下面是出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)小編整理的美國總統(tǒng)英語訪談錄，采訪美國第40任總統(tǒng)：羅納德里根--從好萊塢明星到美國總統(tǒng): I Am Good at Debating 我們應(yīng)該解決我們國立大學(xué)的問題，采訪文稿中英對照。歡迎參考。
點(diǎn)擊收聽音頻
Reporter: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
記者：里根州長，你 曾經(jīng)對媒體說，你現(xiàn) 在代表保守主義和自 由主義發(fā)表了很多講 話。這兩者之間有區(qū) 別嗎?
Reagan: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals-if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say，because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.
里根：如果你分析一 下這個問題，我認(rèn)為 保守主義的最本質(zhì)的 核心是自由主義。我 認(rèn)為如果回到解放時 代的話，保守主義叫 法其實(shí)不對，因?yàn)樽?由主義也是對自由人士的誤稱，今天的 所謂的保守黨其實(shí)是自由黨，而自由黨 其實(shí)是托利黨。保守主義的基礎(chǔ)是想要 政府更少的干涉或者是減少中央集權(quán)， 或是要有更多的個人自由，而這是今天 對自由主義的一般性描述?，F(xiàn)在，我不 能說我同意那些自稱是自由黨人的所有 觀點(diǎn)，因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為和任何政治運(yùn)動一 樣，都會有陰影，也有一些自由黨人在 不要政府或者君主制問題上有些過了。 我相信要有合法的政府功能。一個有秩 序的社會是需要政府維護(hù)自由的，我們 也會有個人強(qiáng)權(quán)。一個街區(qū)里最強(qiáng)大的 那個人會控制那個街區(qū)的所有人。我們 有政府來確保我們不需要每個人擁有一 個倶樂部來保衛(wèi)自己。但是，我還是堅 持認(rèn)為自由主義和保守主義其實(shí)是殊途 同歸的。
Reporter: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?
記者：州長，你能不能就你認(rèn)為的政府的恰當(dāng)職能舉一些例子呢?
Reagan: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don't all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments-again the protection of the people.
里根：嗯，首先重中之重是，政府的存在是為了保護(hù)我們不被彼此傷害。政府的存在， 當(dāng)然，也是為了保衛(wèi)國家，保衛(wèi)個人的權(quán)利。 也許不是所有人都 能在一些政府的職 能問題上達(dá)成一致，比如消防署和警察署，但是 它們是為了保護(hù)人民。
Reporter: Are you suggesting that fire departments would be a necessary and proper function of government?
記者：你是說消防署是政府的必要且恰當(dāng)?shù)穆毮?
Reagan: Yes. I know that there was a time back in history in which fire departments were private and you insured your house and then had an emblem on the front of your house which identified which company was responsible for protecting it against fire. I believe today, because of the manner in which we live, that, you can make a pretty good case for our public fire departments-because there are very few ways that you can handle fire in one particular structure today without it representing a threat to others.
里根：是的。我知道歷史上有一個時 期，消防署是私有的，是用來保護(hù)房屋 的。你的房子前面會立一個徽章，上面 會寫著是哪家公司負(fù)責(zé)保護(hù)。今天，我 相信，由于我們的生活方式不同了，我 們能很好地利用公共消防署，因?yàn)榻裉?沒有幾個方法能讓我們在不危脅他人的 情況下自己用某種方式來應(yīng)對火災(zāi)。
Reporter: How would you distinguish “socialized” fire departments and “socialized” fire insurance companies? Or would you be in favor of socialized fire insurance also?
記者：你怎么區(qū)分“公費(fèi)”消防署和 “公費(fèi)”火災(zāi)保險公司?或者你也支持 公費(fèi)火災(zāi)保險嗎?
Reagan: No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there’s bound to be a grey area，an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other. I don't believe in a government that protects us saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle-the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights-to be stupid. But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the individuals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage-he has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the individuals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and libertarians. So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.
里根：不是的。我也不贊成公費(fèi)醫(yī)療制 度。但是肯定有一塊灰色地帶，你會問 政府是否在保護(hù)我們免受自己的侵害的 問題，或者這個政府是不是保護(hù)我們免 受彼此的侵害。我不相信一個保護(hù)我們 免受自己侵害的政府。我已經(jīng)通過這個 例子講了很多次，比如有個人騎著摩托自己的裝備和摩托車制定了一些條款， 開汽車也同理。但是如果政府說因?yàn)槟?托車事故中多數(shù)會造成頭部損傷，所以 政府就要強(qiáng)令人們帶著頭盔，我就完全 不同意了。如果他騎著摩托車但是不帶 頭盔，我會想他真笨，但是這是我們神圣的權(quán)利之----變笨。為了顯示可以進(jìn)入這些灰色地帶，前幾天我碰見了一 名神經(jīng)外科醫(yī)生，他處理了很多這樣的 特別傷害和事故，我這么跟他講，但他不同意我 的看法。 他不同意 我的看法 的基礎(chǔ)是 由于造成 永久傷 害，個人 受到公眾 指控—— 他指出有 些區(qū)域不僅僅是直接傷害了個人，而且也影響了 其他人。我使用這個極端的例子是想說 談判政府為了人民和保護(hù)我們免受彼此 傷害時，在哪些能做，哪些不能做的問 題上，這就進(jìn)入了灰色地帶。我認(rèn)為保 守人士和自由人士這里就會有分歧。所 以，我認(rèn)為政府有合法的功能。但是 我也認(rèn)為我們今天最大的威脅來自于 政府插手那些不在政府職能范圍內(nèi)的 事務(wù)。在那些事情上，政府的失敗記 錄舉不勝舉。
Reporter: Could you give some examples of what areas you’re talking about?
記者：你能不能給我們舉例講一下你說 的是哪些地帶?
Reagan: Well, many of them in the regulatory fields of our private enterprise sector. We’ve noticed, for example, that for half-a-century the railroads have been saying that they could take care of themselves and would have no problems—if they could be freed from a great many government regulations and the ICC. Finally their plight was such that the government had to take over the passenger traffic with Amtrak and one of the first things that Amtrak did was ask to be relieved of the ICC regulations!
里根：嗯，很多是我們私人企業(yè)的監(jiān)管 區(qū)域。我們注意到，比如，長達(dá)半個世 紀(jì)以來就宣稱鐵路能夠自我保護(hù)，不會 出問題——如果他們能夠從眾多政府立 法和國際商會中解脫出來。最終他們宣 誓政府必須和美鐵一起接管乘客交通， 其中美鐵做的首要的事情之一是脫離國 際商會的法規(guī)。
Reporter: Are you in favor of decontrolling the railroads and the other regulated industries?
記者：你支持解除對鐵路和其他調(diào)整工 業(yè)的控制嗎?
Reagan: Yes. Again this comes down to the point at which we get into regulations that are for the protection of the people. I don’t think anyone suggests that we should do away with those regulations which insure safety for the passengers in transportation. I don’t think that we should do away with those regulations in the field of pure foods and so forth, that make sure that some unscrupulous individual can’t sell us canned meat that gives us botulism. But, we start with those legitimate areas and then we go on and regulations just keep spreading like spores of a fungus until we find that they literally are taking away the rights of management to make business decisions with regard to their competition.
里根：是的，我們又回到我們立法保護(hù) 人民這一點(diǎn)了。我認(rèn)為沒有人會建議我 們解除那些保證乘客安全的立法。我認(rèn) 為我們不該放棄那些監(jiān)管食物等相關(guān)東 西的法規(guī)，那些法規(guī)保障了不會有肆無 忌憚的人賣給我們罐裝肉食或者讓我們 中毒。但是，我們從那些合法地帶開 始，之后繼續(xù)像霉菌一樣四散立法，直到我們 發(fā)現(xiàn)他 們實(shí)質(zhì) 上正在 奪走做 出競爭 相關(guān)的 商業(yè)決 定的管 理權(quán)。
Reporter: Governor，are you familiar with economist Sam Peltzman’s work on the Food and Drug Administration, where he pointed out the high cost of entry now and the very high cost of developing and bringing in new drugs to the market?
記者：州長，你熟悉經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家薩姆?佩 茲曼的食物和藥品管理的著作嗎?他提 出現(xiàn)在新品進(jìn)入市場的高額的成本以及 開發(fā)和引進(jìn)新藥物的高成本問題。
Reagan: Well, I've used some figures of my own-maybe he’s responsible for them. I’ve been trying to keep track of some of these things and in my own talks have pointed out that now we’ve added about $200,000,000 to the cost of drugs because of these regulations. I know of one particular drug firm, which just a few years ago, could license a drug with some 70 pages of supporting data. Today it takes that same company 73,000 pages for an additional drug. I know that there’s been about a 60 percent drop in the development of new drugs in this country. But here again, it’s the degree to which it’s done. We want the protection of knowing that a drug on the shelf is not going to poison us or have an adverse effect, and yet the FDA has gone beyond that point. It’s a little bit like the cyclamate question-: feeding 20 rats cyclamates and then destroying millions of dollars of artificially sweetened soft drinks because it’s “hazardous to our health,” and then only years later, do we find out that to eat an amount of cyclamate equivalent to what the rats were given we'd have to drink 875 bottles of soft drink a day!
里根：嗯，我自己也有一些數(shù)據(jù)——可 能這些數(shù)據(jù)就來自于他。我一直關(guān)注一 些東西，我在談話中也曾指出，現(xiàn)在由 于那些法規(guī)，我們在藥品成本上增加了兩億美元。我知道有一家藥品公司，幾 年以前還可以用70頁的支持?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)來得 到藥品許可。今天同一家公司要想拿到 一個新藥許可，需要寫7.3萬頁書面說 明。我知道國家的新藥研發(fā)已經(jīng)降低 了 60%。但是這是已經(jīng)發(fā)生的程度。我 們想要保護(hù)架上已有的藥品不會有毒或 者是反作用，但是藥物管理局則越過了 這條線。這就有點(diǎn)像環(huán)磺酸鹽問題：給 20只老鼠喂了環(huán)磺酸鹽，然后就毀掉了 價值幾百萬美元的人工加甜軟飲料，因 為它“對健康有害”，而僅僅數(shù)年之后， 我們卻發(fā)現(xiàn)要想吃到和當(dāng)年喂老鼠的劑 量一致的環(huán)磺酸鹽我們需要一天喝875 瓶軟飲料。
Reporter: Don’t you think the Food and Drug Administration basically serves the Big Brother role, the protectionist role, and that the free market could adequately deal with it in the absence of the regulations?
記者：你不認(rèn)為食物藥品管理局是為那 些老大哥的角色服務(wù)的嗎?扮演著保護(hù) 主義的角色，自由市場完全可以在沒有 法規(guī)的情況下應(yīng)對?
Reagan: Well, if they would. And I’m sure the free market would today, but remember that the FDA was born at a time when people in this country were being killed. Back in the Spanish American War, for instance, we lost soldiers who were sent poisoned canned meat and this is when the scandal erupted that led to the pure food laws. Maybe what we should look at are those areas where government should be a “Big Brother” in ensuring that the private sector is doing the job. In other words, suppose the whole food industry would police itself. Then I think government would have a legitimate place in keeping a watchful eye on them to make sure that industry did not gradually，for profit, erode the standards. This I think could hold true with a great many other things.
里根：嗯，如果他們當(dāng)時可以做到的 話。我確信今天的自由市場會這樣，但 是記住，食物藥品管理局出現(xiàn)在這個國 家的人們被殘害的時代?；氐矫牢鲬?zhàn)爭 那個時候，我們失去了那些因?yàn)槌缘接卸镜墓扪b肉而死去的士兵，這就是制 定食品法的導(dǎo)火緋聞事件。也許我們應(yīng) 該看看那些政府應(yīng)該擔(dān)當(dāng)“老大哥”角 色的領(lǐng)域以確保是私營部門在做這個工 作。換言之，假設(shè)這個食品業(yè)是政治本 身，我認(rèn)為政府在監(jiān)管它們時就會有合 法的位置，來保證食品業(yè)不會逐漸為了 利潤而降低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我認(rèn)為這也適用于很 多其他的東西。
Reporter: These days, most private universities are the recipients of Federal funds. Do you think that it’s proper to use tax revenue to finance higher education?
記者：這些天，很多私立大學(xué)收到了聯(lián) 邦財團(tuán)的資助。你認(rèn)為用稅收財政收入 來資助高等教育合適嗎?
Reagan: Well, if I answer that question then I’m answering that we should do away with our state universities and frankly I haven’t given enough thought to what could be a counter-system. At first, there was a great opposition to most of the Federal revenues that are going to education on the part of many educators. Once the money was there, however, it was like the farmer who went into the woods and came back with the wagon loads of wild pigs.
里根：嗯，如果我回答這個問題，我的 答案會是我們應(yīng)該改革我們的國立大 學(xué)，坦率地說，我沒有對相反的體系做 充分的思考。首先，很多教育者反對將 大部分的聯(lián)邦財政投入到教育領(lǐng)域。然 而，一旦投入了錢就像農(nóng)民走進(jìn)樹林， 回來卻推著幾車野豬一樣。