Me te vertete 0.05 perqind? Mire, keto jane numrat e 2010: 0.26 perqind e Amerikes dha 200 dollar ose me shume per cdo kandidat federal, 0.05 perqind dha maksimumin e te ardhurave per cdo kandidat federal, 0.01 perqind- nje perqindeshi i po atij nje perqindeshi- dha 10.000 dollar ose me shume tek kandidatet federal, dhe ne kete cikel zgjedhjesh, statistika ime e preferuar eshte 0.000042 perqindeshi -per ata qe kane bere llogaritjet, ju e dini qe jane vec 132 Amerikan- qe dha 60% e "SUPER PAKOS" te parave te shpenzuara ne ciklin qe sapo i pame fundin. Keshtu une jam thjesh nje jurist, shkoj kete varg numrash, dhe them qe eshte e drejte per mua te them se jane 0.05 perqindeshi ata qe jane financuesit tane te rendesishem ne Amerike. Ne kete kuptim, financuesit jane Lester-at tane.
Now, what can we say about this democracy in USA-land? Well, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, we could say, of course the people have the ultimate influence over the elected officials. We have a general election, but only after the funders have had their way with the candidates who wish to run in that general election. And number two, obviously, this dependence upon the funders produces a subtle, understated, camouflaged bending to keep the funders happy. Candidates for Congress and members of Congress spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time raising money to get back to Congress or to get their party back into power, and the question we need to ask is, what does it do to them, these humans, as they spend their time behind the telephone, calling people they've never met, but calling the tiniest slice of the one percent? As anyone would, as they do this, they develop a sixth sense, a constant awareness about how what they do might affect their ability to raise money. They become, in the words of "The X-Files," shape-shifters, as they constantly adjust their views in light of what they know will help them to raise money, not on issues one to 10, but on issues 11 to 1,000. Leslie Byrne, a Democrat from Virginia, describes that when she went to Congress, she was told by a colleague, "Always lean to the green." Then to clarify, she went on, "He was not an environmentalist." (Laughter)
Tani, cfare mund te themi ne rreth demokracis ne token Amerikane. Mire, ashtu sic u shpreh Gjykat e larte ne Qytetaret e Bashkuar, ne mund te themi, qe natyrisht njerzit kane ndikimin perfundimtare mbi zyrtaret e zgjedhur. Ne kemi zgjedhje te pergjithshme, por vetem pasi financuesit kane perzgjedhur se cilet kanditate do te kandidojne per zgjedhjet e pergjithshme. Dhe numri dy, natyrisht kjo varesi prej financuesve prodhon nje nenshtrim delikat, te kuptueshem e te fshehte per te mbajtur financuesit e lumtur. Kandidatet per Kongres dhe anetaret e Kongresit harxhojne 30 deri ne 70 % te kohes se tyre per te mbledhur para qe te rikthehen perseri ne Kongres ose qe cojne partine e tyre perseri ne pushtet, dhe pyetja qe ne duam te bejme eshte, cfare u ben atyre, ketyre humaneve, nderkohe qe ata harxhojne kohen e tyre mbrapa telefonave, duke telefonuar njerez qe ata kurre nuk kane takuar, por duke telefonuar ate pjese te vogel te nje perqindeshit? Si cdokush, sic e bejne kete, ata zhvillojne nje shqise te gjashte, nje ndergjegje konstante per cka mund te ndikoje aftesine e tyre per te mbledhur para. Ata behen, sipas fjaleve te " The X-Files", forme- ndryshues (Shape-Shifter'), si ata vazhdimisht ndryshojne pikepamjet e tyre ne driten e asaj qe ata dine qe mund ti ndihmoje per mbledhur para, jo nje ceshtje nga njeshi te 10, por nje ceshjet nga 11 te 1000. Leslie Byrne, nje Demokrate nga Virginia, pershkruan se kur ajo vajti ne Kongres, i'u tha pre nje kolege, " Gjithmone ano nga e gjelberta". Dhe per ta sqaruar, ajo vazhdoi, "Ai nuk ishte nje ambjentalist", ( Te qeshura)
So here too we have a democracy, a democracy dependent upon the funders and dependent upon the people, competing dependencies, possibly conflicting dependencies depending upon who the funders are.
Keshtu qe edhe ketu kemi demokraci, nje demokraci e cila varet prej financuesve dhe qe varet nga populli, varesi konkurruese, mundesisht varesi konfliktuale ne varesi se kush jane financuesit.
Okay, the United States is Lesterland, point number one. Here's point number two. The United States is worse than Lesterland, worse than Lesterland because you can imagine in Lesterland if we Lesters got a letter from the government that said, "Hey, you get to pick who gets to run in the general election," we would think maybe of a kind of aristocracy of Lesters. You know, there are Lesters from every part of social society. There are rich Lesters, poor Lesters, black Lesters, white Lesters, not many women Lesters, but put that to the side for one second. We have Lesters from everywhere. We could think, "What could we do to make Lesterland better?" It's at least possible the Lesters would act for the good of Lesterland. But in our land, in this land, in USA-land, there are certainly some sweet Lesters out there, many of them in this room here today, but the vast majority of Lesters act for the Lesters, because the shifting coalitions that are comprising the .05 percent are not comprising it for the public interest. It's for their private interest. In this sense, the USA is worse than Lesterland.
Ne rregull, Shtetet e Bashkuara eshte "Lesterland", pika numer nje. Ja dhe pika numer dy. Shtetet e Bashkuara jane me keq se "Lesterland", me keq se ne "Lesterland" sepse mund te imagjinoni qe ne "Lesterland" nese ne Lester-at marrim nje leter nga qeveria qe thote, "Hej, ti duhet te perzgjedhesh se cili do te kandidoj ne zgjedhjet e pergjithshme," ne do te mendonim ndoshta per nje tip aristokratik te Lester-ave. Ju e dini, ka Lester-a nga cdo pjese e shoqerise civile. Ka Lester-a te pasur, Lester-a te varfer, Lester-a te zinj, Lester-a te bardhe, jo shume femra Lester, por le ta leme menjane per nje sekond. Ne kemi Lester-a nga cdo ane. Ne mund te mendojme, " Cfare mund te bejme qe ta bejme "Lesterland" me te mire?" Me e pakta e mundur eshte qe Lester-at do te veprojne per te miren e "Lesterland". Por ne vendin tone, ne kete vend, ne vendin Amerikan, me siguri ka disa Lester-a te mire atje jashte, shume prej tyre ne kete dhome ketu sot, por shumica e Lester-ave veprojne per Lester-at, sepse ndryshimet e koalicioneve qe perfshijne 0.05 perqindeshin nuk perfshijne interesin publik. Eshte per interesin e tyre privat. Ne kete kuptim, SHBA eshte me keq sesa "Lesterland".
And finally, point number three: Whatever one wants to say about Lesterland, against the background of its history, its traditions, in our land, in USA-land, Lesterland is a corruption, a corruption. Now, by corruption I don't mean brown paper bag cash secreted among members of Congress. I don't mean Rod Blagojevich sense of corruption. I don't mean any criminal act. The corruption I'm talking about is perfectly legal. It's a corruption relative to the framers' baseline for this republic. The framers gave us what they called a republic, but by a republic they meant a representative democracy, and by a representative democracy, they meant a government, as Madison put it in Federalist 52, that would have a branch that would be dependent upon the people alone.
Dhe se fundi, pika numer tre: Cfaredo lloj gjeje qe cdokush do te doje te thoje per "Lesterland", kunder sfondit te historise se tij, tradites, ne token tone, ne token Amerikane, "Lesterland" eshte nje korrupsion, nje korrupsion. Tani, me korrupsion nuk kuptoj qesen kafe te letres me para shperndare fshehtasi ndermjet anetareve te Kongresit. Nuk kuptoj sensin e korrupsionit te Rod Blagojevich-it. Nuk kuptoj asnje akt kriminal. Korrupsioni per te cilin po flas eshte krejtesisht i ligjshem, Eshte nje korrupsion i afert me ate te vijez baze te hartuesve te kesaj republike. Themeluesit na dhane ate qe ata quanin Republike, por me republike ata kuptonin demokraci perfaqesuese, dhe me demokraci perfaqesuese, ata kuptonin nje qeveri, sic Madison vendosi ne Federate 52-in, ajo do te kishte nje dege qe do te varej nga njerzit vetem.
So here's the model of government. They have the people and the government with this exclusive dependency, but the problem here is that Congress has evolved a different dependence, no longer a dependence upon the people alone, increasingly a dependence upon the funders. Now this is a dependence too, but it's different and conflicting from a dependence upon the people alone so long as the funders are not the people. This is a corruption.
Keshtu qe ja ku eshte modeli i qeverisjes. Ata kishin njerzit dhe qeverine me varesine ekskluzive, por problemi ketu eshte qe Kongresi ka evoluar ne nje varesi tjeter, prej shume kohesh nuk eshte me nje varesi nga njerezit vetem, duke rritur nje varesi ndaj financuesve. Tani kjo eshte nje varesi gjithashtu, por qe eshte e ndryshme dhe konfliktuale nga varesia e vetme e njerzeve per sa kohe qe financuesit nuk jane njerzit. Ky eshte korrupsion.
Now, there's good news and bad news about this corruption. One bit of good news is that it's bipartisan, equal-opportunity corruption. It blocks the left on a whole range of issues that we on the left really care about. It blocks the right too, as it makes principled arguments of the right increasingly impossible. So the right wants smaller government. When Al Gore was Vice President, his team had an idea for deregulating a significant portion of the telecommunications industry. The chief policy man took this idea to Capitol Hill, and as he reported back to me, the response was, "Hell no! If we deregulate these guys, how are we going to raise money from them?"
Tani, ka nje lajm te mire dhe nje te keq per sa i perket ketij korrupsioni. Nje grime e lajmit te mire eshte qe eshte bi-partiak, mundesi te barabarta korrupsioni. Bllokon te majtet per nje varietet ceshtjesh per te cilat ne te majtet kemi interes te vecante. Bllokon edhe te djathten gjithashtu, duke i bere argumentat parimore te se djathes gjithnje e me te pamundur. Keshtu te djathtet duan nje qeveri sa me te vogel. Kur Al Gore ishte Zevendes President, ekipi i tij kishte nje ide per te shkrire nje pjese te konsiderueshme te industrise se telekomunikacionit. Burri i politikes e coi kete ide ne "Capitol Hill", dhe kur ai me raportoi perseri mua, pergjigja ishte, " Dreqin JO!" Nese i shkrijme keta tipat, si do te mund te mbledhim para prej tyre?"
This is a system that's designed to save the status quo, including the status quo of big and invasive government. It works against the left and the right, and that, you might say, is good news.
Ky eshte nje sistem i projektuar per te ruajtur "Status-kuo", perfshire dhe status kuo-ne e nje qeverie te madhe dhe pushtuese. Punon kunder te majteve dhe te djathteve, dhe kjo gje, mund te thoni, eshte nje lajm i mire.
But here's the bad news. It's a pathological, democracy-destroying corruption, because in any system where the members are dependent upon the tiniest fraction of us for their election, that means the tiniest number of us, the tiniest, tiniest number of us, can block reform. I know that should have been, like, a rock or something. I can only find cheese. I'm sorry. So there it is. Block reform.
Por ja ku vjen lajmi keq. Eshte nje demokraci patologjike, shkaterrimtare e korruptuar, sepse ne cdo sistem ku anetaret jane te varur nga fraksioni me i vogel i tyre per zgjedhjet e tyre, kjo do te thote qe numri me i vogel prej nesh, me i vogli, me i vogli numer prej nesh, mund te bllokoje reformat. E di qe duhej te kishte qene nje gur ose dicka tjeter. Munda vetem te gjej djath. Me falni. Keshtu qe ja ku eshte. Bllokon reformat.
Because there is an economy here, an economy of influence, an economy with lobbyists at the center which feeds on polarization. It feeds on dysfunction. The worse that it is for us, the better that it is for this fundraising.
Sepse ka nje ekonomi ketu, nje ekonomi te ndikuar, nje ekonomi me lobiste ne qender te cilet ushqejne polaritetet. Ushqejne mosfunksionimin. Sa me keq qe te jete per ne, aq me mire eshte per mbledhjen e parave.
Henry David Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." This is the root.
Henry David Thoreau: " Ka me mijra pirateri tek deget e se keqes tek e cila po sulmon rrenjen." Kjo eshte rrenja.
Okay, now, every single one of you knows this. You couldn't be here if you didn't know this, yet you ignore it. You ignore it. This is an impossible problem. You focus on the possible problems, like eradicating polio from the world, or taking an image of every single street across the globe, or building the first real universal translator, or building a fusion factory in your garage. These are the manageable problems, so you ignore — (Laughter) (Applause) — so you ignore this corruption.
Ne rregull, tani, cdo njeri prej jush tani e di kete. Ju nuk mund te ishit ketu nese nuk do ta dinit kete, pavarsisht se ju e injoruat ate. Ju e injoruat ate. Ky eshte nje problem i pamundur. Ju fokusoheni ne problemet e mundshme, si zhukjen e poliomelitit nga bota, ose duke bere nga nje foto cdo rruge rreth e rrotull globit, ose te ndertoni perkthyesin e pare te vertete universal, ose te ndertoni nje fabrike berthamore ne garazhin tuaj. Keto jane problemet qe mund te menaxhohen, keshtu qe ju i injoroni. (Te qeshura) (Duartrokitje) keshtu ju e injoroni kete korrupsion.
But we cannot ignore this corruption anymore. (Applause) We need a government that works. And not works for the left or the right, but works for the left and the right, the citizens of the left and right, because there is no sensible reform possible until we end this corruption. So I want you to take hold, to grab the issue you care the most about. Climate change is mine, but it might be financial reform or a simpler tax system or inequality. Grab that issue, sit it down in front of you, look straight in its eyes, and tell it there is no Christmas this year. There will never be a Christmas. We will never get your issue solved until we fix this issue first. So it's not that mine is the most important issue. It's not. Yours is the most important issue, but mine is the first issue, the issue we have to solve before we get to fix the issues you care about. No sensible reform, and we cannot afford a world, a future, with no sensible reform.
Por ne nuk mund te injorojme me kete korrupsion. (Duartrokitje) Ne duam nje qeveri qe funksionon. Dhe jo qe punon per te majten ose per te djathten, por qe punon per te majten dhe te djathten, qyetaret e majte dhe te djathte, sepse nuk ka asnje reforme te mundeshme nese ne nuk i japim fund ketij korrupsioni. Keshtu qe dua qe ju te merrni, te rrembeni nje ceshtje qe ju intereson me shume. Ndryshimet klimaterike eshte e imja, por mund te jete reforma financiare ose nje sistem taksash me te thjeshta ose pabarazia. Merre kete ceshtje, vendose perpara teje, shikoje drejt e ne sy dhe thuaji qe nuk ka Krishlindje kete vit. Nuk do te kete me kurre Krishlindje. Ne nuk do te zgjidhim kurre ceshtjen tuaj deri sa ne te rregullojme kete ceshtje ne fillim. Kesisoj jo se ceshtja ime eshte me e rendesishmja, Nuk eshte keshtu. E juaja eshte ceshtja me e rendesishme, por e imja eshte e para, ceshtja qe ne duhet te zgjidhim perpara se ju te zgjidhni ceshtjet qe ju ju interesojne. Pa reforma te ndjeshme, ne nuk mund te perballojme nje bote, nje te ardhme, pa reforma te ndjeshme.
Okay. So how do we do it? Turns out, the analytics here are easy, simple. If the problem is members spending an extraordinary amount of time fundraising from the tiniest slice of America, the solution is to have them spend less time fundraising but fundraise from a wider slice of Americans, to spread it out, to spread the funder influence so that we restore the idea of dependence upon the people alone. And to do this does not require a constitutional amendment, changing the First Amendment. To do this would require a single statute, a statute establishing what we think of as small dollar funded elections, a statute of citizen-funded campaigns, and there's any number of these proposals out there: Fair Elections Now Act, the American Anti-Corruption Act, an idea in my book that I call the Grant and Franklin Project to give vouchers to people to fund elections, an idea of John Sarbanes called the Grassroots Democracy Act. Each of these would fix this corruption by spreading out the influence of funders to all of us.
Ne rregull. Si do ta zgjidhim? Rezulton, ketu analitika eshte e lehte, e thjeshte. Nese problemi eshte qe anetaret harxhojne jazhtezakonisht kohe duke mbledhur para nga pjesa me e vogel e Amerikes, zgjidhja do te jete qe ata te harxhojne me pak kohe duke grumbulluar para, por duke grumbulluar nga nje pjese me e madhe e Amerikes, per te perhapur, per te perhapur ndikimin e financuesve keshtu qe ne mund te rikthejme idene e varesise vetem nga njerezit. Dhe per ta bere kete nuk na nevojitet nje amendamend kushtetues, per te ndryshuar Amendamendin e pare. Per te bere kete na duhet vetem nje statut, nje statut per te vendosur se cfare ne mendojme si financuese paraje te vegjel per zgjedhjet, nje statut i qytetareve-financues te fushatave, dhe ka shume numra propozimesh atje: Zgjedhje te Ndershme Vepro Tani, Akti Amerikan Kunder-Korrupsionit, nje ide ne librin tim qe e quaj projektin "Grant dhe Franklin" te jape kupona njerzeve qe te financojne zgjedhjet, nje ide e John Sarbanes e quajtur " Grassroots Democracy Act". Cdonjera prej tyre do mund te rregullonte korrupsionin duke perhapur influencen e financuesve tek te gjithe ne.
The analytics are easy here. It's the politics that's hard, indeed impossibly hard, because this reform would shrink K Street, and Capitol Hill, as Congressman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, put it, has become a farm league for K Street, a farm league for K Street. Members and staffers and bureaucrats have an increasingly common business model in their head, a business model focused on their life after government, their life as lobbyists. Fifty percent of the Senate between 1998 and 2004 left to become lobbyists, 42 percent of the House. Those numbers have only gone up, and as United Republic calculated last April, the average increase in salary for those who they tracked was 1,452 percent. So it's fair to ask, how is it possible for them to change this? Now I get this skepticism.
Analitiken e kane te lehte ketu. Eshte politika qe eshte e veshtire, ne te vertete nje veshtiresi e pamundur, sespe kjo reforme do te mund te tkurre "K Street", dhe "Capitol Hill", si dhe Kongresmenin Jim Cooper, nje Demokrat nga Tennessee, e vune ate, eshte vene ne sherbim te "K Street". Anetaret dhe stafet dhe burokratet kane gjithnje nje model te perbashket bisnesi ne mendjet e tyre, nje model bisnesi fokusuar ne jeten e tyre pas qeverise, jeten e tyre si lobist. 50% e Senatit midis 1998 dhe 2004 jane larguar per tu bere lobista, 42 % e "The House". Keto numra vecse jane rritur, dhe sic Republika e Bashkuar perllogariti Prillin e shkuar, rritja mesatare ne page e atyre qe ata ndoqen ishte 1,452 perqind. Keshtu qe eshte e drejte te pyesesh, si eshte mundur qe ata ta ndryshojne kete gje? Tani une kam kete skepticizem.
I get this cynicism. I get this sense of impossibility. But I don't buy it. This is a solvable issue. If you think about the issues our parents tried to solve in the 20th century, issues like racism, or sexism, or the issue that we've been fighting in this century, homophobia, those are hard issues. You don't wake up one day no longer a racist. It takes generations to tear that intuition, that DNA, out of the soul of a people. But this is a problem of just incentives, just incentives. Change the incentives, and the behavior changes, and the states that have adopted small dollar funded systems have seen overnight a change in the practice. When Connecticut adopted this system, in the very first year, 78 percent of elected representatives gave up large contributions and took small contributions only. It's solvable, not by being a Democrat, not by being a Republican. It's solvable by being citizens, by being citizens, by being TEDizens. Because if you want to kickstart reform, look, I could kickstart reform at half the price of fixing energy policy, I could give you back a republic.
Kam kete cinicizem. Une kam kete ndjenjen e te pamundures. Por nuk e ha kete gje. Kjo eshte nje ceshtje e zgjidhshme. Nese mendoni rreth ceshtjeve qe prinderit tane u perpoqen te zgjidhnin ne shekullin e 20, ceshtje si racizmi, ose seksizmi, ose ceshtje qe ne po luftojme ne kete shekull, homofobia, keto jane ceshtje te veshtira. Ti nuk zgjohesh nje dite dhe nuk je me racist. Duhet nje gjenerate per te grisur ate intuite, ate ADN, jashte shpirtrave te njerzeve. Por ky eshte vetem nje problem stimujsh, thjesht stimujsh. Ndryshoni stimujt, dhe sjellja ndryshon, dhe shtetet te cilat kane adoptuar sitemin e financimeve te vogla kane pare brenda nates ndryshime ne praktike, Kur Connecticut adoptoi kete sistem, ne vitin e pare, 78% e perfaqesuesve te zgjedhur hoqen dore nga kontributet e medha dhe moren kontributet e vogla vetem. Eshte e zgjidhshme, jo duke qene Demokrat, jo duke qene Republikan. Eshte e zgjidhshme duke qene qytetare, duke qene qytetar, duke qene TED-qytetar. Sepse nese ju doni te filloni nje reform, shikoni, une mund te filloj nje reform me gjysmen e cmimit qe duhet per te rregulluar politiken energjitike, une mund tju jap mbrapsh nje Republik.
Okay. But even if you're not yet with me, even if you believe this is impossible, what the five years since I spoke at TED has taught me as I've spoken about this issue again and again is, even if you think it's impossible, that is irrelevant. Irrelevant. I spoke at Dartmouth once, and a woman stood up after I spoke, I write in my book, and she said to me, "Professor, you've convinced me this is hopeless. Hopeless. There's nothing we can do." When she said that, I scrambled. I tried to think, "How do I respond to that hopelessness? What is that sense of hopelessness?" And what hit me was an image of my six-year-old son. And I imagined a doctor coming to me and saying, "Your son has terminal brain cancer, and there's nothing you can do. Nothing you can do." So would I do nothing? Would I just sit there? Accept it? Okay, nothing I can do? I'm going off to build Google Glass. Of course not. I would do everything I could, and I would do everything I could because this is what love means, that the odds are irrelevant and that you do whatever the hell you can, the odds be damned. And then I saw the obvious link, because even we liberals love this country.
Ne rregull. Por edhe nese akoma nuk jeni me mua, nese besoni qe kjo eshte e pamundur, ajo cka kam mesuar ne pese vjet qe kur fola ne TED ndersa une kam folur rreth kesaj ceshtje vazhdimisht, edhe nese ju mendoni qe eshte e pamundur, kjo ska shume rendesi. E parendesishme. Fola ne Dartmouth njehere, nje grua u ngrit pasi une fola, e kam shkruajtur ne librin tim, dhe me tha, "Profesor, me keni bindur qe kjo eshte e pashprese. E pashprese. Nuk ka asgje qe ne mund te bejme." Kur e degjova ate, une u drodha. U perpoqa te mendoj," Si do mund ti pergjigjem kesaj mungese shprese? Cfare eshte kjo ndjenja pashprese?" Dhe ajo qe me goditi ishte nje imazh i djalit tim 6 vjecar. Dhe imagjinova nje doktor qe erdhi tek une dhe me tha, "Djali juaj ka kancer te perparuar ne tru, dhe nuk ka asgje qe ne mund te bejme. Asgje qe ne mund te bejme." Keshtu qe une do te rri duke mos bere asgje? Thjesht do te rri ulur atje? Ta pranoj ate? Ne rregull, nuk kam asgje qe mund te bej? Do dal jashte per te ndertuar nje "Google Glass" (syze sintetike nga google) Sigurisht qe jo. Une do te beja cdo qe mundja, dhe do te beja cdo gje qe une mundja sepse dashuria ka kete kuptim, dhe qe shancet jane te pakuptimta dhe ajo qe ju beni cfaredo qe ju mund te beni, mallkuar qofshin shancet. Dhe pastaj pashe kete lidhje te qarte, sepse edhe ne liberalet e duam kete vend.
(Laughter)
(Te qeshura)
And so when the pundits and the politicians say that change is impossible, what this love of country says back is, "That's just irrelevant." We lose something dear, something everyone in this room loves and cherishes, if we lose this republic, and so we act with everything we can to prove these pundits wrong.
Dhe keshtu kur ekspertet dhe politikanet thone qe ndryshimi eshte i pamundur, ajo qe dashuria per kete vend ia kthen eshte, "Kjo eshte thjesht e parendesishme." Ne humbasimin dike te shtrenjte, dike qe cdokush ne kete dhome e do dhe e mban gjalle, nese ne humbasim republiken, dhe keshtu ne veprojme me gjithcka kemi ne menyre qe t'ju provojme ketyre eksperteve qe e kane gabim.
So here's my question: Do you have that love? Do you have that love? Because if you do, then what the hell are you, what are the hell are we doing?
Keshtu qe kjo eshte pyetja ime: A e keni ate dashuri? A e keni ate dashuri? Sepse nese e keni, cfare dreqin jeni duke bere, cfare dreqin jemi duke bere?
When Ben Franklin was carried from the constitutional convention in September of 1787, he was stopped in the street by a woman who said, "Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?" Franklin said, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." A republic. A representative democracy. A government dependent upon the people alone. We have lost that republic. All of us have to act to get it back.
Kur Ben Franklin krijoi ne konventen kushtetuese ne Shtator te 1787, ai u ndalua ne rruge nga nje grua e cila i tha, " Z. Franklin, cfare keni punuar?" Franklin tha, " Nje Republike, zonje, nese ju mund ta mbani ate." Nje republike. Nje demokraci perfaqesuese. Nje qeveri qe varet vetem nga njerzit. Ne e kemi humbur ate republike. Te gjithe se bashku duhet te veprojme per ta rikthyer.
Thank you very much.
Ju faleminderit shume.
(Applause) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
(Duartrokitje) Faleminderit! Faleminderit! Faleminderit! (Duartrokitje)