The fourth debate
In 1960, both Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon ran strong campaigns for the presidency, but the　former's impressive performance in four televised debates helped make the difference. Kennedy, 43, became the youngest person and the first Roman Catholic elected to the presidency with his narrow victory over Nixon.

Mr. Howe, Senator Kennedy, my fellow Americans,

Since this campaign began, I have had a very rare privilege: I have traveled to 48 of the 50 states, and in my travels, I've learned what the people of the United States are thinking about. There is one issue that stands out above all the rest, one in which every American is concerned, regardless of what group he may be a member and regardless of where he may live. And that issue very simply stated is this: how can we keep the peace? Keep it without surrender. How can we extend freedom? Extend it without war

Now in determining how we deal with this issue, we must find the answer to a very important, but simple question: who threatens the peace? Who threatens freedom in the world? There is only one threat to peace, and one threat to freedom that which is presented by the international Communist movement. And therefore, if we are to have peace, if we are to keep our own freedom and extend it to others without war, we must know how to deal with the Communists and their leaders. I know Mr. Khruchev I also have had the opportunity of knowing and meeting other Communist leaders in the world, I believe there are certain principles we must find in dealing with him and his colleagues, principles if followed, will keep the peace and that also can extend freedom.

First, we have to learn from the past, because we cannot afford to make the mistakes of the past. In the seven years before this administration came into power in Washington, we found that six hundred million people went behind the Iron Curtain, and at the end of that seven years, we were engaged in a war in Korea, which caused over thirty thousand American lives. In the past seven years, in President Eisenhower's administration, this situation has been reversed. We ended the Korean War. By strong, firm leadership, we have kept out of other wars, and we have avoided surrender of principle or territory at the conference table.

Now why were we successful, as our predecessors were not successful? I think there are severa1 reasons. In the first place, they made a fatal error in misjudging the Communists, in trying to applying to them the same rules of conduct that you would app1y to the 1eaders of the free world. One of the major errors they made was the one that led to the Korean War. In ruling out the defense of Korea, they invited aggression in that area, they thought they were going to have peace, it brought war

We learned from their mistakes, and so in our seven years, we find that we have been firm in our diplomacy We have never made concessions without getting concessions in return. We have always been willing to go the extra mile to negotiate for disarmament or in any other area, but we have never been willing to do anything that in effect surrender freedom anyplace in the world. That is why President Eisenhower was correct in not apologizing or expressing regrets to Mr. Khruchev at the Paris conference, as Senator Kennedy suggested he could have done, that is why President Eisenhower was also correct in his policy in the Formosa Straits where he declined and refused to follow the recommendations, recommendations which Senator Kennedy voted for in 1955, again made in 1959, again repeated in his debates that you have heard, recommendations with regard to again slicing off a piece of free territory and abandoning it, if in effect, to the Communists.

Why did the President feel that this was wrong, and why was the President right and his critics wrong? Because again, this showed a lack of understanding of dictators, a lack of understanding particularly of Communists, because every time you make such a concession, it does not lead to peace, it only encourages them to blackmail you, it encourages them to begin a war And so I say, that the records show that we know how to keep the peace, to keep it without surrender Let us move now to the future.

It's not enough to stand on this record, because we are dealing with the most ruthless, fanatical leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the Sixties, America must move forward in every area. First of all, although we are today as Senator Kennedy has admitted, the strongest nation in the world militarily we must increase our strength, increase it so that we will always have enough strength that regardless of what our potential opponents have, if they should Iaunch a surprise attack, we will be able to destroy their war-making capabilities. They must know in other words, that it's national suicide if they begin anything. We need this kind of strength because we are the guardians of the peace.

In addition to military strength, we need to see that the economy of this country continues to grow It has grown in the past seven years. It can, and will grow even more in the next four And the reason that it must grow even more is because we have things to do at home, and also because we are in a race for survival, a race in which it isn't enough to be ahead, it isn't
enough simply to be complacent, we have to move ahead in order to stay ahead. And that is why in this field, I have made recommendations which I am confident will move the American economy ahead, move it firmly and soundly so that there will never be a time when the Soviet Union will be able to challenge our superiority in this field.

And so we need military strength, we need economic strength, we also need the right diplomatic policies. What are they? Again, we turn to the past f firmness, but no belligerence, and by no belligerence I mean that we do not answer insult by insult. When you are proud and confident of your strength, you do not get down to the level of Mr. Anruchev and his colleagues,
and that example that President Eisenhower has set, we will continue to follow

But all this by itself is not enough. It's not enough for us simply to be the strongest nation militarily the strongest economically and also to have firm diplomacy we must have a great goal, and that is not just to keep freedom for ourselves, but to extend it to all the world. To extend it to all the world because that is America's destiny To extend it to all the world because the Communist aim is not to hold their own, but to extend Communism. And you cannot fight a victory for Communism or a strategy of victory for Communism with a strategy simply of holding the line. And so I say that we believe that our po1icies of military strength, of economic strength, of diplomatic firmness first will keep the peace, and keep it without surrender. We also be1ieve that in the great field of ideals, that we can lead America to the victory for freedom, victory in the new1y developing countries, victory also in the capita1ist countries, provided we have faith in ourselves, and faith in our principles.

**************

(John F. Kennedy)

Mr. Howe, Mr. Vice President. First, let me again try to correct the record on the matter of Keen W1liam Matchship. I voted for the Formosa resolution in 1955, I've sustained it since .then, I've said that I agreed with the Administration policies. Mr. Nixon earlier indicated that he would defend Keen William Matchship even if the attacks on these islands, two miles of the coast of China, would not be part of a general attack on the Formosa in the Prescadories. I indicated that I would defend those islands if the attack were directed against Prescadories and Formosa, which is part of the Eisenhower policy I've supported that policy In the last week, as a member of the Senate Formulations Committee, I've re-read the testimony of General Twinning, representing the Administration in 1959, and the Assistant Secretary of State before the Formulations Committee in 1958, and I've accurately described the Administration policy and I support it wholeheartedly So that really isn't an issue in this campaign. It isn't an issue if Mr. Nixon, who now says that he also supports the Eisenhower policy nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign.

The question is: are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative strength growing? Is, as Mr. Nixon said, our prestige at an all time high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communist at an all time low? I don't believe that it is. I don't believe that our relative strength is increasing. And I say that not as a Democratic standard-bearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States. I look at Cuba, ninety miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957, I was in Havana, I talked to the American ambassador there, he said that he was the second most powerful man in Cuba. And yet, even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around' Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last six weeks that in spite of their warnings to the American government, nothing was done.

Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any American looking at the situation in Latin America feel content with what's happening today? When a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil feels it's necessary to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but on Castro and Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil? At the American conference and Intra-Americas conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn't even get the Intra-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a vague statement that they finally made. Do you know today that the Russians broadcast ten times as many programs in Spanish to Latin America as we do? Do you know we don't have a single program sponsored by our government to Cuba? To tell them our story to tell them that we are their friends, that we want them to be free again.

Africa is now the emerging area of the world. It contains twenty-five percent of all the members of the General Assembly We didn't even have a bureau of African Affairs until 1957. In the Africa south of the Sahara, which is the major new section, we have less students from all of Africa in that area studying under government auspices today than from the country of Thailand? If it's one thing that African countries needs, it's technical assistance, and yet last year, we gave them less than five per cent of all the technical assistance funds that we distributed around the world. We relied in the Middle East on the Baghdad Pact, and yet when the Iraqi government was changed, the Baghdad Pact broke down. We relied on the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East which passed the Senate. There isn't one country in the Middle East that now endorses the Eisenhower Doctrine.

We look to Asia, because the struggles in the under-developed world, which system, Communism or Freedom, will triumph in the next five or ten years. That's what should concern us, not the history of ten or fifteen or twenty years ago, but are we doing enough in these areas? What are freedom's chances in those areas. By 1965, 1970, will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independently countries of Africa, will there be others? Will the Congo government? Will other countries? Are we doing enough in that area? And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle, or is China going to win it? Who will dominate Asia in the next five or ten years: Communism, the Chinese, or will freedom? The question which we have to decide as Americans: are we doing enough today? Is our strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to follow the United States' leadership? I don't think they do enough, and that's what concerns me. 

In Africa, the countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the question of the admission of Red China, only two countries, in all of Africa, voted with usf Liberia and the
Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us. I believed that this struggle is going to go on and it might well be decided in the next decade. I've seen Cuba go to the Communists, I've seen Communism influence and Castro influence rise in Latin America, I've seen us ignored in Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations, there isn't a single American diplomatic representative in any one of those six. When Guinea became independent, the Soviet ambassador showed up that very day we didn't recognize them for two months, the American ambassador didn't show up for nearly eight months.

I believe that the world is changing fast, and I don't think this Administration has shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better The average income in some of those countries is 25 dollars a year The Communists say come with us, look what we have done. And we've been, on the whole, uninterested. I think we are going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about us being the strongest country in the world, I think we are today But we were far stronger relative to the Communists five years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in danger of moving with them. They made a break-through in missiles, and by 1961, 2, and 3, they will be out-numbering us in missiles. I am not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963. He talks about economic growth as a great indicator for freedom, I agree with him. What we do in this country the kind of society that we build, that will te1l whether freedom wil1 be sustained around the world, and yet in the last nine months of this year, we've had a drop in our economic growth rather than a gain. We had the lowest rate of increase in economic growth in the last nine months of any major industrialized society in the world.

I look up and see the Soviet flag on the moon. The fact is that the State Department polls on our prestige and influence around the world has shown such a sharp drop that up until now the State Department has been unwilling to release them, and yet they were polled by the USA. The point of all this ist this is a struggle in which we are engaged. We want peace, we want freedom, we want security we want to be stronger, we want freedom to gain. But I don't believe that in these changing and revolutionary times, this Administration has known that the world is changing, has identified itself with that change. I think the Communist has been moving with vigor Laos, Africa, Cuba, all around the world, they are on the move. I think we have to revitalize our society I think we have to demonstrate to the people of the world that we are determined in this free country of ours to be first, not first if, not first but, not first when, but first. And when we are strong, and we are first, then freedom gains, then the prospect for peace increase, and the prospect for our prosperity gain.

1960年，参议员约翰·肯尼迪和副总统理查德·尼克松都非常成切地进行了总统竞选，但前者的四次电视辩论助了他一臂之力。最终43岁的肯尼迪以微弱多数，击败尼克松，成为美国最年轻也是第一位罗马天主教总统。

豪先生（艾森豪威尔）、肯尼迪参议员、美国同胞们：

在这场竞选开始之前，我有一个难得的特权：我曾经游历了五十个州中的四十八个，在我的行程中，我了解了美国人民的所思所想。有一个问题特别突出，它与每一个美国人都息息相关，不论他属于哪一个团体，不论他住在什么地方。这个问题，最简单地说就是：我们如何不需投降就能维护和平？我们如何不经战争就能传播自由？

为了决定如何解决它，我们必须先回答一个简单而又重要的问题：谁在威胁着和平？谁在威胁着世界的自由？……。我认识赫鲁晓夫先生，也曾有机会结识和会见其他的一些共产党领导……。

首先，我们必须吸取前车之鉴，因为我们再也犯不起过去的那些错误了。在现政府掌权华盛顿之前的七年里，有六亿人拥护铁幕政策，最后，我们卷入朝鲜战争，三万美国人为之丧命。在过去的七年里，艾森豪威尔总统的政府扭转了这一局面。我们结束了朝鲜战争。在坚定有力的领导下，我们避免了其他战争，谈判桌上也没有在原则和土地上让步。

为什么我们现在成功了，而我们的前任却做不到呢？我想这包括几点原因。……。他们由此造成的错误之一就是导致朝鲜战争的爆发。为了摧毁朝鲜方面的抵抗，他们采取进攻策略，他们以为很快就会实现和平，但却带来了战争。

我们已经从他们的失误中吸取了教训，所以在这七年中，我们的外加政策强硬起来。我们决不会无条件地让步。在裁军问题和其他领域上，我们总是摆出希望深入谈判的姿态，但决不以放弃世界上任何一地的自由为代价去做任何一件事情。因此，在巴黎会议上，艾森豪威尔总统没有象肯尼迪参议员建议的那样向赫鲁晓夫先生道歉或表示遗憾，他是正确的；……。

　　……。所以我说，历史证明，我们懂得如何去维护和平，并且不需要投降。现在我们来谈未来的事。

　　因此，我认为，在六十年代，美国必须各方面都有进展，首先，尽管正如肯尼迪参议员所承认的那样，我们是世界头号军事大国，我们仍需要增强实力，只有增强实力才能令我们有足够的力量傲视所有潜在的敌人。如果他们企图发动突然袭击，我们就有能够摧毁他们发动战争的能力，换句话说，他们必须知道，如果他们
有所动作，那无异于民族自焚。我们需要这方面的力量，因为我们是和平的卫士。

除军事力量外，我们还需要保证国家经济持续发展。在过去七年中，它已经增长了。在今后的四年中，它能够，也必项增长得更快，既因为我们要在本土有所作为，又因为我们要在竞争中求生存。在这场竞争中，处于领先地位并不够，仅仅满足了自己也不够，我们必须领先发展以保持领先地位。为此，我在这方面提出了一系列建议，确信它能把美国经济推向前进，使之稳步而合理地发展、让苏联在经济上没有挑战我们超级大国地位的机会。

我们需要军事力量，我们需要经济力量，我们还需要正确的外交政策。什么是正确的外交政策？让我们再一次重温过去，那就是强硬而不好战。“不好战”的意思是指我们不会以暴抗暴。当你对自己的力量充满信心、感到骄傲时，你就不会降至到赫鲁晓夫及其同党的水平。艾森豪威尔总统已经做了榜样，我们将继续这样做下去。

　　不过，仅仅这样并不够，仅仅成为头号军事强国、头号经济大国，同时有强硬的外交政策并不够，我们必须有一个伟人的目标，就是：不仅自己把握自由，还要把它推广到全世界。美国命中注定要来完成这项任务。

　　……我们有理由相信，我们关于军事力量、关于经济力量、关于强硬外交的政策首先能保证我们能毫不屈服地维护和平；我们还相信，有伟大的理想，我们就能领导美国在自由之途上赢得胜利，在新的发展中国家中取得胜利，也在资本主义国家中取得胜利。我们对自己有信心，对我们的政策有信心。

************

约翰·肯尼迪

豪先生、副总统先生：首先，让我在关于Keen William Matchship的问题上澄清一下。……。我支持这一政策。上个星期，作为参议院立法委员会的一员，我重读了敦宁将军1959年代表政府的陈辞，以及国家助理秘书1958年在立法委员会前的发言，我能精确地描述政府的政策，并且全心全意地支持它。所以，这真的不能成其为本次竞选的一个议题，如果正如尼克松先生现在所说的，他也支持艾森豪威尔政府的政策的话。此外，所有的美国人都渴望和平与安全，这也不能成为本次竞选的议题。

问题在于：我们是否正在向和平与安全迈进？我们的相对力量正在增长吗？是否如尼克松先生所说，我们的声望正前所未有的高？又如他一星期前所说，……？我不以为然。我也不相信我们的相关力量正在增长。这番话我并不是以一个民主党人的身分说的，而是以一个关心美国的美国公民的身分说的。看看古巴，它离美国沿海仅九十英里。1957年，我正在哈瓦那，与美国大使交谈，他说，他是古巴的第二号人物。然而，尽管两位共和党的大使：史密斯大使和加德内大使都就卡斯特罗、卡斯特罗周围的马克思主义影响以及卡斯特罗周围的共产主义影响对美国政府提出了警告，但六个星期以来，已经证明收到了警告的美国政府毫无动作。

我们的安全维系在拉丁美洲身上。有哪位美国人能看着今天在拉美发生的一切而感到高兴的吗？—一巴西的一位总统候选人在竞选期间认为有必要访问一下卡斯特罗和哈瓦那，而不是华盛顿，因为他想得到在巴西的卡斯特罗的拥护者的选票。今年夏天，在美洲会议和泛美会议上，我们希望他们能联合起来谴责卡斯特罗和古巴共产党，而我们竟连泛美集团的联会谴责都没有实现，最终形成了一个相当暧昧的宣言。你知道吗，现在苏联用西班牙语对拉丁美洲的广播节目是我们的十倍；你知道吗，我们没有一个由政府资助的对古巴的节目。我们不能对他们描述我们的生活，不能对他们说我们是他们的朋友，我们希望他们再次得到自由。

非洲是世界上正在展露头角的地区。它在全体大会的所有成员中占了百分之二十五，而在1957年以前我们还没有一个负责非洲事务的机构。非洲撒哈拉以南是主要的新兴地带。而现在我们在那一整个地区由政府资助的学生竟不如来自泰国的学生多。如果说非洲国家现在需要什么，那就是技术援助，而去年，我们给它们的技术援助资金还不到拨给全球的百分之五。在中东，我们依赖有《巴格达协定》，但伊拉克政府变更后，撕毁了《巴格达协定》。我们信奉关于中东的艾森豪威尔信条，并在参议院通过了它，但至今没有一个中东国家认可它。

再看看亚洲，在不发达世界进行的斗争将在未来的五年或十年中取得胜利，不管其体制是共产主义还是自由主义。我们应该注意的，不是过去十年或十五年或二十年的历史，而是我们在这些地区做得够不够？这些地区获得自由的契机是什么？到了1965年，1970年，拉丁美洲还会出现另一个古巴吗？作为非洲新兴的独立国家，几内亚和加纳频繁地赞同共产党，还会有其他的吗？刚果政府呢？其他国家呢？我们在这些地区做得够了吗？亚洲呢？在经济大战中，是印度还是中国会赢得胜利？谁将在未来的五年或十年中统治亚洲，共产主义、中国人还是自由？作为美国人，我们要考虑的是：今天我们做得够了吗？我们的力量和声望正在上升吗？人们想和我们一样吗？他们想听从美国的领导吗？我并不认为他们很希望如此，这让我忧心忡忡。

在关于接纳红色中国的问题上，非洲新加入联合国的国家中，只有两个国家，整个非洲只有两个国家赞同我们：利比里亚和南非。其他的不是弃权就是反对我们。亚洲大部分国家在这一问题上对我们。我相信这一对抗还将会持续下去，并可能在下一个十年中得出结果。我已经看到古巴转向共产党，我已经看到共产主义的影响和卡斯特罗的影响在拉美日渐增强，我已经看到我们在非洲被忽视。非洲有六个国家是联合国的成员国，但这六个国家中没有一个派有驻美的外交代表。从几内亚独立的那天起，苏联大使就出面了，而我们说忽视了他们长达两个月之久，美国大使在八个月之后才露面。

我相信这个世界日新月异，而本届政府并没有显示出应有的远见，应有的常识，不能看出这些人民正以伟大的战争来换取自由。换取更好的生活水平，过上好日子。其中的一些国家的人是25美元。……。我想我们将要做得更好。尼克松先生论及我们是世界上最强大的国家，我想今天是这样的。……。他们在导弹方面已经取得突破，到了1961或62、63年，他们的导弹数量将超出我们。我无法象尼克松先生那样自信到1963年我们将成为头号军事强国，他论及经济增长是自由的一个有力的显示器，我同意。从我们在这个国家所作的一切，从我们建立起的这个类型的社会，就可知自由是否将在这个世界上永存。但在今年过去的九个月中，我们的经济发展下降了而不是增长了。在世界所有主要工业国的经济增长率中，我们的最低。

我抬头看见苏联的国旗在月球上飘扬、国务院民意调查显示，美国的声望及影响力明显下降，而国务院一直不愿意公布这些结果。所以又有新闻署的调查。关键是：我们卷入了这场斗争，我们渴望和平，我们渴望自由，我们渴望安全，我们渴望强大，我们渴望赢得自由。但是，在这个变动与革命的时代，我认为本届政府并没有意识到世界在变，没有使自己与转变同步。而共产党正在充满活力地向前进发。老挝、非洲、古巴、整个世界、他们都在前进。我觉得我们的社会需要新生。我们必须向全世界的人证明我们决心让我们的自由国度毫无保留、毫无条件地成为第一。当我们变得强大、当我们成为第一，自由就会到来，和平的景象就会出现、我们繁荣的景象就会成真。