The National Service Movement
As anyone roughly under the age of 35 knows all too well, public/community service has become a significant badge of honor for up and coming do-gooders. If you wish to sit atop the youth hierarchy, it is no longer sufficient for you to get good grades and test scores, and be involved in a number of school activities. Now you must also be actively committed to some sort of public or community service, such as feeding the homeless, improving the environment, solving the ails of Africa, etc.
More recently politicians have gotten in on the act, and Jason Kuznicki wants our take. Barack Obama’s plan is laid out at length on his campaign website. Here’s a couple brief samples from a sizable list of proposals:
“Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year…”
“Obama will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year…”
“Obama will ensure that at least 25 percent of College Work-Study funds are used to support public service opportunities instead of jobs in dining halls and libraries.”
John McCain has not yet come out with a national service plan, but John Adler reports McCain is currently “studying options for national service” (the piece leaves little doubt that Adler believes he needs one). Even Charlie Rangle’s infamous National Service Act, which provides for a universal draft with two years service for virtually all persons aged 18-42, offers an out by defining civilian service in this way:
a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
Note that the bill links community service with national security, just as Barack Obama has done in previous speeches where he proposes a national service force “that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military.
Politicians are not trumpeting this movement on their own. On the heels of a Time magazine cover story titled “The Case for National Service”, Time will once again run an issue on the topic in coordination with a national bipartisan summit featuring numerous big corporate entities and high profile personalities. This summit will help train “Change Agents” in cooperation with “Change, Inc.”, as explained on its blog called ChangeWire. Sound familiar?
Volunteering for a good cause is something I think all of us can support. But government coordination and regulation of such volunteering brings a host of problems, particularly when the meaning of “good cause” carries differing definitions. Is assisting the local gay pride association a good cause? What about assisting the local Christian outreach organization? What about advocating for the little-known insect threatened by farming? Not every taxpayer funding such endeavors will agree on the definition of “good cause”.
Then there are the financial issues. If Barack really wants to fund community volunteers on a level that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military, the costs would be enormous. Even if we could all agree on such spending levels, the inefficiencies inherent in government regulation are bound to tie up otherwise useful resources.
This trend toward more government involvement in national service may be nothing more than a passing fad. But the potential exists for it to take root much like George Bush’s infatuation with “faith-based initiative” which now has its own federal agency and soaks up billions of tax dollars each year.
Lost in the discussion of all of these “volunteer” programs is the sad irony that many of them don’t involve volunteering at all. Through tax breaks and grants, Obama’s plan essentially pays people for service. At that point you’re no longer volunteering; you’re on contract with the federal government. Perhaps the worst irony is found in Rangel’s bill where avoiding the draft is permitted if one “volunteers” for national service. Volunteering? Heh.
7 Responses to “The National Service Movement”
You are mistaken. This isn’t about serving the public, this is about the public serving the government.
It is about doing good as defined by the government. No amount of effort or merit will count if the bureaus do not approve.
Next step, staple a cattle tag to your ear.
If such a plan is started it will also become corrupt like the draft did. Poor boys went to Nam, college boys stayed home, the sons of the rich or influential never had to serve although some did.
GWB got in the Air National Guard. Fair enough if he didn’t use influence. Al Gore went in the Army and got to Nam, not as a combat soldier – whether he was sheltered as a reporter is arguable. At least both went in.
You are mistaken. This isn’t about serving the public, this is about the public serving the government. It is about doing good as defined by the government. No amount of effort or merit will count if the bureaus do not approve.
I thought that this was Josh’s point (or one of them, anyway).
The value of “get a job and don’t be a drain on the taxpayer” as a community service shouldn’t be underestimated.
Karl:
Yes, that was one point, impressed volunteers are not volunteers. They are akin to captured soldiers.
Some who advocate national service have good intentions. They think of cheerful young people fixing the weak boards on the front porch and repairing the sagging picket fence.
What they will get is teen reeducation on the sins of America. And excursions of uniformed education teams visiting bookstores to see if the proper magazines and books are stocked. Then to churches, then to your home.
After induction and testing each volunteer will be assigned to the duties that most conflict with his/her personal and family beliefs. One humiliation after another will be forced upon the dissenter.
The most obstinate will repeat the program.
Minorities will get the better posts to compensate for centuries of unfairness.
The children of the rich and/or influential will study abroad or be otherwise exempt – probably by assignment to phantom jobs.
Later adjustments will make college entrance, future employment, and the right to vote depend upon one’s behavior in the program. The last won’t matter, votes won’t actually be counted for much longer.
National service is just another manifestation of the belief that an elite should direct all men so society will be ‘correct’.
What about the ‘not correct’ people? Well, most of them can be corrected, they just think wrong. And there are ways of making them think right. Ja!
Yes, that was one point, impressed volunteers are not volunteers.
Then in what way was Josh mistaken?
“Then in what way was Josh mistaken?”
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to ignore you. You are correct, he wasn’t mistaken. I withdraw the sentence.
I misinterpreted what he wrote to mean such government involvement was fraught with problems but wasn’t of itself not a public service.
Here is the passage that led to my error.
“Volunteering for a good cause is something I think all of us can support. But government coordination and regulation of such volunteering brings a host of problems, particularly when the meaning of “good cause” carries differing definitions.”
He is right. There will be a host of problems. And they do center around having government defining good causes. Causes not favored will be bad causes. And the host of problems will be settled as the government says.
He called the government volunteer programs a sad irony. That puzzled me. I didn’t think anyone was actually calling them volunteer programs.
The intent of advocates is avoid words that imply free and optional participation. They prefer words that imply moral obligations and a duty (to serve them).
Turns out the definition of “irony” has drifted and it no longer means much of anything.
Test. 7:39 was posted by K. For some reason Anonymous got the credit or blame.
I suppose that is how he became the most prolific writer in history.