奥巴马于2008年6月30日在密苏里州独立城的演讲
背景介绍
在美国参加总统竞选，不是占美国人口多数的盎格鲁撒克逊人后代的竞选者都很容易遭到美国人民的怀疑。人们会怀疑他们是否能维护美国的利益，是否爱美国。1988年，民主党提名的候选人希腊裔美国人杜卡基斯，由于在任马萨诸塞州州长时，曾根据美国最高法院的判决免除了该州学校学生必须举行“向国旗宣誓效忠”的仪式，共和党就利用美国人的“国旗情结”来质疑他的价值观是否跟美国的价值观相一致，质疑他是否是一个“异己分子”。本来在大选投票之前两三个月的民意调查显示，他击败老布什的可能性很大，但没想到最后还是败在共和党的抹黑手段之下。奥巴马在发现民意调查有四分之一的美国选民认为他缺乏爱国情操之后，认为不能等闲视之，必须赶快加以对付处理。于是，他选择在美国国庆节之前的几天，向人们表明他的爱国之心，同时向人们阐明何谓爱国，何谓不爱国。6月30日，他在杜鲁门总统的故乡密苏里州独立城作了题为《我们所热爱的美国》的演讲。
奥巴马于2008年6月30日在密苏里州独立城的演讲
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists—farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys—left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous—for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.
And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day—a shot heard round the world—the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.
Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism—theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war—more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.
We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues—health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security—but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is—or is not—a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged—at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for. So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
My concerns here aren’t simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans—all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.
In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s—in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself—by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.
Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views—these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America’s traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments—a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.
Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.
What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I’m not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I’m referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.
One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That’s my idea of America.
I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton’s Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That’s my idea of America.
I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That’s my idea of America.
As I got older, that gut instinct—that America is the greatest country on earth—would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: its ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief—that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.
For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea—that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will—that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.
That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals—ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.
I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.
The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed—he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib—he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution—these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that—especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.
Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice—to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation—for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country—no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.
We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.
For the rest of us—for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military—the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.
In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.
I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.
We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.
As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker’s rights.
It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.
And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations. When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.
Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They’ve defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.
Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature—he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.
And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: "When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone—that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support."
In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind—not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country—its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements—all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.
That is the liberty we defend—the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek—not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build—one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
在1775年4月的一个春晨，一小群殖民地的居民——农民和商人、铁匠和印刷工人、成年和未成年的男人，告别了他们在列克星敦和康克尔德的家，他们拿起武器开始反对英帝国的专制统治。他们获胜的机会极小，但风险极大——即使他们在战斗中能够幸存下来，如果最终结局是失败的话，他们都将面临叛国的指控而获绞刑。
虽然如此，他们还是决定试试。他们如此做不是为了一个部族或家族，而是为了一个更大的理想。即自由的理想，上天赋予的、不可剥夺的人权的理想。在那个意义重大的日子，随着这一声响彻世界的枪响，美国大革命，即美国实行民主的试验开始了。
列克星敦和康克尔德的那些人属于我们最早的爱国者。在庆祝我们国家诞辰的这一周开始之际，我认为不妨稍息片刻来思考爱国主义的意义——先人的和今人的爱国主义。我们有这样做部分是因为我们正处于战争之中，我们一百五十多万优秀的男女青年已在伊拉克和阿富汗服过兵役，六万人受伤，四千六百多人入土长眠。战争的费用非常高昂，围绕我们在伊拉克的使命的争论也非常激烈。有这么多人付出了牺牲，我们很自然地要更深刻地思考那些我们对国家和我们相互之间应尽的义务。
我们对这些问题进行思考的另一个原因是因为我们正处于一场大选的竞选之中，这可以说是一场近几代人以来最具决定性意义的竞选，一场关系到我们国家今后几年或许几十年发展方向的竞选。我们所进行的不仅是关于许多重大问题——健康保险、就业、能源、教育和退休保障的论争，也是关于价值观的论争。我们如何在保障我们人身和国家安全的同时，保有我们的自由?我们如何恢复一个越来越远离其人民，并越来越被特殊利益集团主宰的政府的公信力?我们如何保证在一个越来越全球化的经济情势下，获胜者对那些不那么幸运的人能尽其义务?我们如何在一个日趋多样化的时代解决我们的分歧?
最后，值得我们思考的是，爱国的意义是什么，因为谁是爱国者，或者谁不是爱国者这个问题，经常毒化了我们的政治论争，其结果是分化了我们而不是团结了我们。我在这次竞选的行程中对此已深有体会。在我一生中，我一直认为我对这个国家深切和坚定不移的爱是理所当然的。它事关我如何被抚养长大，它推动我投身于为公众服务，它让我参与了总统竞选。然而，在过去十六个月的某些时间里，我第一次发现人们怀疑我的爱国心——有些时候这是因为我疏忽而造成的，更多的时候这是某些人为了在政治上多捞好处而造成的，他们想让人对我是什么样的一个人以及我所主张的是什么感到害怕。所以，我现在明确宣布，在这次竞选中，我决不会怀疑别人的爱国主义;但当其他人置疑我的爱国主义时，我也决不会置若罔闻。
我关心此事不是纯粹基于我个人的考虑。毕竟在我们历史上，有许多比我声望和地位都高得多的男士女士，他们的爱国心在至关重大的争论中也都被怀疑过。托马斯·杰斐逊被联邦党人指责过私通法国。反联邦党人同样相信约翰·亚当斯串通英国企图复辟帝制。如出一辙的是，即便我们最具智慧的总统也曾经借爱国的名义来为他们有问题的政策辩护。亚当斯颁布的客籍法与惩治煽动法、林肯中止的人身保护令、罗斯福对日裔美国人的监禁——这些都被辩解为爱国的表现，凡不同意他们政策的人有些时候被扣上了不爱国的帽子。
换句话说，利用爱国主义作为一把政治宝剑或一张政治盾牌的做法由来已久——与我们的共和国同样长久。虽然如此，今天有关爱国主义的争辩，很突出的一点是它仍起源于二十世纪六十年代的文化冲突，其所提出的论点可以追溯到四十年或更多年前。在早期民权运动与反越战时期，不想改变国家现状的人指责任何怀疑国家政策是否明智的人为不爱国。同时，那些二十世纪六十年代所谓“反主流文化”的人，对这个指责所作出的反应是不仅仅批评政府某些特定的政策，而且还攻击美国的象征，极端的例子是攻击美国观念的象征，即焚烧国旗，还把世界所有的问题都归咎于美国，也许最不幸的是，他们没有给予那些从越南退役下来的军人应有的荣誉，直到今天这仍是我们民族的一个耻辱。
大部分美国人从未附和过这种过分简单化的世界观，这种对左派与右派漫画式的界定。大部分美国人明白一个人表示出不同意见并不等于他不爱国，他们也明白一个人对美国传统与固有象征的讽刺挖苦并不一定代表他有多聪慧和高明。但是，那个时期的愤怒与动荡不安从没完全消失。我们的政治仍旧经常地陷于那些陈腐之见中，这在我们最近有关伊拉克战争的争论中特别突显出来。譬如那些反对政府政策的人被扣上了不爱国的帽子，一位将军为了在伊拉克取得胜利提出他最善良的建议却被指责为背叛之举。
考虑到我们所面临的巨大挑战，我们再也不能容忍这种分裂了。没有人会期望有关爱国主义的争吵会消失。毕竟在我们争吵有关爱国主义的时候，我们争吵的是作为一个国家我们是什么样的人，而更重要的，是我们应该是什么样的人。我们大家可以同意的是，没有任何一种党或者任何一个政治哲学可以对爱国主义思想进行垄断。我们最终也能够对爱国主义下一个体现美国共有精神中最可贵成分的定义，不管其是多么粗糙和不完美。
这个定义会是一个什么样的定义?对我和大部分美国人来说，爱国最初是一种本能感觉，这种我对国家的忠诚和热爱起源于我最早的记忆。我指的不仅仅是对‘效忠国旗宣言’的朗诵、对学校感恩节的庆典或对7月4日(美国国庆节)放烟火的记忆——尽管它们是那么美妙。我更想指出的是，我在孩提时期所受的家庭教育如何使我接纳了美国的理想。
我最早的记忆之一是坐在外公肩上观看我们的宇航员登上夏威夷海滩。我记得人们的欢呼声以及他们挥动的小旗子。我外公向我解释说我们美国人只要想做什么事就必定能做到。那就是我脑中的美国。
我记得听我外婆讲她在二战时在一个轰炸机组装线上的工作经历。我记得我外公给我看他在巴顿将军部队服役时的士兵证。他让我知道他的卫国之举是他最感光荣自豪的源泉之一。那就是我脑中的美国。
我记得我小时候在印尼住了四年。我听妈妈给我读《独立宣言》开头的几个句子：“我们认为下列真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生存、自由和追求幸福。”我记得她给我解释这个宣言适用于每个美国人，黑皮肤的、白皮肤的、褐色皮肤的都适用，里头的字句，还有美国宪法的字句如何保护我们不受不公正的对待，正如那些年我和她在海外时所见到的其他人所遭受的那样。那就是我脑中的美国。
在我大了一些的时候，我这个本能感觉——美国是世界上最伟大的国家，没有由于我察觉到我们国家的种种不完善之处而有所削减：譬如持续不断的种族纠纷、在水门事件中暴露出来的我们政治制度的扭曲和密西西比河三角洲与阿巴拉契亚山脉地区令人痛心的贫困。这不仅是因为在我心里我觉得美国生活和文化中的乐趣、生命力、多样性、自由盖过其一切不完善之处，还因为我体悟到美国从来就不是由于它的完美，而是由于人们坚信它能被塑造成一个更美好的国家而变得伟大。我逐渐明白，我们先辈就是为了这个信念而发起了一场革命，为了我们受治于法而不是受治于人，为了我们可以在法律面前人人平等，为了我们可以自由言论，可以自由与他人集会，可以自由信仰我们之所爱，以及为了我们享有追求个人梦想的权利并能够帮助别人追求他们梦想。
我是一个不同种族的混血青年，在任何种族社团都没有坚实的依靠，甚至没有一只父亲的有力之手的扶助。但对我来说，就是这样一个基本的美国观念，即我们并不受我们出生的偶然性主宰，而可以凭我们的意志来塑造我们的人生，这样一个基本的美国观念决定了我的一生，就像它决定了许许多多其他美国人的一生一样。
这就是为什么对我来说，爱国的含义不仅仅是对地图上的一处地方或对某一类人们表示忠诚，实际上，爱国是对美国的理想表示忠诚——那些任何人都可以为之牺牲、献出一切的理想。我认为这样的忠诚最适合使我们这样一个多种族、多宗教、多习俗的国家合为一体。正是把这些理想付诸于实践，我们才有别于津巴布韦，在那个国家，反对党及其支持者被秘密地搜捕、折磨或杀害;才有别于缅甸，在那个国家，几十万人在一场巨大灾害面前为基本生计挣扎着，就因为一个军人政权害怕把国家对外开放;也有别于伊拉克，在那个国家，尽管我们军人已付出了巨大努力，许许多多伊拉克老百姓也表现出了勇气，不同派系之间的合作，哪怕是有限的，还是难以看到。
我认为那些攻击美国缺点的人并没有真正了解美国，他们没有认识到我们独一无二的伟大的理想以及已获得证实的能激励人们创造一个更美好世界的能力。
当然，恰恰是因为美国并不是一个完美的国家，也恰恰是因为我们的理想不断要求我们做出更多的付出，我们不能把“爱国”定义为对某一位领导人、对某一个政府或对某一种政策的忠诚。马克·吐温，这位美国最伟大的讽刺作家、让密苏里州感到自豪的儿子曾写道：“爱国就是任何时候都支持你的国家，也支持你的政府——但只在这个政府值得你支持的时候。”我们可以期望我们的领导人和我们的政府能捍卫我们的理想，这在我们国家的历史上确实发生过很多次。但是，当我们的法律、我们的领导人或者我们的政府背离了我们的理想的时候，那么普通美国老百姓发出的反对声将成为各种最真实的爱国表现之一。
马丁·路德·金，这位乔治亚州的年轻牧师曾领导过一场运动来促使美国直面其种族不公的悲剧历史中，他也立身行道，始终如一地坚守我们国家的信条——他是一位爱国者。那位首先说出阿布格莱布监狱(美军在伊拉克管治的监狱)对犯人施加虐待的年轻美国兵——他是一位爱国者。认识到以我们国家名义犯下的错误，坚持兑现我们宪法的承诺——这都是爱国者的行为，都是爱国的男男女女为了捍卫美国最可贵之处的行为。这是我们绝不能够忘却的——即使我们与他们有意见分歧，即使他们的话让我们难堪。
对美国理想的忠诚，为了这些理想而愿意发出反对声，除了这些爱国行为之外，我认为爱国若有任何意义的话，必须包含准备牺牲的意愿——准备为一个更崇高的目标而舍弃我们所珍惜的东西。对那些在我们国旗下进行过战斗的人，如我在瓦尔特·里德军医中心碰到的年轻战士以及如约翰·麦凯恩(奥巴马的竞选对手)那样的为了报效国家而甘受肉体折磨的人，我们无需他们拿出更多的证据来证明他们所作出的牺牲。让我再补充一点，不管任何人都不应该贬低他们所作出的贡献，尤其不应该是为了政治竞选而干这种事，双方阵营的支持者都应注意这一点。
对我们穿上军服的男男女女所作出的服务贡献，我们应该深深地感激。实际上，目前有关伊拉克战争的争论所显现出来的好事中有一个就是，不管你支持或反对这场战争，我们军队所作出的牺牲是永远值得尊敬的。
对我们其他人——对我们这些不穿军服或在军队里没有至亲至爱的人，为国家更大的利益做出牺牲仍然是公民的一种义不容辞的责任。可悲的是，近些年，尽管我们处在两场战争之中，这种呼唤大家作出贡献的声音已听不到。“9·11”事件之后，叫我们做的事都是去拣便宜。虽然战争的经费不断攀升，我们之中最富有的人却享有赋税义务的减免。本来我们应该通过协调合作来减少对进口石油的依赖，从而使我们在那些风云莫测的产油区面前不显得那么脆弱，但我们的能源政策却一成不变，造成我们对石油依赖性的增加。
尽管华盛顿方面的领导缺位，但我观察到新一代的美国人正响应这种呼唤，我在走到的每个地方都碰到过他们。年轻人投身于美国复兴的项目，这不仅仅有那些为了我们国家的利益而报名到遥远国家作战的人，还有那些在家乡本土为一个更美好的美国而斗争的人。他们或者到师资匮乏的学校执教，或者到医务人员短缺的医院照顾病人，或者在他们地方社区为更具可持续性能源政策做宣传。
我认为下一届政府的一个任务就是保证这么一个让人投身于服务的运动能够在未来持续发展。我们应扩大“美国队”和发展“和平队”。我们应该鼓励人们为国家服务，将它作为新的大学援助计划要求的一部分，即使我们对那些服务于军队的人已增加补助。
然而，我们必须记住的是，真正的爱国不能通过一系列政府计划强制性地或以立法方式来推行。相反，爱国思想必须常驻于我们心中，栽培于我们的文化中，培育于我们孩子的心中。
在我们作为一个国家进入第四个世纪之际，我们很容易把美国的卓越性视为理所当然。但我们的家长有责任通过家庭和学校，把美国的历史逐渐灌输到孩子的头脑中。我们很多学校缺乏良好的公民知识教育，许多美国青年不知道我们先辈的事迹，也不知道他们制定的奠定我国基础的文献的意义。先辈们全力以赴冒着风险做出牺牲，使我国打赢了战争，度过了经济萧条，获得了争取民权、社会权利和工人权利的伟大斗争的胜利，而许多儿童却对这一切一无所知。
我们需要教育孩子，让他们知道尽管我们面临严重的挑战，尽管我们犯过错误，我们一定能团结起来，使我国变得更加强大，更加兴旺，更加团结，更加公平。我们需要教育他们，美国已成为世界上一支追求美好的力量，被其他国家和民族视为地球上最终的希望。我们需要教育他们，返回自己社区服务是好事，在军队服役很光荣，参与民主政治活动发出自己的声音至关紧要。
我们需要教育孩子，使他们明白一个从政者经常忘记的道理：爱国主义不仅包括保卫我国不受外来威胁，还包括坚持工作，使子孙后代有一个更美好的美国。我们把债务积累如山，等待下一代去偿还，或者明知后果而拒不改变能源政策，这都是把短期利益置于国家长远福利之上。如果我们不能通过教育使上百万美国儿童在全球化经济中具有竞争力，或者不能投资基础科学研究以推动我国的科技创新，我们就可能使美国在世界排名中后退。正如爱国主义要求我们所有人把国家利益置于个人的眼前利益之上，它还要求我们把子孙后代的利益置于我们自己的利益之上。
我们的最伟大的领袖们明白这个道理。他们对爱国主义的定义着眼于未来。乔治.华盛顿因为领导大陆军而得到尊敬，但他的一项最伟大的爱国行动就是在担任两届总统之后坚决离职，为后来的总统树立一个模式，并提醒后来的总统，这是一个为人民所有、受人民统治和为人民谋利益的政府。(注：旧译为民有、民治、民享)
亚伯拉罕·林肯不仅打赢了一场战争，捍卫了美国的统一，而且不愿妖魔化他的战场对手，拒绝屈从于战争带来的仇恨或自以为是，坚持战后的美国不能继续保持那种一半奴隶一半自由人的制度。他相信我们天性中较好的一面，他的智慧与勇气为我们树立了一个爱国主义的典范。
哈里·杜鲁门离职前在白宫的告别演说中说：“富兰克林·罗斯福逝世时，我感觉应该有一百万人比我更有资格担任总统。但经过了所有这一切，经过我在这间办公室工作的所有岁月，我清楚地认识到我确实不是一个人在工作，你们在与我一道工作。没有人民的帮助和支持，任何总统都不能指望领导这个国家，或者承担这个职务的重担。”
最后，最能准确描述我心目中的爱国主义的可能是下列品质——不仅抽象地爱美国，而且对美国人民有一种特别的爱和信心。我一看见我们的国旗就豪情满怀，一听到悲哀孤寂的葬礼号声就热泪盈眶，原因就在于此。因为我们知道我们国家的伟大，它在战争中的凯旋，它巨大的财富，它在科技与文化上的成就，这一切都是美国人民的精力与想象力的结晶;是他们的辛劳，他们的勇往直前，他们的奋斗，他们的不懈努力，幽默感和默默无闻的英雄主义精神的结晶。
这就是我们要捍卫的自由——我们每个人追求自己梦想的自由。这就是我们要追求的平等——不是结果的平等，而是让每个人有平等的机会去尝试获得成功。这就是我们要努力建设的社会——一个让我们抱有信心但有时候有点混乱的民主的社会，一个让我们坚信有志者事竟成的社会，一个让我们看到我们每个人都是一项伟大事业的组成部分，我们以及那些同样宣誓效忠于美国幸福和其独一无二信念的人们的命运休戚与共的社会。
谢谢大家。愿上帝保佑您，愿上帝保佑美利坚共和国。
精彩语录
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is—or is not—a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together.
最后，值得我们思考的是，爱国的意义是什么，因为谁是爱国者，或者谁不是爱国者这个问题，经常毒化了我们的政治论争，其结果是分化了我们而不是团结了我们。
Patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals——ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one.
爱国的含义不仅仅是对地图上的一处地方或对某一类人们表示忠诚，实际上，爱国是对美国的理想表示忠诚——那些任何人都可以为之牺牲、献出一切的理想。我认为这样的忠诚最适合使我们这样一个多种族、多宗教、多习俗的国家合为一体。
For the rest of us——for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military——the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.
对我们其他人——对我们这些不穿军服或在军队里没有至亲至爱的人，为国家更大的利益做出牺牲仍然是公民的一种义不容辞的责任。
And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.
真正的爱国不能通过一系列政府计划强制性地或以立法方式来推行。相反，爱国思想必须常驻于我们心中，栽培于我们的文化中，培育于我们孩子的心中。
That is the liberty we defend——the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek——not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build——one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.
这就是我们要捍卫的自由——我们每个人追求自己梦想的自由。这就是我们要追求的平等——不是结果的平等，而是让我们每个人有平等的机会去尝试获得成功。这就是我们要努力建设的社会——一个让我们抱有信心但有时候有点混乱的民主的社会，一个让我们坚信有志者事竟成的社会，一个让我们看到我们每个人都是一项伟大事业的组成部分，我们以及那些同样宣誓效忠于美国幸福和其独一无二信念的人们的命运休戚与共的社会。
