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.
很久很久以前, 有个地方叫做‘莱斯特国’(Lesterland)。 莱斯特国跟美国很像。 跟美国一样,人口大约有3.11亿, 而这3.11亿人当中, 有14.1万人叫莱斯特(Lester)。 若麦特(辛普森家庭制作人)在现场, 你的卡通人物借我用一下, 马上就还。 那么14.4万人叫莱斯特, 代表0.05%的人叫莱斯特。 这些莱斯特在莱斯特国有非凡的权力。 这个国家的每次选举有两种投票。 一个叫做大选。 另一个叫做莱斯特选。 在大选,是由公民投票的, 但在莱斯特选,是由莱斯特们投票的。 这其中的窍门是, 为了参加大选, 你必须在莱斯特选中 表现得非常出色。 你不必赢,但绝对需要表现地出色。
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.
那么,关于莱斯特国的民主,我们能说什么? 我们可以说,第一 就如同最高法院在联合公民中所说的, 人民对当选官员有最终的决定权, 因为毕竟还有大选, 但这只在莱斯特们依照自己所愿 让他们想要的候选人参加大选之后。 第二呢,很明显,取决于莱斯特们的选择 会产生一个微妙,低调 甚至是可以说隐蔽的妥协 只为让莱斯特们满足。 毫无疑问的,我们确实有民主, 但这民主取决于莱斯特们 同时也取决于人民。 他们有互相竞争关系, 根据莱斯特们是谁, 我们也可以说是相互冲突的关系。 这就是莱斯特国。
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.
了解了莱斯特国之后,我想让大家知道三件事情。 第一,美国就是莱斯特国。 美国就是莱斯特国。 美国也是如此,也有两次投票, 一个叫做大选, 另一个我们应该叫做‘钱选’。 在大选中,是由公民投票的, 只要你年满18岁,在一些州你要有身份证(就可以投票)。 在钱选,则是由投资人投票的, 也和莱斯特国一样 窍门在于要参选大选 这些投资人必须在钱选中表现得非常出色 你不必赢,比如杰利·布朗。 但你必须表现得非常出色。 关键在这-美国的投资人数量 跟莱斯特国的莱斯特们一样少。
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.
你可能会说:“是真的?” 真的才0.05%? 这些是2010年的数据: 0.26%的美国人 把200美金或以上给了任何一位候选人, 0.05%把最高上限金额给了任何一位候选人, 0.01%也就是百分之一的百分之一 把1万美金或以上给了候选人, 而在这轮选举,我最爱的一个数据 是0.000042% 那些正在计算的人,会知道这是132个美国人- 他们提供了超级政治促进会(Super PAC)花在 刚结束的这场选举的资金中的60%。 我只是个律师,看了这些数字之后, 我想我可以很公正地说 在美国,0.05%的人口才是相关投资者。 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? 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)
那么,关于美国的民主,我们能说什么? 就如同最高法院在联合公民中所说的 我们可以说,人民当然对当选 有最终的决定权。我们有大选, 但我们只能从投资人们先选出来的 那些希望参加的候选人中选。 第二呢,很明显 这种取决于投资者的选择 会产生一个微妙,低调,甚至是可以说隐蔽的妥协 来满足投资人。 国会候选人和国会议员 都会花大约30%到70%的时间 筹备资金好让他们回到国会 或是让他们的党派重新掌权, 我们需要问的是,对这些人到底有什么好处 他们把时间花在 打电话给那些他素不相识的人 打给那些非常小众的一群人? 就像每个人都会做的, 他们会逐渐产生一种"第六感" 明白自己所做的将如何影响本身等集资金的能力。 套X档案的说法,他们会变成 变形人,因为他们会为了等集更多资金 不断调整他们的观点 不是从1到10的问题上去调整 而是从11到1000。 来自维吉尼亚州的民主党成员,莱思丽·柏恩, 说她刚到国会的时候, 一位同僚对她说:“千万要向绿色靠拢。” 为了澄清一下,她接着说, “他不是个环保主义者。”(笑声)
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.
那么我们也是有民主的, 一个取决于投资者 和人民的民主 有着相互竞争的关系 取决于投资者是谁 这很可能是相互冲突的关系。
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.
好,美国就是莱斯特国,这是第一点。 接下来,第二点 美国比莱斯特国更糟, 比莱斯国更糟因为你可以想象在莱斯特国 如果莱斯特们收到一封来自政府的信,写着: “嘿,你们可以挑参加大选的候选人。” 我们或许会觉得莱斯特们是有特权的阶层。 你知道,有来自社会各阶级的莱斯特。 有钱的莱斯特,穷莱斯特,黑人莱斯特,白人莱斯特, 没太多女莱斯特,但先把这撇开不谈。 我们有来自各地的莱斯特,我们可以想, “我们能做什么让莱斯特国更好?” 至少有个可能莱斯特们是为了莱斯特国的利益着想。 但在我们的国家,这国家,在美国, 当然也有些可爱的好莱斯特们, 今天在场的很多都是, 但是大部分的莱斯特是为了莱斯特们的利益着想, 因为由这0.05%的人口组成的联盟 并不是为了大众的利益而组成的。 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: 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.
终于来到第三点, 无论谁想评论莱斯特国, 针对他的历史背景或传统 在我们的国家,在美国,莱斯特国是个腐败贪污的国家, 腐败贪污。 但是,当我说腐败贪污,不是说国会议员之间 的秘密现金纸袋交易。 我也不是指罗德布拉戈耶维奇的那类的腐败贪污。 我不是指任何犯罪行为。 我所说的腐败贪污是完全合法。 是针对这个共和国制定者的底线的腐败贪污。 制定者给我们他们所谓的共和国, 但共和国他们真正指的是一个代表性民主, 而他们指的代表性民主,是政府, 如同麦迪逊在联邦党人文集第52篇中提到,会有一派 只取决于人民。
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.
这就是政府的模式。 有人民和政府 单纯的相互依赖, 但问题在于国会改变了这依赖关系, 不再是只取决于人民, 逐渐转变成对投资者的依赖。 这也是一种依赖关系, 但是跟单纯取决于人民的那种依赖性,不同且相冲突 因为投资者并不是那些人民。 这就是一种贪污腐败。
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?"
然而,贪污腐败有好坏两面。 好的一部分是两个政党, 同等机会的贪污腐败。 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) 同时也阻挡右派,因为它让 右派的主要论点越来越不可能。 右派想要小的政府。 艾尔高尔任职副总统的时候,他的幕僚有个想法 对大量的电信公司解除管制。 政策首长把这个想法带到国会山莊, 他回报给我的时候, 答复是:“死都不行! 如果我们对这些人解除管制 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, 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.
这是一个为了维持现状而设计的系统 包含维持大且有侵略性的政府现状。 他可以压制左右两派, 因此你可以说是好的一面。
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.
但也有坏的一面。 这是个病态,毁灭民主的贪污腐败, 因为在任何系统中 会员在竞选中依赖极少部分的人 会员在竞选中依赖极少部分的人, 代表我们之中的极少数, 极少,极少数的我们, 可以阻止改革。 我知道我本来应该放颗石头或其他东西。 但我只能找到芝士,不好意思将就一下。 阻止改革。
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.
因为存在经济,一个受影响的经济, 一个以说客为中心的经济, 靠对立而活。 靠失序而活。 情况对我们来说越糟, 就对募资越有利。
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.
亨利·戴维·梭罗说过:“有一千人在砍罪恶的树枝 但只有一个人在砍罪恶的根。” 这就是‘根’。
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.
那么现在我们每个人都知道这问题。 若你不知道你就不可能在这里,但你却视而不见。 你视而不见,因为这是个不可能解决的问题。 你关注那些可能的解决的问题, 如同从地球上根绝小儿麻痹, 或是拍摄世界上的每一条街, 或是建造第一个万能翻译机, 或是在你的车库建核融合厂。 这些都是可以处理的问题,所以 (笑声)(掌声) 你对贪污腐败视而不见。
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.
但我们不能继续对贪污腐败视而不见了。 (掌声) 我们需要一个有在做事的政府。 不是为左派或右派做事的政府, 而是为左派和右派做事的政府, 为左派和右派的公民, 因为在我们终结贪污腐败前 不可能会有合理的改革。 因此我希望你们抓住你们最关心的问题。 气候变迁是我最关心的,但这也可能是经济改革 或是一个简单点的税制或不平等问题。 抓住那个问题,把它放在面前, 直视它双眼,跟它说你今年不会过圣诞节。 永远不会有圣诞节。 在我们解决这个腐败问题前 我们永远不会解决你的问题。 不是说我的问题最重要,因为真的不是。 你们的问题最重要,但我的是首要问题, 是解决我们所关心的问题前 首先应该解决的问题。 没有合理的改革,我们是承担不起 一个没有合理改革的世界和未来的。
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.
好,那我们怎么做? 事实证明,计算起来很简单明了。 如果问题是出在国会议员花超多时间 向极小部分的美国人募资 解决办法就是让他们花少点时间募资 但让他们向更多的美国人募资, 把范围扩大, 让投资者的影响力扩展,好让我们恢复 那种仅依靠人民的依赖关系。 这不需要修宪 或修改宪法第一修正案。 我们只需要一个单一法令, 一项奠定我们对于 小金额资助选举想法的法令, 一项公民资助竞选的法令, 外界已经有很多的提议: 立即公平竞选法案、 美国反贪污法案、 我书里面的"格兰特和富兰克林计划" 提倡给人民票券让他们资助竞选, 还有约翰·萨博尼的基层民主法案。 以上每一个都可以解决贪污 让投资者的影响力扩展到我们每个人身上。
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.
解决方案是简单明了的。 难在政治,确实极其困难, 因为这样的改革会削减华盛顿K街, 国会山莊,如同国会议员吉米·库柏, 一名田纳西州的民主党党员说的, 它成为华盛顿K街的一个联盟。 会员、工作人员和官僚脑海里想着一个 逐渐相同的商业模式, 这商业模式专注在他们执政后的生活 也就是说客生活。 1998年到2004年之间,参议院有50%的人 ,白宫有42%的人,出走当说客。 这些数字只增不减, 去年4月联合共和国(United Republic)计算, 他们有在追踪的人,薪水平均增幅为 1,452%。 我们可以问,他们怎么可能改变这情况? 我可以理解这种怀疑。
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.
我明白这种无奈,这种不可能性。 但我不同意。 这是个可以解决的问题。 若你想想我们父母在20世纪 试着解决的问题, 像是种族歧视或两性不平等, 或是我们在这世纪奋战的问题: 同性恋恐惧症, 那些都是很困难的问题。 你不会睡一觉起来就不再是种族主义者。 这得花上好几个世代才能从一个人的灵魂 中破除那种观念,那种基因。 但这只是个动机问题,只有动机。 动机改变了,行为就跟着改变, 那些采用小金额资助制度的几个州 已经很快地看到实际的效果。 当康乃狄克州(Connecticut)采用这制度之后, 在第一年,78%的当选代表 放弃了大额助选金而选择只收取小额助选金。 这是是解决得了的, 不是通过作为一个民主党党员, 不是通过作为一个共和党党员。 而是通过作为公民解决的, 通过作为TED成员解决的。 因为若你想要发起一项改革, 我可以发起一项改革, 只用到解决能源政策所需的一半金额, 我可以还给你一个共和国。
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.
好,若你还不同意我的想法, 甚至觉得这是不可能的, 过去五年我在TED的演讲经验告诉我, 我一而再再而三的讨论这个议题, 就算你觉得这是不可能,没关系。 没关系。 我曾在达特茅斯演讲一次,我讲完之后有一位女士站起来, 我有写在我书里,她告诉我, "教授,你说服我这没希望了,没希望了。 我们束手无策了。” 当她这么说,我慌了。 我试着想:“我该怎样回应这种绝望?” “这种绝望是什么感觉?" 让我顿悟的是我六岁的儿子。 我想像一位医生向我走来并告诉我: “你儿子有晚期脑癌,没有办法了。 你束手无策了。” 我真的什么都不做吗? 我就坐在这?坦然接受?我什么都不能做吗? 那我就去做研发谷歌眼镜好了。 当然不是。 我会尽力而为, 我会尽力而为因为这就是爱, 这无关输赢,你就做所有你能够做的 管他输还是赢。 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 都爱这个国家。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
所以当权威人士或政客 说这改变是不可能的, 爱国情操会这么回答: “这不重要。” 若我们失去共和, 失去在场所有人共同珍惜的东西, 我们就要采取行动 尽其所能地去证明这些权威人士是错的。
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?
那么这是我的问题: 你有这份爱吗? 你有这份爱吗? 因为如果你有, 那我们到底在做什么?
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.
1787年9月,当本·富兰克林(Ben Franklin)从制宪会议离开 他在街上被一位女性拦下来问说, "富兰克林先生,你造就了什么?" 富兰克林回答:"一个共和,若你们能继续保持它。” 一个共和,一个代表性的民主。 一个’单独‘取决于人民的政府。 我们已经失去了这个共和。 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) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
(掌声) 谢谢 (掌声)