名人演讲：尼克松：沉默的大多数 The Great Silent

《沉默的大多数》读后感《沉默的大多数》读后感（精选36篇）《沉默的大多数》的作者是王小波。

主要讲述了作者在该作品中倾注了其对中国民众命运的关注，以反讽和幽默的手法直面生活，从一个轻松的角度来解析身边复杂的事态。

下面是小编为你整理了“《沉默的大多数》读后感”，希望能帮助到您。

《沉默的大多数》读后感篇1《沉默的大多数》是王小波的杂文集，书中收录了作者对涉及知识分子的处境及思考、社会道德伦理、文化争论、国学与新儒家、民族主义等很多方面的一个分析和解读，角度各异，文章里既有文学上的优美，又带给人们哲学上的沉思，还有一些值得推敲的史学论述。

就像书中引述最多的罗素的那句话——参差多态乃是幸福的本源，作者给我们展示了一个丰富多彩的思想世界，并且照进作者生活过的许多现实状况。

不管是那段疯狂心酸的经历，还是现下生存的时代和空间，一切都有其存在的意义。

沉默的大多数是作者以自己为典型而揭露的人群，这些人没有语言上的障碍，但是很不擅长表达自己的想法，在很多时候都以“沉默”的姿态示人。

不知道是不是受到“沉默是金”这句话的影响，反正我身边有很大一群“沉默的大多数”，他们就是作者描述出来的样子——在公众场合什么都不说，到了私下里则妙语连珠，换言之，对性的过的人什么都说，对信不过的人什么都不说。

“沉默是金”的名言可能是很多人保持沉默的原因，而这些沉默的人需要的是打破沉默，将自己的思考和所得告诉给身边的人，否则他们也会变成“弱势群体”，因为弱势群体的典型特征就是有些话没有说出来的群体，作者在书中如是说。

“东西方精神的最大差别在于西方人沉迷于物欲，而东方人精于人与人之间的关系；前者从征服中得到满足，后者从人与人的相亲相爱中汲取幸福。

”，其实提到“物欲”，我们一定会想到许多文章，大到文学著作、各期刊杂志的文章，小到一篇普通的学生作文，“在这个物欲横流的社会”这句话不知道被多少人引述，持着或褒或贬的态度。

“物欲”是古代先贤批判的“外物所累”，是现在很多人叫嚣着的“钱，身外之物，生不带来死不带去”，对物质的追求在我们看来都是需要被批判的，因为物质索取会让精神变得不纯洁，这是传统文化潜移默化中告诉我们的。

【演讲稿范文】外国名人的演讲稿尊敬的各位领导、老师和同学们：
大家好！今天我非常荣幸能够站在这里，与大家分享一些外国名人的演讲稿。

外国名人的演讲，常常能够给我们带来深刻的启发和思考。

他们的言辞充满智慧和力量，给我们带来了许多宝贵的人生经验和智慧。

首先，我想和大家分享美国总统肯尼迪在1961年的著名演讲，“不要问国家能为你做什么，而要问你能为国家做什么。

”这句话告诉我们每个人都有责任为国家和社会做出贡献，而不是只关心自己的利益。

这种奉献精神是我们每个人都应该具备的。

其次，我想提到英国首相丘吉尔在二战期间的演讲。

他曾经激励英国人民坚定抵抗纳粹的侵略，鼓舞了整个国家的士气。

他的名言“我们绝不投降”激励了无数人，展现了坚韧不拔的意志和不屈不挠的精神。

最后，我想分享美国民权运动领袖马丁·路德·金的演讲。

他在1963年的“我有一个梦想”演讲中，呼吁消除种族歧视，实现平
等和公正。

他的演讲鼓舞了全美国的民众，成为了民权运动的标志性事件。

这些外国名人的演讲，不仅给我们带来了思想的启迪，也激励了我们对于美好未来的追求。

希望我们能够从这些演讲中汲取智慧和力量，努力奋斗，为实现自己的梦想和为社会作出更大的贡献。

谢谢大家！。

美国裹足不前（1960年总统辩论：肯尼迪—尼克松）肯尼迪：我说过，我已经为这个国家服务了14年，我在战时去保卫美国，我把我的一切奉献给我的祖国。

如果我在这次竞选中失败了，我要继续在参议院为建设一个强大的美国而奋斗。

我之所以要参加竞选，是因为我看到了美国在今年有很大的发展机会，有在国内和全世界大展宏图的机会，有重新把美国建设成一个朝气蓬勃、蒸蒸日上的社会的机会。

我认为，共和党在美国仍然裹足不前，在世界也裹足不前。

我们今天仅使用了美国50%的钢铁生产能力。

我在1958年出现了经济衰退，我在1954年出现了经济衰退。

如果我们仍然裹足不前，如果我们任命的大使和华盛顿的其他官员不能意识到现在处于革命性的阶段，那么美国就不会保持它的实力。

如果我们失败了，自由的事业也就失败了。

我认为下一任美国总统有责任让这个国家重新运转起来，发展我们的经济，向美国人民明确美国的目标和未完成的事业。

然后，在全世界尽可能任命最优秀的人才，大使要会讲驻在国的语言，不是看他的政治捐献，而看他会不会讲驻在国的语言。

我认为这个党——共和党——的25年的领导一直裹足不前，它反对罗斯福和其他总统提出的所有计划，如最低工资、住房、经济增长、开发美国自然资源和田纳西大峡谷等计划。

我认为，如果我们能有一个坚信运转、坚信发展的党，那么我们就能重新树立起我们在世界的地位——强大的国防、高速的经济增长、对我们人民的公正、确保宪法权利，让人民相信我们说到做到，然后，在全世界重新建立像富兰克林·罗斯福总统所创建的拉丁美洲那样的环境（译者注：当时的拉丁美洲是美国的势力范围，是美国的“后院”）。

罗斯福总统在拉丁美洲人的眼里是个好邻居，因为他在美国就是个好邻居，因为他们看到的我们是一个充满同情心、互相关爱、推动国家前进的社会。

我相信，作为民主党领袖的我有责任提醒美国人民，1960年是决定性的一年，我们不能再裹足不前了，我们不能再屈居第二了。

我要让美国重新引起全世界人民的关注，让他们意识到我们运转起来了，我们的全盛时期就要来临。

【名人演讲】理查德·米尔豪斯·尼克松：首任总统就职演说首任总统就职演说（美国）理查德·米尔豪斯·尼克松1969年1月20日德克森参议员、最高法院首席法官先生、副总统先生、约翰逊总统、汉弗莱副总统、美国同胞们、全世界的公民们：今天，在这个时刻，我要求你们和我分享这种崇高肃穆的感情。

在有秩序的权力交接中，我们欢庆我们的团结一致，它使我们保有自由。

历史巨轮飞转，分分秒秒的时间都十分宝贵，也独具意义。

但是有些瞬间却成为新的起点，定下其后数十年及至几个世纪的行程。

现在，由于世界人民要求和平，各国领导人惧怕战争，所以在历史上第一次，时代站到了和平方面。

历史能授予的最光荣称号莫过于“和平的缔造者”了。

这最高荣誉现在正召唤美国。

美国有机会引导世界最终从动乱的深渊中拔足，走向人类自有文明以来即梦寐以求的和平宽阔高地。

如果我们能够成功，后辈子孙提到我们现在活着的人时，将会说我们驾驭了我们的时代，为人类求得了世界安全。

三分之一世纪以前，富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福曾经站在这里向全国演说，当时国家正受经济不景气困扰，陷于惶恐中。

他看到国家当时的种种困难，却仍然能够说：“感谢上帝，我国的困难毕竟只在物质方面。

”今天我们的危机正相反。

我们物质丰富，却精神贫乏；我们以非凡的准确程度登上了月球，但地球上却陷入了一片混乱。

我们卷人了战争，没有和平。

我们四分五裂，没有团结。

我们看到周围的人生活空虚，没有充实的内容；我们看到许多工作需要完成，却没有人手去做。

对于精神的危机，我们需要精神的解决办法。

为了找到解决办法，我们只需省视自身。

当我们估量能够做什么时，我们只应许诺能做到的事。

但在制订目标时，却要有远大的理想。

如果你的邻舍没有自由，你就不会得到完全的自由。

只有共同前进才能前进。

这就是说黑人和白人共有一个国家，不是分为两个。

法律是按照我们的良心制订的。

剩下的问题就是赋予法律条文以生命：保证既然一切人在上帝面前生来就有同等的尊严，在人的面前也应有同等的尊严。

理查德尼克松的演说稿Richard M. Nixon: “Checkers”My Fellow Americans,I e before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity has been questioned.Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer toa smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case. I'm sure that you have read the charge, and you've heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took 18,000 dollars from a group of my supporters.Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I'm saying, incidentally, that it was wrong, not just illegal, because it isn't a question of whether it waslegal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, wasit morally wrong? I say that it was morally wrong if any of that 18,000 dollars went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.And now to answer those questions let me say this: Not one cent of the 18,000 dollars or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the Press" -- some of you may have seen it last Sunday -- Peter Edson came up to me after the program, and he said, "Dick, what about this "fund" we hear about?" And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith who was the administrator of the fund." And I gave him [Edson] his [Smith's] address. And I said you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government.。

1960年尼克松肯尼迪辩论英汉第一篇：1960年尼克松肯尼迪辩论英汉美国裹足不前（1960年总统辩论：肯尼迪—尼克松）肯尼迪：我说过，我已经为这个国家服务了14年，我在战时去保卫美国，我把我的一切奉献给我的祖国。

如果我在这次竞选中失败了，我要继续在参议院为建设一个强大的美国而奋斗。

我之所以要参加竞选，是因为我看到了美国在今年有很大的发展机会，有在国内和全世界大展宏图的机会，有重新把美国建设成一个朝气蓬勃、蒸蒸日上的社会的机会。

我认为，共和党在美国仍然裹足不前，在世界也裹足不前。

我们今天仅使用了美国50%的钢铁生产能力。

我在1958年出现了经济衰退，我在1954年出现了经济衰退。

如果我们仍然裹足不前，如果我们任命的大使和华盛顿的其他官员不能意识到现在处于革命性的阶段，那么美国就不会保持它的实力。

如果我们失败了，自由的事业也就失败了。

我认为下一任美国总统有责任让这个国家重新运转起来，发展我们的经济，向美国人民明确美国的目标和未完成的事业。

然后，在全世界尽可能任命最优秀的人才，大使要会讲驻在国的语言，不是看他的政治捐献，而看他会不会讲驻在国的语言。

我认为这个党——共和党——的25年的领导一直裹足不前，它反对罗斯福和其他总统提出的所有计划，如最低工资、住房、经济增长、开发美国自然资源和田纳西大峡谷等计划。

我认为，如果我们能有一个坚信运转、坚信发展的党，那么我们就能重新树立起我们在世界的地位——强大的国防、高速的经济增长、对我们人民的公正、确保宪法权利，让人民相信我们说到做到，然后，在全世界重新建立像富兰克林·罗斯福总统所创建的拉丁美洲那样的环境（译者注：当时的拉丁美洲是美国的势力范围，是美国的“后院”）。

罗斯福总统在拉丁美洲人的眼里是个好邻居，因为他在美国就是个好邻居，因为他们看到的我们是一个充满同情心、互相关爱、推动国家前进的社会。

我相信，作为民主党领袖的我有责任提醒美国人民，1960年是决定性的一年，我们不能再裹足不前了，我们不能再屈居第二了。

名人演讲：打破沉寂我们都知道，马丁·路德·金是美国的民权运动领袖，他为黑人谋求平等，甚至献出了自己的生命，被誉为是“黑人的麦加”。

而与此同时，马丁·路德·金也是一名卓越的反战斗士，他关心的不仅仅是“小我”的权利，而且还有“大我”的和平、自由。

如果你一直以来只是把马丁·路德·金看成一个黑人运动领袖，那么下面的这篇演讲相信会让你对他有新的认识——马ぢ返隆そ鸬奈按笕烁裰档梦颐敲恳桓鲅鍪幼鹁础?br>本演讲发表于1967年4月4日，是马丁·路德·金在“忧世教士和俗人协会”的一个反越站的集会上的演讲，集会的地点是纽约著名的河边大教堂（Riverside Church）。

我之所以跨入此间宏伟的教堂，是因为我的良心让我别无选择。

我加入你们的集会，则是因为我对这个聚合我们的组织——“忧世教士和俗人协会”关注越南——的工作和主旨非常认同。

我对你们执委会最近的声明深有同感，当我阅读到它的开场白的时候就甚有共鸣：“这是一个‘沉默即是背叛’的时刻。

”I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam.The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: A time comes when silence is betrayal.演讲全文：A Time to Break Silence by Martin Luther King, Jr.I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam.The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: A time comes when silence is betrayal.And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.The truth of these words is beyonddoubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one.Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their governments policy, especially in time of war.Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within ones own bosom and in the surrounding world.Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak.。

时代周刊经典语录自1923年创刊以来，时代周刊（Time）成为了全球具有影响力的批判性、新闻性和反映时代精神的期刊。

在其所发表的文章中，许多关键词、重要观点和经典语录深入人心，影响了世界各地的读者，并成为历史上不可或缺的部分，值得我们回顾、学习和探究。

以下是7个具有代表性的时代周刊经典语录案例。

1. "The American Dream"（美国梦）美国梦是美国社会文化中的核心概念，源于17世纪早期移民的追求自由、平等和成功的创业精神。

1955年5月底，时代周刊发表了一篇报道，名为"The American Dream"，讨论了该概念在当时世界的吸引力和持久性。

这篇文章提出了美国梦的构成要素和挑战，它的普及和影响在国内外都有所扩大。

2. "The silent majority speaks"（沉默的大多数）在1969年，时代周刊在封面上以"The silent majority speaks"为标题，引用尼克松总统的说法，宣称这个国家中的大多数人正在保持沉默，不善于表达自己的观点。

这一概念声称杠杆作用在当时的政治和社会战略中起着重要作用。

3. "The end of certainties: Time's man of the year 1989"（确定性结束：1989年度时代的人）在1989年底，时代周刊宣布将没有一个人成为该年的Time's Person of the Year，而是将颁发一张封面，标题为"The end of certainties"。

这篇报道涉及到柏林墙的倒塌、冷战的结束和以色列和巴勒斯坦的和平协议，强调了当时重大事件的历史意义和对全球未来的影响。

4. “The best worst president”（最好的最坏总统）在2006年底，时代周刊评选了当年最有影响力的人物，题为"The best worst president"，介绍了当时的美国总统乔治·沃尔克·布什。

美国总统尼克松的讲话英汉对照五篇第一篇：美国总统尼克松的讲话英汉对照美国总统尼克松的讲话英汉对照PRESIDENT NIXON’S SPEECH1Mr.Prime Minister and all of your distinguished guests this evening, On behalf of all of your American guests, I wish to thank you2 for the incomparable hospitality for which3 the Chinese people are justly famous throughout the world.I particularly want to pay tribute, not only to those who prepared the magnificent dinner, but also to4 those who have provided5 the splendid music.Never have I heard American music played better in a foreign land.Mr.Prime Minister, I wish to thank you for your very gracious and eloquent remarks.At this very moment6 through the wonder7 of telecommunications, more people are seeing and hearing what we say than on any other such occasion in the whole history of the world.Yet, what we say here will not be long remembered.What we do here can change the world.As you said in your toast, the Chinese people are a great people, the American people are a great people.If our two people are enemies the future of this world we share together is dark indeed.But if we can find common ground8 to work together, the chance for world peace9 is immeasurably increased.In the spirit of frankness which10 I hope will characterize our talks this week, let us recognize at the outset11 these points: we have at times in the past been enemies.We have great differences today.What brings us together is that we have common interests which transcend those differences.As we discuss our differences, neither of us will compromise our principles.But while we cannot close the gulf between us, we can try to bridge it so that we maybe able to talk across it.So, let us, in these next five days, start a long march together, not in lockstep12, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of building a world structure of peace and justice in which13 all14 may stand together with equal dignity and in which each nation, large or small, has a right to determine its own form of government, free of outside interference or domination15.The world watches.The world listens.The world waits to see what we will do.What is the world? In a personal sense, I think of my eldest daughter whose birthday is today.As I think of her, I think of all the children in the world, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, most of whom were born since the date of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China.What legacy shall we leave our children? Are they destined to die for the hatreds which have plagued the old world, or are they destined to live because we had the vision16 to build a new world? There is no reason for us to be enemies.Neither of us seeks the territory of the other;neither of us seeks domination over the other, neither of us seeks to stretch out our hands and rule the world.Chairman Mao has written, “So many deeds cry out to be done, and always urgently;the world rolls on , time presses.Ten thousand years are too long, seize the day, seize the hour!”This is the hour.This is the day for our two peoples to rise to the heights of greatness which can build a new and a better world.In that spirit, I ask all of you present to join me in raising your glasses to Chairman Mao, to Prime Minister Chou, and to the friendship of the Chinese and American people which can lead to friendship and peace for all people in the world.美国总统尼克松的讲话总理先生及今晚在座的诸位贵宾：我谨代表你们的所有美国客人向你们表示感谢，感谢你们的无可比拟的盛情款待。

尼克松：沉默的大多数（Richa...第一篇：尼克松：沉默的大多数(Richard M. Nixon The Great Silent Majority)Good evening, my fellow Americans.T onight I want to talk to you on a subject of deepconcern to all Americans and to many people in all partsof the world, the war in Vietnam.I believe that one of the reasons for the deep divisionabout Vietnam is that many Americans have lostconfidence in what their Government has told them about our policy.The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overridingissues of war and peace unless they know the truth aboutthat policy.T onight, therefore, I would like to answer some of thequestions that I know are on the minds of many of youlistening to me.How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in thefirst place?How has this administration changed the policy of theprevious Administration?What has really happened in the negotiations in Parisand on the battlefront in Vietnam?What choices do we have if we are to end the war?What are the prospects for peace?Now let me begin by describing the situation I foundwhen I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had beengoing on for four years.Thirty-one thousand Americanshad been killed in action.The training program for theSouth Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule.Fivehundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnamwith no plans to reduce the number.No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United Stateshad not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.The war was causing deep division at home and criticismfrom many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.In view of these circumstances, there were some whourged that I end the war at once by ordering theimmediate withdrawal of all American forces.From apolitical standpoint, this would have been a popular andeasy course to follow.After all, we became involved inthe war while my predecessor was in office.I couldblame the defeat, which would be the result of myaction, on him--and come out as the peacemaker.Someput it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way toavoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war.But I had a greater obligation than to think only of theyears of my Administration, and of the next election.Ihad to think of the effect of my decision on the nextgeneration, and on the future of peace and freedom inAmerica, and in the world.Let us all understand that the question before us is notwhether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace.The question at issue is not whetherJohnson's war becomes Nixon's war.The great questionis: How can we win America's peace?Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why andhow did the United States become involved in Vietnam inthe first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, withthe logistical support of Communist China and the SovietUnion, launched a campaign to impose a Communistgovernment on South Vietnam by instigating andsupporting a revolution.In response to the request of the Government of SouthVietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid andmilitary equipment to assist the people of South Vietnamin their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover.Sevenyears ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 militarypersonnel to Vietnam as combat advisers.Four years ago，President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.Now many believe that President Johnson's decision tosend American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong.And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.But the question facing us today is: Now that we are inthe war, what is the best way to end it?In January I could only conclude that the precipitatewithdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would bea disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the UnitedStates and for the cause of peace.For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawalwould inevitably allow the Communists to repeat themassacres which followed their takeover in the North 15years before.They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave laborcamps.We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnamwhen the Communists entered the city of Hue lastyear.During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot todeath, and buried in mass graves.With the sudden collapse of our support, theseatrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of theentire nation and particularly for the million-and-ahalf Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam whenthe Communists took over in the North.For the United States this first defeat in our nation'shistory would result in a collapse of confidence inAmerican leadership not only in Asia but throughout theworld.Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristiceloquence and clarity said，“We want to see a stable Government there,” carrying onthe [a] struggle to maintain its national independence.“We believe strongly in that.We are not going towithdraw from that effort.In my opinion, for us towithdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia.So we're going tostay there.”? President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed thesame conclusion during their terms of office.For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would bea disaster of immense magnitude.A nation cannot remaingreat if it betrays its allies and lets down itsfriends.Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnamwithout question would promote recklessness in thecouncils of those great powers who have not yetabandoned their goals of worlds conquest.This wouldspark violence wherever our commitments help maintainthe peace--in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventuallyeven in the Western Hemisphere.Ultimately, this wouldcost more lives.It would not bring peace.It wouldbring more war.For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that Ishould end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces.I chose instead to change American policy onboth the negotiating front and the battle front in orderto end the war fought on many fronts.I initiated apursuit for peace on many fronts.In a television speechon May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on anumber of other occasions, I set forth our peaceproposals in great detail.We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outsideforces within one year.We have proposed a cease fireunder international supervision.We have offered freeelections under international supervision with theCommunists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force.Andthe Saigon government has pledged to accept the resultof the election.We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.We have indicated that we're willing todiscuss the proposals that have been put forth by theother side.We have declared that anything isnegotiable, except the right of the people of SouthVietnam to determine their own future.At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge hasdemonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 publicmeetings.Hanoi has refused even to discuss ourproposals.They demand our unconditional acceptance oftheir terms which are that we withdraw all Americanforces immediately and unconditionally and that weoverthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.We have not limited our peace initiatives to publicforums and public statements.I recognized in Januarythat a long and bitter war like this usually cannot besettled in a public forum.That is why in addition tothe public statements and negotiations, I have exploredevery possible private avenue that might lead to asettlement.Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives forpeace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretlybecause we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest forpeace.Soon after my election, through an individual whowas directly in contact on a personal basis with theleaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers fora rapid, comprehensive settlement.Hanoi's repliescalled in effect for our surrender before negotiations.Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the militaryequipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers，my assistant for national security affairs, Dr.Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met ona number of occasions with representatives of the SovietGovernment to enlist their assistance in gettingmeaningful negotiations started.In addition, we havehad extended discussions directed toward that same endwith representatives of other governments which havediplomatic relations with North Vietnam.None of these initiatives have to date produced results.In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary tomake a major move to break the deadlock in the Paristalks.I spoke directly in this office, where I?m nowsitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh ona personal basis for 25 years.Through him I sent aletter to Ho Chi Minh.I did this outside of the usualdiplomatic channels with the hope that with thenecessity of making statements for propaganda removed，there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.Let me read from that letter to you now:Dear Mr.President:I realize that it is difficult to communicatemeaningfully across the gulf of four years of war.Butprecisely because of this gulf I wanted to take thisopportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire towork for a just peace.I deeply believe that the war inVietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it toan end can benefit no one, least of all the people ofVietnam.The time has come to move forward at theconference table toward an early resolution of thistragic war.You will find us forthcoming and open-mindedin a common effort to bring the blessings of peace tothe brave people of Vietnam.Let history record that atthis critical juncture both sides turned their facetoward peace rather than toward conflict and war."I received Ho Chi Minh's reply on August 30, three daysbefore his death.It simply reiterated the publicposition North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatlyrejected my initiative.The full text of both letters isbeing released to the press.In addition to the public meetings that I have referredto, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chiefnegotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions.And we havetaken other significant initiatives which must remainsecret to keep open some channels of communicationswhich may still prove to be productive.But the effect of all the public, private, and secretnegotiations which have been undertaken since thebombing halt a year ago, and since this Administrationcame into office on January 20th, can be summed up inone sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.Well, now, who's at fault? It's become clear that theobstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not thePresident of the United States.It is not the SouthVietnamese Government.The obstacle is the other side'sabsolute refusal to show the least willingness to joinus in seeking a just peace.And it will not do so whileit is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for ournext concession, and our next concession after that one，until it gets everything it wants.There can now be no longer any question that progress innegotiation depends only on Hanoi 's deciding tonegotiate--to negotiate seriously.I realize that thisreport on our efforts on the diplomatic front isdiscouraging to the American people, but the Americanpeople are entitled to know the truth--the bad news aswell as the good news--where the lives of our youngmen are involved.Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging reporton another front.At the time we launched our search forpeace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing anend to the war through negotiations.I therefore putinto effect another plan to bring peace--a plan whichwill bring the war to an end regardless of what happenson the negotiating front.It is in line with the majorshift in U.S.foreign policy which I described in mypress conference at Guam on July 25.Let me brieflyexplain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine--a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnambut which is an essential element of our program toprevent future Vietnams.We Americans are a do-it-yourself people--we're animpatient people.Instead of teaching someone else todo a job, we like to do it ourselves.And this traithas been carried over into our foreign policy.In Korea，and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished mostof the money, most of the arms, and most of the men tohelp the people of those countries defend their freedomagainst Communist aggression.Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, aleader of another Asian country expressed this opinionto me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen.He said: ?When you are trying to assist another nationdefend its freedom, U.S.policy should be to help themfight the war, but not to fight the war for them.? Well inaccordance with this wise counsel, I laid downin Guam three principles as guidelines for futureAmerican policy toward Asia.First, the United Stateswill keep all of its treaty commitments.Second, weshall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens thefreedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whosesurvival we consider vital to our security.Third, incases involving other types of aggression we shallfurnish military and economic assistance when requestedin accordance with our treaty commitments.But we shalllook to the nation directly threatened to assume theprimary responsibility of providing the manpower for itsdefense.After I announced this policy, I found that the leadersof the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea，other nations which might be threatened by Communistaggression, welcomed this new direction in Americanforeign policy.The defense of freedom is everybody's business--notjust America's business.And it is particularly theresponsibility of the people whose freedom isthreatened.In the previous Administration, weAmericanized the war in Vietnam.In this Administration，we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.The policy of the previous Administration not onlyresulted in our assuming the primary responsibility forfighting the war, but even more significant did notadequately stress the goal of strengthening the SouthVietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.The Vietnamization plan was launched followingSecretaryLaird's visit to Vietnam in March.Under the plan, Iordered first a substantial increase in the training andequipment of South Vietnamese forces.In July, on myvisit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams's orders, sothat they were consistent with the objectives of our newpolicies.Under the new orders, the primary mission ofour troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces toassume the full responsibility for the security of SouthVietnam.Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in Vietnam.After fiveyears of Americans going into Vietnam we are finallybringing American men home.By December 15 over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam，including 20 percent of all of our combat forces.TheSouth Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength.Asa result, they've been able to take over combatresponsibilities from our American troops.Two other significant developments have occurred sincethis Administration took office.Enemy infiltration，infiltration which is essential if they are to launch amajor attack over the last three months, is less than 20percent of what it was over the same period last year.And most important, United States casualties havedeclined during the last two months to the lowest pointin three years.Let me now turn to our program for the future.We haveadopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperationwith the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all bat ground forces and their replacement bySouth Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduledtimetable.This withdrawal will be made from strengthand not from weakness.As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can becomegreater.I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetablefor our program, and there are obvious reasons for thisdecision which I?m sure you will understand.As I?veindicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawalwill depend on developments on three fronts.One ofthese is the progress which can be, or might be, made inthe Paris talks.An announcement of a fixed timetablefor our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement.They wouldsimply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.The other two factors on which we will base ourwithdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity andthe progress of the training programs of the SouthVietnamese forces.And I am glad to be able to reporttonight progress on both of these fronts has beengreater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal.As a result, our timetable forwithdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June.Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to befrozen in on a fixed timetable.We must retain theflexibility to base each withdrawal decision on thesituation as it is at that time, rather than onestimates that are no longer valid.Along with thisoptimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one noteof caution.If the level of enemy activity significantlyincreases, we might have to adjust our timetableaccordingly.However, I want the record to be completely clear on onepoint.At the time of the bombing halt just a year agothere was some confusion as to whether there was anunderstanding on the part of the enemy that if westopped the bombing of North Vietnam, they would stopthe shelling of cities in South Vietnam.I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding onthe part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawalprogram.We have noted the reduced level ofinfiltration, the reduction of our casualties and arebasing our withdrawal decisions partially on thosefactors.If the level of infiltration or our casualtiesincrease while we are trying to scale down the fighting，it will be the result of a conscious decision by theenemy.Hanoi could make no greater mistake than toassume that an increase in violence will be to itsadvantage.If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizesour remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate totake strong and effective measures to deal with thatsituation.This is not a threat.This is a statement ofpolicy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for theprotection of American fighting men wherever they maybe.My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize fromwhat I have said that we really only have two choicesopen to us if we want to end this war.I can order animmediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans fromVietnam without regard to the effects of that action.Orwe can persist in our search for a just peace through anegotiated settlement, if possible, or through continuedimplementation of our plan for Vietnamization, ifnecessary--a plan in which we will withdraw all of ourforces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.I have chosen this second course.It is not the easyway.It is the right way.It is a plan which will endthe war and serve the cause of peace, not just inVietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.In speaking of the consequences of a precipitouswithdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would loseconfidence in America.Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves.Oh, the immediate reactionwould be a sense of relief that our men were cominghome.But as we saw the consequences of what we haddone, inevitable remorse and divisive recriminationwould scar our spirit as a people.We have faced other crises in our history and we havebecome stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges.Our greatnessas a nation has been our capacity to do what has to bedone when we knew our course was right.I recognize thatsome of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan forpeace I have chosen.Honest and patriotic Americans havereached different conclusions as to how peace should beachieved.In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I sawdemonstrators carrying signs reading, ?Lose in Vietnam，bring the boys home.?Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reachthat conclusion and to advocate that point of view.But as President of the United States, I would be untrueto my oath of office if I allowed the policy of thisnation to be dictated by the minority who hold thatpoint of view and who try to impose it on the nation bymounting demonstrations in the street.For almost 200years, the policy of this nation has been made under ourConstitution by those leaders in the Congress and theWhite House elected by all the people.If a vocalminority, however fervent its cause, prevails overreason and the will of the majority, this nation has nofuture as a free society.And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, tothe young people of this nation who are particularlyconcerned, and I understand why they are concerned，about this war.I respect your idealism.I share yourconcern for peace.I want peace as much as you do.Thereare powerful personal reasons I want to end this war.This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers，fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have giventheir lives for America in Vietnam.It's very littlesatisfaction to me that this is only one-third as manyletters as I signed the first week in office.There isnothing I want more than to see the day come when I donot have to write any of those letters.I want to end the warto save the lives of those braveyoung men in Vietnam.But I want to end it in a waywhich will increase the chance that their youngerbrothers and their sons will not have to fight in somefuture Vietnam some place in the world.And I want to end the war for another reason.I want toend it so that the energy and dedication of you, ouryoung people, now too often directed into bitter hatredagainst those responsible for the war, can be turned tothe great challenges of peace, a better life for allAmericans, a better life for all people on this earth.I have chosen a plan for peace.I believe it willsucceed.If it does not succeed, what the critics saynow won?t matter.Or if it does succeed, what thecritics say now won?t matter.If it does not succeed，anything I say then won?t matter.I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotismor national destiny these days, but I feel it isappropriate to do so on this occasion.Two hundred yearsago this nation was weak and poor.But even then，America was the hope of millions in the world.Today wehave become the strongest and richest nation in theworld, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that anyhope the world has for the survival of peace and freedomwill be determined by whether the American people havethe moral stamina and the courage to meet the challengeof free-world leadership.Let historians not record that, when America was themost powerful nation in the world, we passed on theother side of the road and allowed the last hopes forpeace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocatedby the forces of totalitarianism.So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of myfellow Americans, I ask for your support.I pledged inmy campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a waythat we could win the peace.I have initiated a plan ofaction which will enable me to keep that pledge.Themore support I can have from the American people, thesooner that pledge can be redeemed.For the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is tonegotiate at Paris.Let us be united for peace.Let us also be unitedagainst defeat.Because let us understand--NorthVietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States.Only Americans can do that.Fifty years ago, in this room, and at this very desk，President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught theimagination of a war-weary world.He said: ?This is thewar to end wars.? His dream for peace after World War Iwas shattered on the hard reality of great powerpolitics.And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam isthe war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiateda plan which will end this war in a way that will bringus closer to that great goal to which--to whichWoodrow Wilson and every American President in ourhistory has been dedicated--the goal of a just andlasting peace.As President I hold the responsibility for choosing thebest path for that goal and then leading the nationalong it.I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet thisresponsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I cancommand, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.Thank you and good night.第二篇：名人演讲：尼克松：沉默的大多数 The Great Silent[推荐] Richard M.Nixon The Great Silent Majority delivered 3 November 1969Good evening, my fellow Americans T onight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy.The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.T onight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?What choices do we have if we are to end the war?What are the prospects for peace?Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years.Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action.The training program for the South Vietnamese was。