太棒了！奧巴馬卸任演講最全中英對照（二）（分4部分）帶音頻

奧巴馬卸任演講（二）

That’s what I want to focus on tonight – the state of our democracy.

這是我今晚想要強調的——我們的民主政治的現狀。

Understand, democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued, they quarreled, eventually they compromised, they expected us to do the same. But they knew that democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity – the idea that for all our outward differences, we are all in this together; that we rise or fall as one.

我們要理解，民主不需要統一。開國先賢們有爭吵，也有妥協，他們也希望我們如此。但是他們也知道民主需要以團結精神為基礎——不管外在的我們有多麼不同，我們是一個整體，我們共進退。

There have been moments throughout our history that threatened that solidarity. The beginning of this century has been one of those times. A shrinking world, growing inequality; demographic change and the specter of terrorism – these forces haven’t just tested our security and our prosperity, but our democracy as well. And how we meet these challenges to our democracy will determine our ability to educate our kids, and create good jobs, and protect our homeland. In other words, it will determine our future.

歷史上有一些威脅到這種團結的關頭，本世紀初就是其中之一。全球衰退，不平等日盛；人口變化和恐怖主義如幽靈般蔓延——這些威脅不僅檢驗著我們的安全和繁榮，也考驗了我們的民主。我們如何應對這些對民主的挑戰，將決定了我們教育後代的能力，創造好的工作機會的能力及保護我們的家園的能力。換言之，它將決定我們的未來。

To begin with our democracy won’t work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity. And the good news is that today the economy is growing again; wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are rising again; poverty is falling again. The wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes even as the stock market shatters records. The unemployment rate is near a ten-year low. The uninsured rate has never, ever been lower. Health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in fifty years. And I’ve said and I mean it if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we’ve made to our healthcare system that covers as many people at less cost – I will publicly support it.

首先如果民眾不能共享經濟機遇，民主就無從談起。好消息是，現在經濟又開始增長了；工資水平、個人收入、家庭財產和退休金又開始提升；貧困水平又開始下降。富人們也公平地納稅，甚至股票市場跌幅也破了記錄；失業率降至近十年來最低。未上保險的比率低到前所未有。醫療健康支出增長率是近五十年最低。我曾經說過，我是認真的，如果有任何人能提出一個可供證實的、比我們現在醫療健康體系更好的計劃，以更少的支出覆蓋更多的人民——我都會公開支持。

Because that after all, is why we serve – Not to score points or take credit. But to make people’s lives better.

因為畢竟這是我們工作的目標。我們不是為了得到評分或獲取信任，而是為人民生活多造福

But for all the real progress we’ve made, we know it’s not enough. Our economy doesn’t work as well or grow as fast when a few prosper at the expense of a growing middle class and ladders for folks who want to get into the middle class. That’s the economic argument. But stark inequality is also corrosive to our democratic idea. While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind – the laid-off factory worker; the waitress and healthcare worker who’s barely getting by and struggle to pay the bills – convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful that’s a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics.

但雖然我們取得了實際進步，我們深知這還不夠。我們的經濟運轉並不健康，增長也不強勁。有時甚至以犧牲中產階級的增長為代價換取一時繁榮。那是一種經濟理論。而赤裸裸的不平等也在侵蝕著我們的民主原則。當前1%的群體攫取了更多的財富收入，太多普通家庭、城市內和鄉鎮都難望其項背。那些下崗工人，服務生，醫務工作人員，他們生活拮据，為賬單發愁。認為遊戲規則是在針對自己，他們的政府只為有權勢者效勞。這是我們的政治中憤世嫉俗和極端的部分。

Now there are no quick fixes to this long-term trend. I agree our trade should be fair and not just free. But the next wave of economic dislocation won’t come from overseas. It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good middle-class jobs obsolete.

沒有立竿見影的神藥可以阻止這種長期趨勢。我同意，貿易應當在自由之下兼顧公平。但下一輪經濟轉型並非來自海外，而註定來自令許多中產階級失業的自動化浪潮。

And so we’re going to have to force a new social compact – to guarantee all our kids the education they need; to give workers the power to unionize for better wages; to update the social safety net to reflect the way we live now and make more reforms to the tax code so corporations and individuals who reap the most from the new economy don’t avoid their obligations to the country that’s made their success possible. We can argue about how to best achieve these goals. But we can’t be complacent about the goals themselves. For if we don’t create opportunity for all people, the disaffection and division that has stalled our progress will only sharpen in years to come.

因此我們必須打造一種新型的社會契約，來保證孩子們都受到應得的教育;賦予工人們成立工會的權力，以爭取更多工資；更新社會安全網絡，並反思我們當下的生活方式；對我們的稅制進行深入改革，保證在新經濟模式中獲利的公司法人和個體業主，都不能免除對國家的義務，因為國家將更能保證他們獲得成功。我們可以探討如何最好地實現這些目標，但不能為目標方向本身犯迷糊。因為我們如果不為全民創造機會，那麼在未來幾年，阻止我們前進的不滿和分裂將更尖銳。

There’s a second threat to our democracy – one as old as our nation itself. After my election, there was talk of a post-racial America. Such a vision, however well-intended, was never realistic. For race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society. I’ve lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were ten, or twenty, or thirty years ago, no matter what some folks say. You can see it not just in statistics, you see it in the attitudes of young Americans across the political spectrum.

第二個對民主的威脅則完全來自我們國家內部。在我當選之後，還有關於美國“後種族歧視”時代的討論。無論出於什麼好意，這種境況都絕不現實。種族乃是分裂我們社會的一種強大、持續的力量。長久以來，我已切身感受到，如今的種族關係已遠勝十年前、二十年前乃至三十年前，這不僅體現在數字上，還體現在，縱觀政治光譜，其中的美國年輕人態度也大有改觀。

But we’re not where we need to be. All of us have more work to do. If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. If we’re unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don’t look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children – because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America’s workforce. And we have shown that our economy doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. Last year, incomes rose for all races, all age groups, for men and for women.

但如今我們並不應止於此，我們所有人都還有更多工作要做。畢竟，如果每個經濟議題都在白人中產階級和不值一提的少數族裔的爭鬥中鬧騰，那麼各行業工人們都會離開崗位大鬧一番。如此一來，在社會福利已經傷害到他們個人利益，依然逃避爭取權利的鬥爭的時候。如果因為他們長得跟我們不一樣，就削減對移民子弟的投入，那我們也是在縮減我們自己孩子的未來空間——因為那些棕色人種的孩子將佔據美國勞動力的越來越多份額。再說我們也已經看到，經濟絕不能成為一場零和博弈。而去年，各種族、全年齡層、無論男女都實現了收入增長。

So if we’re going to be serious about race going forward, we need to uphold laws against discrimination – in hiring, in housing, in education and the criminal justice system. That’s what our Constitution and highest ideals require. But laws alone won’t be enough. Hearts must change. It won’t change overnight. Social attitudes. Sometimes take generations to change. But, if our democracy is to work the way it should in this increasingly diverse nation, then each one of us must try to heed the advice of a great characters in American fiction, Atticus Finch, who said “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around him.”

所以我們需要嚴肅對待種族主義前進的步伐，我們需要捍衛反對歧視的法律。其中包括僱傭、住房、教育和刑事司法體系等領域。那是我們的憲法和最高理念所要求的。但僅有法律還不夠，人心要變。它們不會一夜之間就改變。社會態度，通常要幾代人的時間才能改變。但如果我們的民主要在這種日益增長的分裂族群中運轉，那麼每個人都應該努力留意那本美國小說中的人物：阿提克斯·芬奇，他曾說過：“你永遠不能真正瞭解一個人，除非你從他的角度去看問題，除非你披著他的皮囊行走世間。”

For blacks and other minority groups, that means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face. Not only the refugee, or the immigrant, or the rural poor, or the transgender American, but also the middle-aged white guy who from the outside may seem like he’s got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic, cultural, and technological change. We have to pay attention and listen.

對黑人和其他少數族裔來說，那意味著我們為了公正所進行的鬥爭，將關乎這個國家的許多人所面臨的挑戰，這些人包括難民、移民、鄉村貧困群體、跨性別美國人，和那些看起來條件得天獨厚，事實上被經濟、文化和技術徹底改變了境遇的中年美國白人。我們必須重視和傾聽這些人。

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the 60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment that our Founders promised.

對美國白人而言，這意味著承認奴隸制的影響還有黑人不會突然消失在60年代；承認在那個年代，發出不滿呼聲的少數族裔，並不僅是參加“種族反歧視”或踐行政治正確；承認他們參加和平抗議並不意味著尋求特殊待遇，而是要求獲得建國元勳們所允諾的公正待遇。

For native-born Americans. For native Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, Italians, and Poles. Who it was said were going to destroy the fundamental character of America. And as it turned out America wasn’t weakened by the presence of these newcomers. These newcomers embraced this nation’s creed, and it was strengthened.

對美國土著們來說。對美國土著們來說，這意味著時刻提醒我們自己，今天所有有關愛爾蘭人、意大利人和波蘭人等移民的成規都將被逐字重複。那些宣稱要摧毀美國最基本特性的人，最後結果是，美國並不會因為後來者的出現而弱化，這些新人們加強了，擁抱這個民族的信念，這個民族將因此而堅挺。

So regardless of the station we occupy; we all have to try harder, we all have to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family just like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own.

因此，不管我們持有怎樣的立場，我們都必須加倍努力，我們每個公民都需要開始兌現承諾。像我們一樣熱愛這個國家，努力工作和珍視家庭，他們的孩子也和我們自己的孩子一樣有著求知慾和希望，並值得去愛護。

And that’s not easy to do. For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.

要做到這點並不容易。對於我們中的很多人來說，待在我們自己的小天地更安全。不論鄰居、大學校園、宗教場所還是社交網絡，都是與我們相似的人，持有相同的政治觀點，從不挑戰我們的設想。日漸赤裸的黨派之爭、日漸增多的經濟和宗教分層、為了迎合各種品位而日漸分裂的媒體——所有這些都使這個良好的分類看起來更合天理，乃至不可避免。我們日漸習慣於停留在舒適區享受安全，無論對錯，我們只願接受合乎己見的信息，而非接受客觀信息。

This trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Politics is a battle of ideas; That’s how our democracy was designed in the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and this science and reason matter, then we are going to keep talking past each other, and we’ll make common ground and compromise impossible.

這是威脅我們民主制度的第三股趨勢。政治活動即是理念之爭。這是我們民族制定如何在健康的討論中我們將不同目標和通向目標的不同路徑都做了排序。但在沒有一些事實的公共底線，沒有心甘情願去容納新信息，沒有承認你的對手說得好，沒有承認科學和合乎邏輯的事實的勇氣的話，我們將停留在相互談論過去的狀態，不可能達成共識和尋求妥協。

And Isn’t that part of what so often makes politics so dispiriting? How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? It’s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it’s self-defeating. Because as my mom used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you.

這不正是政治讓人如此沮喪之處嗎?那些民選官員為什麼會對財政赤字感到憤怒，在我們試圖為學前教育的孩子花錢時，但在為企業減稅時就不會憤怒了呢？我們怎麼可以為自己黨派的道德瑕疵找藉口，卻對其他黨派同樣的行為大加抨擊?這不僅不誠實，還是在掩耳盜鈴，這是自掘墳墓。因為我的母親曾告訴我，現實總有辦法追上你。

​