Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Four Freedoms

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress:

I address you, the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the union. I use the word “unprecedented” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.

Since the permanent formation of our government under the Constitution in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And, fortunately, only one of these -- the four-year war between the States -- ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, 130,000,000 Americans in 48 States have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often has been disturbed by events in other continents. We have even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition -- clear, definite opposition -- to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain nor any other nation was aiming at domination of the whole world.

And in like fashion, from 1815 to 1914 -- ninety-nine years -- no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this hemisphere. And the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength; it is still a friendly strength.

Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of pacification which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.

I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world -- assailed either by arms or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace. During 16 long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe and Asia, and Africa and Austral-Asia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceed the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere -- yes, many times over.

In times like these it is immature -- and, incidentally, untrue -- for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -- or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

As a nation we may take pride in the fact that we are soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement. We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.

I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war.

There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.

But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe -- particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years. The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes -- and great numbers of them are already here and in Latin America. As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive they, not we, will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. That is why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history. That is why every member of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility, great accountability. The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily -- almost exclusively -- to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time. In some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays. And in some cases -- and, I am sorry to say, very important cases -- we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.

The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results.

To give you two illustrations:

We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes. We are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.

We are ahead of schedule in building warships, but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule.

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, new shipways must first be constructed before the actual material begins to flow steadily and speedily from them.

The Congress of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.

New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.

I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower, but they do need billions of dollars’ worth of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons -- a loan to be repaid in dollars. I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. And nearly all of their material would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who, by their determined and heroic resistance, are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense.

For what we send abroad we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of many kinds which they can produce and which we need.

Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid -- Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.

And when the dictators -- if the dictators -- are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part.

They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance and therefore becomes an instrument of oppression. The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend on how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The nation's hands must not be tied when the nation's life is in danger.

Yes, and we must prepare, all of us prepare, to make the sacrifices that the emergency -- almost as serious as war itself -- demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense, in defense preparations of any kind, must give way to the national need.

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own group.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble-makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.

As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses and those behind them who build our defenses must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all the things worth fighting for.

The nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world. For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.

The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment -- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call. A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my budget message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today. No person should try, or be allowed to get rich out of the program, and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.

If the Congress maintains these principles the voters, putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks, will give you their applause.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

Why don't more Americans watch soccer?

Soccer might be the most popular sport in the world, but for decades, Americans have managed to resist its charm. Their attention has been focused, of course, on the big three American sports: baseball, football and basketball. And while soccer is rapidly gaining popularity among younger Americans, the older generation remains detached from the game, even when the rest of the world is glued to TV screens watching the 2006 World Cup matches. Now, with the luckless U.S. World Cup team booted out of this year's competition, soccer's uphill road to become an American sport seems steeper than ever.

It's not as though soccer is a stranger to American shores. The U.S. national soccer team played in the first World Cup in 1930. But from the start, the game had an image for many Americans as an immigrant sport. Still soccer began to attract more attention in the United States after the 1974 World Cup.

The following year, the country got its first professional soccer teams, with the launch of the North American Soccer League. The New York Cosmos became the league's flagship franchise when it acquired a stellar roster of players from 16 different countries, including the Brazilian soccer legend, Pele, the high-scoring Italian great, Georgio Chinagalia, and German superstar Franz Beckenbauer. By 1977, attendance at American soccer games had grown to a record 62,000.

Peppe Pinton, a veteran soccer player and the executive director of the Cosmos soccer camps, likes to recall those golden days when American fans packed the stadiums to watch some of the world's best soccer players - most of them playing on the same team. "Americans are used to watch winners," Pinton says. "Americans are used to watch superstars, great players in all sports, and they are not settling for inferiority. The Cosmos team was not successful in the early years, but it was successful when those players came here."

People lined up to get into the stadium like they would line up to get into a popular restaurant, Pinton says. "People attracted people. And the Cosmos made this happen all over the U.S," he says. "It drew record crowds in Seattle, in Miami, in Tampa, Boston, in Chicago and then they went all over the world. They went even into China when nobody was reaching to China those years."

But for 40 years, the U.S. was unable to qualify for World Cup games because most of the players on its soccer teams were not American citizens. Finally, in 1990, with enough home-grown or naturalized players on its rosters, the U.S. was able to field a World Cup team.

Peppe Pinton says the American victory in the first women's World Cup Championship in 1991 paved the way to a record attendance by American soccer fans when the U.S. hosted the 1994 World Cup games. "When the World Cup was here in 1994," he recalls, "you may recall,every single stadium was packed. So you see, Americans love events, number one. They do not like boredom and they love winners. So tomorrow, if I could assemble again the Cosmos, with Ronaldo, Raul, Zaidan, and I play at the Giant stadium any international team, I would pull 70,000 people to the Giants Stadium."

But the average U.S. soccer team today is NOT packed with superstars, and despite the growing interest American young people have shown in playing the game, pro soccer has simply not caught fire with a sports-obsessed American public. Even though the U.S. has qualified for the World Cup five times in a row since 1990 -- and even reached the quarterfinals in 2002 -- the poor performance by the U.S. team in Germany this year could set back efforts to boost the image and appeal of American soccer.


Peppe Pinton has a few ideas about how to make soccer a big-time sport in the United States. "It will take a stronger league," he says, "one that can play all year round. And we need to import stronger coaches. They are the teachers of the game, not people that are here just for the money, but because they understand that the job has to be done. And there has got to be a total organizational structure that every single [soccer] entity work together. It has got to be a strong unification among the organizations and hopefully they will bring more international stars to help the young Americans, and attract the fans to stadiums."

Peppe Pinton, like other American soccer advocates, points out that things are looking up. Soccer is already the fastest growing sport in the United States, and some experts predict it could rival American football, basketball, and baseball in... maybe 25 years?

In the meantime, soccer fans in this nation of immigrants don't need to feel too disappointed by the U.S. team's loss in the 2006 World Cup. They can vent their passions as expatriates, cheering on virtually every other World Cup team still playing in Germany this year!

NY attorney Margaret Burt to receive Juvenile Justice Award

Nora A. Jones

One New York attorney receives the Stephanie Kupferman Juvenile Justice Award each year from the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York. This year the honor goes to Margaret A. Burt, a founding member of the Greater Rochester Association for Women Attorneys and a dedicated advocate for juvenile justice. She will receive the award during the WBASNY annual convention on May 13.

This annual award was established in 1999 and named in honor of WBASNY member, Stephanie E. Kupferman. It is given each year to a WBASNY member who has shown outstanding achievement in legal matters involving juveniles over a period of three or more years, as a prosecutor, defense attorney or law guardian.

Since completing law school in 1979, Burt has devoted her legal career to helping children in virtually every arena of the juvenile legal system. From foster care, adoptions, child custody and child support, to juvenile delinquency, child abuse and child neglect cases, Burt has helped countless children and trained hundreds of colleagues in matters related to representing children. In 2004, she conducted training and workshops for private and government attorneys throughout the United States totaling nearly 150 training days.

While the late Justice Dolores Denman was alive, Burt was awarded the Presiding Justice Denman Award by the New York State Supreme Court, Fourth Appellate Department, for unique contributions to the standards of excellence in the representation of children. It is obvious that her dedication has not wavered as she continues to handle complex custody disputes, adoptions from foster care, and numerous legal proceedings in her solo practice, and makes time to lecture, write, and consult on juvenile justice matters. She also advocates for legislation to ensure protection and fair representation of minors.

In the letter nominating Burt for the Kupferman Award, her colleagues noted, Margaret's life-long work involves matters that are often demanding and painful and frequently have difficult outcomes. For this reason, it is not unusual for child welfare attorneys to burn out after a few years and move on to less stressful areas of the law. Margaret, however, persists. Her passion for protecting children has impelled her to keep fighting to remove children from untenable living situations and to give children a meaningful voice in the juvenile justice system.

The nomination goes on to state that Burt is also passionate about training young lawyers and advocates around the country to follow in her footsteps. As she has put it, when she teaches a young lawyer how to introduce a photograph of the burned hand of a child, or when she teaches experienced attorneys about 'shaken baby syndrome,' hundreds of children will be helped by her efforts.

Burt's Career

After earning a double degree (with distinction) in history and political science at the State University of New York at Fredonia, Burt attended the University at Buffalo School of Law, completing her degree in 1979. She was admitted to the New York bar in 1980 and worked for the Monroe County Public Defender's Office for eight years.

From 1980 to 1983, Burt represented criminal defendants on misdemeanors, felonies and violent felonies in all phases of criminal trial practice from arraignment and bail through motions, pleas and trial. From 1983 to 1988, she represented indigent parents in Monroe County Family Court cases involving child abuse and neglect, family violence offenses, custody, support and visitation.

In 1988, Burt became first deputy county attorney with the Monroe County Law Department. In this position she supervised 33 county employees who handled matters before Monroe County Family Court, including child neglect and abuse, foster care and adoption issues, juvenile delinquency, paternity and child support and termination of parental rights. Handling her own case load, Burt was also responsible for training her staff and participated in policy making for her division of county government.

Since 1992, Burt has conducted a private law practice, concentrating in trial and appellate work regarding child welfare. With much experience behind her, she handles child abuse and neglect matters as well as adoptions, parental rights terminations, custody and visitation cases. In 2004, she finalized over 70 children's adoptions from foster care.

Lectures And Training

Serving as a national lecturer and consultant, Burt has trained and written for the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law. She has helped to design and present training for specialized trial skills for child welfare attorneys. In addition, she has provided technical assistance and consultation to states and agencies on legislative issues and agency legal office management.

Since 1989, Burt has reviewed and provided commentary on virtually all pending New York State legislation relative to family court and other social services issues. She is directly involved in drafting and passing new child welfare legislation and she serves as a consultant to the New York Public Welfare Association.

The New York State University Research Foundation also calls upon Burt for guidance on child protective issues, permanency planning issues, and many related matters. She has trained caseworkers and foster care workers in basic and advanced programs relating to child protection.

Burt also works with family court judges across the state and trains law guardians in the Third and Fourth Appellate Departments.

So if you see Burt in the next few weeks, a tip of the hat or a round of applause might be in order to congratulate her on her expertise, stamina, optimism, enthusiasm and the impact those qualities have had on child welfare in New York in the last two decades.

Copyright 2005 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

Freedom and civil liberty are fast becoming the emperor's new clothes of our time

Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech represented another nail in the coffin in of individual freedom and civil liberty in this country. The extension of detention without charge legislation, from the current 28 days to something more like 56, reared its ugly head once again as many suspected it would. It strikes me that the freedoms which our security forces are trying to defend through the prevention of terrorism are being insidiously undermined by the very instruments of that defence and that if we do not take a stand now then these freedoms will be lost irretrievably.
And it is the Liberal Democrats alone, who offer that last bastion of resistance to these reforms. Nick Clegg has already stated his willingness to resist ID cards up to and including incarceration; whilst Vince Cable, yesterday, delivered a hammer blow to the logic behind extended detention when he pointed out that not a single case has collapsed to date due to the lack of time in which police and security forces currently have to gather evidence.


Even in Scotland, the SNP have nailed their colours to the mast by stating their commitment to expanding DNA retention legislation to ensure that it is retained for those who are arrested but not charged and for those under the age of 16. At present almost 150,000 children have records in the Government’s National DNA database. What kind of a future can someone construct for themselves knowing that misdemeanours in adolescence and childhood may have a bearing on their relative innocence in the eyes of the law for the rest of their life?


On detention without charge, DNA retention and ID cards, New Labour, is seeking to out gun the Tories on right wing agendas by designing the architecture of a very different kind of Britain. A Britain in which the principle of guilty until proven innocence will be turned on its head and every last one of us will end up having to submit our bio metric data, our identities and even our genetic coding for retention and analysis in the dark vaults of Government.

说服他人的心理术

　　在日常生活中，人们常常遇到这样一种情景：你在与别人争论某个问题，分明自己的观点是正确的，但就是不能说服对方，有时还会被对方“驳”得哑口无言。这是什么原因呢？

　　心理学家认为，要争取别人赞同自己的观点，光是观点正确还不够，还要掌握微妙的交往技术。心理学家经过研究，提出了许多增强说服力的方法，其中最基本的有六种。

　　1.利用“居家优势”

　　邻居家的一棵大树盘根错节，枝叶茂盛，遮住了你家后园菜地的阳光，你想与他商量一下这个问题，是应该到他家去呢，还是请他到你家来？

　　心理学家拉尔夫·泰勒等人曾经按支配能力（即影响别人的能力），把一群大学生分成上、中、下三等，然后各取一等组成一个小组，让他们讨论大学十个预算削减计划中哪一个最好。一半的小组在支配能力高的学生寝室里，一半在支配能力低的学生寝室里。泰勒发现，讨论的结果总是按照寝室主人的意见行事，即使主人是低支配力的学生。

　　由此可见，一个人在自己或自己熟悉的环境中比在别人的环境中更有说服力，在日常生活中应充分利用居家优势，如果不能在自己家中或办公室里讨论事情，也应尽量争取在中性环境中进行，这样对方也没有居家优势。

　　2.修饰仪表

　　你想上级在申请书上签字，你是不顾麻烦，精心修饰一下仪表呢，还是相信别人会听其言而不观其貌？

　　我们通常认为，自己受到别人的言谈比受到别人的外表的影响要大得多，其实并不尽然。我们会不自觉地以衣冠取人。有人通过实验证明，穿着打扮不同的人，寻求路人的帮助，那些仪表堂堂、有吸引力的人要比那些不修边幅的人有更多的成功可能。

　　3.使自己等同于对方

　　你试图鼓动一伙青年去清扫某块地方，而他们却情愿到别的地方去，你怎样引起他们的兴趣呢？

　　许多研究者发现，如果你试图改变某人的个人爱好，你越是使自己等同于他，你就越具有说服力。例如，一个优秀的推销员总是使自己的声调、音量、节奏与顾客相称。甚至身体姿势、呼吸等也无意识地与顾客一致。这是因为人类具有相信“自己人”的倾向。正如心理学家哈斯所说的：“一个造酒厂的老板可以告诉你为什么一种啤酒比另一种好，但你的朋友，不管是知识渊博的，还是学识疏浅的，却可能对你选择哪一种啤酒具有更大的影响。”

　　4.反映对方的感受

　　你准备拜访隔壁新搬来的一对夫妇，请他们为社区的某项工程募捐，用哪种方法最好呢？

　　平庸的劝说者是开门见山提出要求，结果发生争执，陷入僵局；而优秀的劝说者则首先建立信任和同情的气氛。如果主人为某事烦恼，你就说：“我理解你的心情，要是我，我也会这样。”这样就显示了对别人感情的尊重。以后谈话时，对方也会加以重视。

　　当然，优秀劝说者也不总是一帆风顺的。他也会遭到别人的反对。这时老练的劝说者往往会重新陈述对方的意见，承认它具有优点，然后才指出自己的意见更好，更全面。研究证明，在下结论前，呈示双方的观点，要比只讲自己的观点更有说服力。

　　5.提出有力的证据

　　你准备参加某次决策会议，为一项不为大家重视的事业争取更大的一笔钱款，什么样的证据最有说服力呢？

　　如果向听众提供可靠的资料而不是个人的看法，你就会增加说服力。但要记住，听众受到证据的影响，也相同程度地受到证据来源的影响。在一项实验中，让两组被试听到关于没有处方是否可以卖抗阻胺片的争论，然后告诉一组被试说可以卖的证据来自《新英格兰生理和医学月刊》（这是虚构的），另一组则被告知证据来自一家流行画报。结果发现，第一组比第二组有更多的人赞成，没有处方也可以卖抗阻胺片。因此，引用权威更能消除听众的先入之见。

　　6.运用具体情节和事例

　　你刊登广告，推销某种药品，是把药品的成分、功能、用法详细介绍一番好呢？还是介绍某个患者使用后如何迅速痊愈的事例好呢？

　　优秀的劝说者都清楚地知道这样一点：个别具体化的事例和经验比概括的论证和一般原则更有说服力。因此，你要多卖掉药品，你就应酌情使用后面一种方法。在日常生活中，你要说服别人，你就应旁证博引，使用具体的例子，而不一味空洞说教。

　　总之，说服别人，赢得赞同的能力并不是神秘的天赋，通过学习一些社会交往技能（当然首先要观点正确），我们就可以增强自己言谈的说服力。为了坚信这一点，你不妨试一试。