« Specifics In '08! | Main | Eat Your Heart out, George Lakoff »
May 23, 2007
National Service
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
It looks like Medium John Edwards, at least on the campaign trail, is vaguely in favor of mandatory national service, though presumably allowing people fulfill their service requirements by joining a beefed up Americorps. This is the sort of issue that left-of-center types often have mixed feelings about, for reasons Kevin Drum outlined backwhen he was the Calpundit.
On the stump this strikes me as decent politics, as a way of promoting what you might call "national greatness liberalism". You could package it with a moratorium on base closings and support for ROTC at schools that cancelled it during the Vietnam era, and make a real Sistah Souljah moment out of it. Point out that it's bad for the nation to have an Army that doesn't match the demographics of America and encourage students at some Dirty Hippie school like Weslyan or Hampshire College to join the military. After all, if elites and the upper middle class knew more people who would be fighting in war, maybe they'd be less likely to support war.
As a policy, well, that's a bit different. Obviously the devil is in the details, but a number of democracies, notably Switzerland, Israel, and the Social Democratic Paradise of Denmark, have a mandatory service component and do just fine.
May 23, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I doubt that that a national service would be anything besides a universal pain-in-the-ass that accomplishes nothing, makes a whole segment of the population cranky, and costs a lot. Besides, national greatness is a crock.
In addition to that: I don't want to; I wouldn't be affected, unless it took in people in their middle twenties, but such a sentiment is enough for me to oppose imposing it upon the forthcoming generations. It was enough that I was dragged through the mandatory educational system four twelve years while I was considered a minor (I'm excluding high school, which I could've dropped out of, but didn't because that would've been foolish).
Posted by: Paludicola | May 23, 2007 10:37:03 AM
Israel is in a special situation, where maintaining a large military is necessary, under the current imperial political consensus, and probably for a decade or two after that. And even then, there are lavish exemptions for politically-favored groups (e.g., right-wing religious nuts).
The other countries haven't fought too many wars recently, I notice. Hmmmmm....
Posted by: Barry | May 23, 2007 10:40:20 AM
Any service must be military service. To include other forms of service is to create safe-havens for the wealthy. You will see the wealthy steered towards Amercorps. There must also be no exemptions for college, or anything but the most terrible of afflictions.
Palu, at this point there's very little difference in lifetime earnings between highschool dropouts and highschool graduates. For most people, those last few years are wasted ones as they won't be able to afford college anyway. I
Posted by: soullite | May 23, 2007 10:49:48 AM
I've always been a fan of national service ideas as long as they include military alternatives like Americorps. It would be great if the range of alternative options was fairly wide to allow people to volunteer in an area related to their eventual career.
Posted by: eriks | May 23, 2007 10:50:34 AM
Any service must be military service. To include other forms of service is to create safe-havens for the wealthy.
Not just that. The left whined about the draft in the sixties and wanted an all volunteer army. Now we have an all volunteer army and they are still whining. The meme is that it's still forced for economic reasons.
It's all a crock.
Soullite is correct in that conscription must be universal and it must be military. Any variation on this will not be as fair.
Bring back the draft!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 23, 2007 11:22:39 AM
package it with a moratorium on base closings and support for ROTC at schools that cancelled it during the Vietnam era, and make a real Sistah Souljah moment out of it. Point out that it's bad for the nation to have an Army that doesn't match the demographics of America and encourage students at some Dirty Hippie school like Weslyan or Hampshire College to join the military. After all, if elites and the upper middle class knew more people who would be fighting in war, maybe they'd be less likely to support war.
This has always struck me as one of the dumbest hobbyhorses of the "communitarian" "left" in the US -- an idea whose support among the under-25 population is precisely zero. Way to reel in the youth vote!
Reducing support for war by imposing mandatory military service makes as much sense as increasing support for universal health care by dumping plutonium in the drinking water.
Posted by: moron | May 23, 2007 11:25:56 AM
First of all, let me suggest that the phrase "medium John Edwards" is confusing. Unless that association was intentional?
A moratorium on base closings, in a vacuum, seems substantively bad. There obviously is a constituency for it and it just means the status quo, so it could easily be worth offering as a tradeoff for something good, but I'd treat it as something to be accepted rather than actively pushed for. Pork-barrel spending is pork-barrel spending.
As for the Army's demographics being unrepresentative of the rest of the country, I agree it's bad, but is it new? What would such a chart have looked like in 1968 or, say, 1993?
Sorry I don't have anything more substantive to say, but this seems like one of those issues which is emotional for tangential reasons, and I'm even more hesitant because, being 24, I'm unfamiliar with Vietnam, the biggest of those tangential reasons.
Posted by: Cyrus | May 23, 2007 11:29:03 AM
Neil sez: a number of democracies, notably Switzerland, Israel, and the Social Democratic Paradise of Denmark, have a mandatory service component and do just fine.
I guess you may feel that some early AM snark is appropriate, but I object to your characterization of Denmark as a 'Social Democratic Paradise'. I guess this could be characterized even more negatively (The People's Republic of Denmark?), but your words are the words of right wing ideologues. Social Democracy is not socialism, and it is not communism.
Your possible 'snark' about Denmark doesn't contribute to this discussion.
On the topic at hand, I also (with Fred, as unlikely is that may be) think that return to the military draft should be law, without possibility of exemption. Since this would affect such a small percentage of age-eligle persons (male and female), I also see values in requiring non-military national service for those not-selected for military service (but not as a user-selected way of avoiding military service). But that is moot, because neither form of required national service is anywhere near a practical political reality.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 23, 2007 11:43:18 AM
Any service must be military service. To include other forms of service is to create safe-havens for the wealthy.
No, it also creates safe havens for the poor that do not, in fact, wish to join the military, but believe they have no other out, because they are aggressively recruited by the military and the "voluntary" service organizations are not set up to make use of their contribution.
Posted by: BruceMcF | May 23, 2007 11:45:10 AM
Reducing support for war by imposing mandatory military service makes as much sense as increasing support for universal health care by dumping plutonium in the drinking water.The rationale is that, if you or your children are in harm's way and would be the ones being sent to fight, it would make you think a lot harder about the reasons of being sent.
The draft in Vietnam had too many 'exemptions' and 'deferments' (loopholes) and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew which branches of service to join to get out of going to SEA. (If you coundn't afford to sit in college for an extended time.)
This is NOT your grand-dad's National Guard today. Back then, they had mostly outdated/outmoded equipment that was unsuitable for actual combat. After Vietnam, they upgraded the Guard and Reserves with the latest and greatest (or at least more modern), making them much more attractive for deployment.
if Americorps (or the Peace Corps) is an option, it must be open equally, and NOT just a haven for the children of the influential.
Posted by: DaveE | May 23, 2007 11:55:18 AM
This is a fantastically shitty idea.
Posted by: Christmas | May 23, 2007 11:58:13 AM
I hear what folks are sayin' about making it military-only to keep the rich kids from copping out. But there's a whole lotta jobs that need doin' here that could be alternatives.
Health care's too expensive and there's a huge nursing shortage. Well then, I hear there's a whole lotta ass needs wipin' in the brain injuries units, that requires skill most people already have (or at least really, really ought to have learned by 18), and I dunno that any nursing unions would mind having interns to help them with said task. Is that an "out"?
My pie-in-the-sky conception of mandatory service is simply civil-service, which military service would be a subset of. And I wouldn't necessarily make it mandatory in the do-it-or-you're-doing-time sense, but there's a certain appeal to making it a Heinlinesque "Voting is for stakeholders, civil-service guarantees citizenship" kinda carrot...
Which runs right up against the wall of feasibility. Meh.
Posted by: chiggins | May 23, 2007 12:02:30 PM
So you do mandatory service or what happens exactly? You get fined? Imprisoned? I guess I'm missing the point of what this is supposed to accomplish.
Posted by: Ron | May 23, 2007 12:22:24 PM
Don't make it mandatory, but there are hundreds of thousands of public service jobs which need to be done, particularly for limited amounts of time. We've been travelling around the US, staying mostly on federal and state land, and so many jobs and services are being outsourced to private firms, including the operating of most NPS campgrounds in the western states. This is unbelievably bad, and is a step in the corporatization of public lands in the US.
We need a new CCC - to clear underbrush from national forests neglected for years by administrators too stupid or afraid to allow for controlled burns. We need new low-impact DoI and USDA-administered campgrounds, to handle the large seasonal crowds, despite the newly privatized "public" campgrounds won't be filled to capacity every weekday. We need trails to be maintained, or eradicated, based on the needs of the local wildlife, not just the hikers, ATV and snowmobilers.
There are so many time-specific jobs which could be handled by a volunteer "national service" corps. As far as these jobs being "easy outs" for the wealthy - really now, how much time have you spent in the backcountry of the US West, with no air conditioning, no shower, no Starbucks and no cell-phone service?
Posted by: MB Williams | May 23, 2007 12:23:30 PM
Cyrus: good point about "Medium John". I blame Atrios.
I don't know if the situation w/ the Army demographics is getting better or worse. It got somewhat closer to US demographics right after 9/11. But I think recent recruting classes are further: more rural, more working class, etc. Numerous studies have shown that family income is the best predictor of recruting rates.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 23, 2007 12:23:30 PM
Jim: I'm not trying to demean Denmark. I'm trying to point out that this policy is perfectly compatible with Social-Democratic governance.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 23, 2007 12:27:19 PM
Any type of mandatory service is un-American - whether it be conscription into the military or into a senior citizens center. We abolished indentured servitude, we abolished slavery, we abolished the draft, I see no need to bring any of these things back into a modern society.
On the other hand, full-ride college scholarships with a living stipend all tied to voluntary public service (military or otherwise) is decidedly American. Money for something is the American Way after all, and it would be a far better investment than a lot of the crap we currently invest in.
The wealthy will wriggle out of it, but something that should be obvious by now is that the wealthy will wriggle out of ANYTHING. That's part of being wealthy -- the ability to not do crap you don't want to do. The way to get the wealthy to go along is to make it obnoxiously shameful that anyone would even try to dodge out of it, even if they have the money to do so. I don't see that attitude cropping up in the US in any generation currently living, but if you want to force the wealthy to do something without using shame as a motivator, you had better be ready to take up arms and break out guillotines because the model you're looking at is the French Revolution.
Posted by: NonyNony | May 23, 2007 12:47:03 PM
Instead of mandatory national service with non-military options, we should eliminate the peace-time military altogether, and only have a military when we are in a declared war.
Posted by: Lukeness | May 23, 2007 12:49:21 PM
Considering that we live in a country and culture that practically worships children, and parents just barely require their own children to refrain from being complete monsters in public, it is hard to imagine a time when the US will actually ask our youth to do something meaningful and useful for a couple of years, and then make it mandatory. We already have parents who are quite viciously opposed to "forcing" their kids to learn science and history in school, lest it offend their delicate religious sensibilities - you think these parents will ever ask their kids to clean bedpans and change linens in a VA hospital? Hell no - and by the way little Braxton here's a brand new Wii to help you get over the trauma of even having to think about doing such terrible things, sweetie.
Posted by: sprocket | May 23, 2007 12:50:04 PM
Who says that national service should be visited only on the young? Suppose that six months were required every ten years, providing a modest salary and generous tax breaks. How would that change the political calculus?
Posted by: Jim M | May 23, 2007 1:14:51 PM
It seems that many who advocate National Servitude are 20-something policy analysts who did not serve in the Army. Since the Army is now accepting general volunteers up to age 34, I am curious as to why these analysts don't go out and sign up for 2 year themselves since they deem it so important to the heath of the Nation.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 23, 2007 1:18:21 PM
When I was between ages 18 and 25, I supported mandatory national service. Today, I still support it, but much less enthusiastically.
It might encourage citizenship and other virtues, and it might benefit the Country a lot. It would provide a lot more soldiers and service-members.
It would be expensive to run, and it contradicts our current attitude and culture. As I grew up, I realized that our National culture is not exactly the one I wanted. I also realized that we could only change it so much. Mandatory National Service is not the place where I would put my emphasis.
Also - the draft wasn't universal. Between the lottery system and the ability to get exemptions, a lot of people did not have to serve. Whatever we do, we should not bring that type of system back.
Posted by: MDtoMN | May 23, 2007 1:38:32 PM
Cranky - many people who advocate a tax increase do not send the IRS extra money. Many people who support a gas tax do not purchase gas as though it were taxed. Does that shock you? Let me explain - many policies are desirable if applicable to everyone, but one might choose not to take that course of action individually.
First, one more soldier doesn't make a huger difference, 100,000s more would. Second, many who support mandatory National Service believe it would change the culture and political calculus in ways that would make service more appealing. Third, doing service for 3 years would be a big career sacrifice if not everyone does it. If everyone does it, not so much of a sacrifice.
Posted by: MDtoMN | May 23, 2007 1:42:39 PM
Any type of mandatory service is un-American
Tell that to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
It seems that many who advocate National Servitude are 20-something policy analysts who did not serve in the Army.
Yeah, I do wonder about that. I don't think it should be limited to 18-19 or 18-22 year olds. Something like 18-25 or even 18-34 as the Army is today. Or, as someone suggested, six months every ten years, though that's even further into dorm-room bull-session material. I'm at least starting to "do my part", which I'll cover next week.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 23, 2007 1:44:24 PM
There's no point in talking about national service; it's a waste of everyone's time. The wealth class will never accept letting their children "waste" a couple of years of their lives in the Army or Americorps or whatever, and everybody with a brain (which obviously includes Edwards) knows it. I actually think it's a decent idea, but I get aggravated when I see it brought up, because it's so obviously unattainable. Look what happened when we still had a draft: the well-off made sure that deferments for education were available, so their children wouldn't have to serve. We need to pick our battles with the wealth class; getting some kind of national insurance past them is also going to be almost impossible, but that's where the resources need to be concentrated.
Posted by: beckya57 | May 23, 2007 1:52:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
