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 有個地方叫做萊斯特國(Lesterland) 萊斯特國跟美國很像 跟美國一樣,人口數大約有3.11億 而這3.11億人當中 有14.4萬人叫萊斯特(Lester) 若麥特 (辛普森家庭製作人) 在現場 你的卡通人物借我用一下 馬上就還 那麼 14.4萬人叫萊斯特 代表 0.05%的人叫萊斯特 這些萊斯特在萊斯特國有非凡的力量 每逢選舉會有兩次投票 一個叫做大選 另一個叫做萊斯特選 在大選中,是由公民投票 但在萊斯特選是由萊斯特們投票 這其中的竅門是 為了在大選參選 你必須在萊斯特選 表現非常出色 你大可不必贏 但絕對需要表現出色
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.
那麼 我們可以怎麼說萊斯特國的民主? 我們可以說 第一 就如同最高法院在聯合公民中所說的 人民對當選官員有最終的影響 畢竟是有大選 但只在萊斯特們依照自己所願 讓他們想要的候選人參選大選 第二呢 很明顯 取決於萊斯特們的選擇 會產生一個微妙、低調 甚至是可以說偽裝的讓步 只為滿足讓萊斯特們 毫無疑問的 我們確實有民主 但取決於萊斯特們 再取決於人民 他們有互相競爭關係 我們也可以說是相互衝突的關係 端看萊斯特們是誰 這就是萊斯特國
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.
現在有三件事情我想讓你們看看關於萊斯特國 第一 美國就是萊斯特國 美國就是萊斯特國 美國也是如此,也有兩次投票 一個叫做大選 另一個我們應該叫做錢選 在大選中 是由人民投票 只要你年滿18歲,在一些州你要有身分證 (就可以投票) 在前選中是由投資人投票 是由投資人投票,也和萊斯特國一樣 竅門在於 要參選大選 你必須在錢選中表現得非常出色 你大可不必贏 傑利布朗是個例外 但你必須表現得非常出色 關鍵在這:美國的投資人數量 跟萊斯特國的萊斯特們一樣少
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.
你可能會說 真假的? 真的才 0.05%? 這些是2010年的數據 美國 0.26% 給了200美金或以上給任何一位候選人 0.05%給了最高上限金額給任何一位候選人 0.01% 也就是百分之一的百分之一 給了 1萬美金或以上給候選人 而在這輪選舉,我最愛的一個數據 是 0.000042% 那些正在計算的人,會知道132美國人 提供了超級政治促進會 (Super PAC) 60%的資金 就在剛結束的這場選舉 我只是個律師 我看了這些數字 我想我可以很公正地說 在美國,0.05% 才是相關投資者 照這麼說,投資者就是萊斯特們
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)
那麼 我們可以怎說美國的民主? 就如同最高法院在聯合公民中所說的 我們可以說,人民當然對當選官員 有最終的影響。我們有大選 但只能在投資人如他們所願 讓他們希望的候選人參選大選 第二呢 很明顯 取決於投資者的選擇 會產生一個微妙、低調、偽裝的讓步 來滿足投資人 國會候選人和國會議員 都會花大約30%到70%的時間 籌備資金好讓他們回到國會 或是讓他們的黨派重拾權力 我們需要問是 對於這些人,到底有什麼好處 把時間花在 打電話給那些他素不相識的人 而不打給屬於那百分之一的人? 就像每個人都會做的 他們會逐漸產生種直覺跟意識針對 他們所做的將如何影響籌集資金的能力 套X檔案的說法,他們會變成 變形人,因為他們會為了籌集更多資金 不斷調整他們的觀點 不是從1到10 的問題上去調整 而是從11到1千 來自維吉尼亞州的民主黨員,萊思麗柏恩 說她剛到國會的時候 一位同僚對她說:「千萬要向綠色靠攏」 為了澄清一下,她接著說 「他不是個環保主義者」 (笑聲)
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.
那麼我們也是有民主的 一個取決於投資者 和人民的民主 有著相互競爭的關係 也可能相互衝突的關係 取決於投資者是誰
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 美國就是萊斯特國 這是第一點 接下來 第二點 美國比萊斯特國更糟 比萊斯國更糟因為你可以想像在萊斯特國 如果萊斯特們收到一封來自政府的信寫著 「嘿,你們可以挑參選大選的候選人」 我們或許會覺得萊斯特們是有特權階級的貴族 你知道 有來自社會各階級的萊斯特 有錢萊斯特、窮萊斯特、黑種萊斯特、白種萊斯特 沒太多女萊斯特,但先把這撇開不談 我們有來自各地的萊斯特。我們可以想 「我們能做什麼讓萊斯特國更好」 至少有個可能萊斯特們是為了萊斯特國的利益著想 但在我們的國家,這國家,在美國 當然的也有些可愛的萊斯特 今天在場的很多都是 但是大部分的萊斯特是為了萊斯特們的利益著想 由聯盟所組成的那0.05% 並不是為了大眾的利益而組成的 是為了他們各人的利益。也就是說,美國比萊斯特更糟
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.
終於來到第三點: 無論誰想評論萊斯特國 針對它的歷史背景或傳統 在我們的國家,在美國,萊斯特國是個腐敗貪污的國家 腐敗貪污 但是,當我說腐敗貪汙,不是說指國會議員之間 的秘密現金紙袋 我也不是指羅德布拉戈耶維奇的那類的腐敗貪污 我不是指任何犯罪行為 我所說的腐敗貪污是完全合法 是針對這個共和國制定者的底線的腐敗貪污 制定者給我們他們所謂的共和國 但共和國他們真正指的是一個代表性民主 而代表性民主他們指的是政府 如同麥迪遜在聯邦黨人文集52篇中提到,會有一派 只取決於人民
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.
這就是政府的模式 有人民和政府 相互依賴 但問題在於國會改變了這依賴關係 不再是取決於人民 逐漸提升了投資者的決定權 這也是一種依賴關係 但是跟單純取決於人民的那種依賴性不同且相衝突 因為投資者並非那些人民 這就是貪污腐敗
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,貪污腐敗有好有壞兩面 好的一部分是兩黨合作 同等機會的貪污腐敗 阻擋了左派真正關心的一系列的問題 同時也阻擋右派 因為它讓 右派的主要論點越來越不可能 因此右派想要較小的政府 艾爾高爾任職副總統的時候 他的幕僚有個想法 對大量的電信公司解除管制 政策首長把這個想法帶到國會山莊 他回報給我的時候 答覆是:「死都不行! 如果我們對這些人解除管制 我們怎跟他們募資?」
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.
這是一個為了維持現狀而設計的系統 包含維持大且有侵略性的政府現狀 他可以壓制左右兩派 因此你可以說是好的一面
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.
但也有壞的一面 這是個病態、毀滅民主的貪污腐敗 因為在任何系統中 會員在競選中依賴 極少部分的人 代表我們之中的極少數 極少、極少數的我們 可以阻止改革 我知道我本來應該放顆石頭或其他東西 但我只找到起司,不好意思 將就一下 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.
因為存在經濟,一個受影響的經濟 一個以說客為中心的經濟 靠對立而活 靠失序而活 情況對我們來說越糟 就對募資越有利
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·戴維·梭羅說過:「有一千人在砍罪惡的樹枝 但只有一個人在砍罪惡的根」 這就是根
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.
那麼現在我們每個人都知道這問題 若你不知道你就不可能在這裡,但你視而不見 你視而不見 這是個不可能的問題 你集中在可能的問題 如同從地球上根絕小兒麻痺 或是拍攝世界上的每一條街 或是建造第一個萬能翻譯機 或是在你的車庫建核融合廠 這些都是可以處理的問題,所以 (笑聲)(掌聲) 對貪污腐敗視而不見
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.
但我們不能繼續對貪污腐敗視而不見 (掌聲) 我們需要一個有在做事的政府 不是為左派或右派做事的政府 為左派和右派做事的政府 為左派和右派的公民 因為在我們終結貪污腐敗前 不可能會有合理的改革 因此我希望你們抓住你們最關心的問題 氣候變遷是我最關心的,但我也可能是經濟改革 或是一個簡單點的稅制或不平等問題 抓住那個問題,和它一起坐下來 直視它雙眼,跟它說你今年不會過聖誕節 永遠不會有聖誕節 在我們解決這問題前 我們永遠不會解決你的問題 不是說我的問題最重要,因為真的不是 你們的問題最重要,但我的是首要問題 是解決我們所關心的問題前 首先應該解決的問題 不透合理的改革,我們不能承擔不起 一個沒有合理改革的世界和未來
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 那我們怎麼做 事實證明,分析出來的很簡單明瞭 如果問題是出在國會議員花超多時間 向極小部分的美國募資 解決辦法就是讓他們花少點時間募資 但讓他們向 讓他往外擴展 讓投資者的影響力擴展好讓我們恢復 取決於人民力量 這不需要修憲 或修改憲法第一修正案 我們需要一個單一法令 一項奠定我們對於 小金額資助選舉想法的法令 一項人民資助競選的法令 外界已經有很多的提議: 立即公平競選法案、 美國反貪污法案、 我書裡面的"格蘭特和富蘭克林計畫" 提倡給人民票券讓他們資助競選 還有約翰薩博尼的基層民主法案 以上每個一的都可以解決貪汙 讓投資者的影響力擴展到我們每個人身上
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.
分析很簡單明瞭 難在政治,確實很困難 因為這樣的改革會削減華盛頓K街 國會山莊,這麼說吧 國會議員吉米庫柏 田納西州民主黨員 成為華盛頓K街的一個聯盟,一個K街聯盟 會員、工作人員和官僚腦海裡有 逐漸相同的商業模式 這商業模式專注在他們執政後的生活 也就是說客生活 1998年到2004年之間,參議院有50%的人 出走當說客,白宮的42% 這些數字持續上升 去年4月聯合共和國(United Republic)計算 他們有在追蹤的人,薪水平均增幅了 1,452% 我們可以問,他們怎麼可能改變這情況? 我感到懷疑
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.
我感到憤世嫉俗,我感到這種不可能性 但我不同意 這是個可以解決的問題 若你想想我們父母在20世紀 試著解決的問題 像是種族歧視或兩性不平等 或是我們這世紀奮戰的問題: 同性戀恐懼症 那些都是很困難的問題 你不會睡一覺起來就不再是種族主義者 得花上好幾個世代從一個人的靈魂 去破除那種觀念,那種基因 但這問題只礙於動機,只有動機 動機改變了,行為就跟著改變 接著採用小金額資助制度的幾個州 會一夜就看到實行上的改變 當康乃狄克州(Connecticut)在第一年採用這制度 78%的當選代表 放棄了大額助選金而選擇只收取小額助選金 是解決得了的 不是透過民主黨 不是透過共和黨 是透過公民解決,透過人民解決的 、透過TED成員解決的 因為若你想要發起一項改革 我可以發起一項改革 只用到解決能源政策所需的一半金額 我可以還給你一個共和
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 若你還沒加入我 甚至覺得這是不可能的 過去五年我在TED演講教導我的 我一而再再而三的討論這個議題 就算你覺得這是不可能,沒關係 沒關係 我曾在達特茅斯演講一次,我講完之後有一位女性站起來 我有寫在我書裡,她告訴我 「教授,你說服我這沒希望了。沒希望了 我們束手無策了」 當她這麼說,我慌了 我試著想:「我該怎回應這種絕望?」 「這種絕望是什麼感覺?」 讓我頓悟的是我六歲兒子 我想像一位醫生告向我走來並告訴我: 「你兒子有晚期腦癌,你束手無策 你束手無策」 我真的什麼都不做嗎? 我就坐在這?坦然接受?我什麼都不能做嗎? 我就去做研發谷歌眼镜 當然不是 我會盡力而為 我會盡力而為因為這意味著愛 這無關輸贏,你就做所有你能夠做的 管他輸還是贏 然而我就看到其中的關係 因為即便是我們這些自由派人士 都愛這個國家
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
所以當權威人士或政客 說這改變是不可能 愛國情操會這麼回答: 「這不重要」 若我們失去共和 我們會失去我們所摯愛的東西 會失去在場所有人共同珍惜的東西 所以我們要採取行動 盡其所能地去證明這些權威人士是錯的
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?
那麼這是我的問題: 你有這種愛嗎? 你有這份種愛嗎? 因為如果你有 那你到底是誰? 你到底在做什麼?
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,當班富蘭克林(Ben Franklin)從制憲會議離開 他在街上被一位女性攔下來問說 「富蘭克林先生,你造就了什麼?」 富蘭克林回答:「一個共和,若你們能繼續保有它」 一個共和。一個代表性的民主 一個單獨取決於人民的政府 我們失去了這個共和 所有人必須行動把它找回來
Thank you very much.
非常感謝你們
(Applause) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
(掌聲) 謝謝 謝謝 謝謝 (掌聲)