Mandatory national service seems to be an alluring concept that curiously gains little traction, mired in public indifference and political inertia.
Apart from voluntary activities, like military service, Teach for America, AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, few other organizations promote a sense of citizenship—a form of consciousness that places allegiance to a higher calling above narcissism. Having served in the military, I’ve long wondered how my fellow Americans learn to serve something other than themselves.
I well realize that families promote values and morals. Parents serve as role models in demonstrating selfless service to their communities and nation. Patriotism and altruism begin in the home and religious institutions.
But, if families are shattered, thus minimizing role-modeling and wholesome expectations, what happens to the children seeking a way to healthy citizenship?
So, mandatory national service would seem to be a capital idea. Young (and maybe older) people would escape their comfort zones to find themselves working alongside people who come from different socioeconomic groups. It all sounds marvelous: our nation would benefit from the unifying forces of compulsory national service.
Drawbacks are many. Opponents point to the 13th Amendment that prohibits involuntary servitude of, in this case, young men and women. The US military is flourishing because its members are volunteers, not draftees conscripted into the Armed Forces. Young people sent to work in hospitals or national parks may be taking jobs away from others.
Simply, skeptics of mandatory national service wave the flag of liberty, as in free choice, to thwart execution of the idea.
One of the major opponents is Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Referring to a plethora of proposals over the years championing national service, he wrote in The American Conservative on August 9, 2019, “More often, they involve social engineering for ideological ends.”
Okay, how does the idea gain traction? The trick, I suppose, calls for incentives to volunteerism, the bedrock of our vibrant country. This conclusion is not terribly profound. It, however, raises the specter of hefty federal funding support.
In 1990, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, along with Arizona Senator John McCain, recommended using the National Guard model whereby 50,000 individuals would serve for between three and six years at an annual cost of $250 million as part of the Corporation for National Service. Mikulski’s plan would have paid an annual $3,000 stipend for part-time service.
Again, Bandow wrote in March 1990 about the Mikulski plan, “Indeed paying volunteers would preclude achievement of one of the most important goals of national service, the inner transformation of individuals. If people sign up essentially to moonlight, and their employers treat their free labor like most institutions treat free labor, it’s hard to see what values will be communicated.”
Incidentally, I wouldn’t consider incentive-ridden voluntary national service as welfare, as some do. I view it as vital national interest to boost citizenship in our divided, fractious country. I believe it must be apolitical, not open to political manipulation, as in using the volunteers to serve a president’s whim.
I don’t pretend that well-funded national service, perhaps available to college students seeking a fulfilling gap year, would be an easy sell on Capitol Hill. It’s often failed.
Bandow’s arguments so far have carried the day: let worthwhile volunteer activities evolve on their own, without government intervention or interference. However, I believe that federal participation is necessary if the national service is to have wide and deep enough reach across our country.
The time has come to strengthen, if not restore a sense of national unity and common purpose. The time has come to tear down barriers to civil discourse and useful community-building behavior.
We have many concerning and stubborn problems facing our country. Funding is not finite. Consensus is complicated.
If mandatory national service is infeasible, then a robust, funded voluntary program might be an answer.
Just a thought.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
jerry harris says
Howard … i’m 100% in favor. I served in the military when the draft was still in effect. and for a 17 year old brand fresh and new in the Army, my entire perspective changed. I saw that to be a citizen …. it carried an obligation and there was responsibilities that went along with being part of this country. I also meet a group of fellow soldiers that we’re brought up like me … didn’t think like me … but we had to work together …like a team, And lo and behold … it all came together. Our Country would greatly benefit from one year mandatory service for every person once they reached their 18th birthday. military service, peace corps, hospital help … some type of public service.
Richard Marks says
Howard, I join with Jerry, not just as a 17 year old kid/recruit (though in my case our U.S. Navy), but with him and with you equally committed in my belief that National Service is critically important to strengthening our democracy through shared sacrifice and commitment to protect the values and ideals upon which this country was founded. In fact, participation by all our citizens without exception could be the first time when we are really true to our declaration that all men are created equal by treating all equally in the requirement and exercise of a duty to serve our country and each other. Time and time again we witness the power of community during natural disasters when adversity binds people together as well the healing engendered after other tragedies befall families affected by violence in schools and neighborhoods. We can do better as a society by serving in any of the areas Jerry noted and many others as well.
Carl Widell says
Howard makes a strong case for national service. Ideally it would be mandatory – it’s the price one pays for the privilege of being an American. It might include serving in the Peace Corps, serving in rural hospitals if qualified, serving as teachers in inner cities, or serving in fixing up our National Parks. Young people would mix with people from diverse backgrounds and be exposed to regions of the country they have never seen. Of course military service would qualify. I learned a tremendous amount about my fellow citizens in the Marine Corps. The Greatest Generation was molded by serving together in WWII. Most never forgot the lessons they learned while serving their country.
Paul Cox says
Howard – great article. As you know I have worked with college admissions officers. I asked an admissions officer once about gap years and he said colleges are very enthusiastic about them. He said that his school admitted many international students, many of whom had been required by their country to do a year of service. He said it really improved the quality of the student. But he said it would never fly in this country. I asked him why and he said we are too competitive. Peer pressure pushes us to maintain a pace in the race for a diploma, a job and advancement in life.
I think this is an overall good for the country but it does drag in a large number of kids who would have better personal outcomes if they took a gap year.
I would propose a middle ground between you and Mr. Bandow from the Cato Institute. 3 things: 1) a modest increase in federal programs designed specifically for post high school students (including college kids who want to interrupt their college for a year) while additionally we should encourage civic organizations and religious institutions to put together qualified year long service programs as well. 2) Encourage colleges to create a formal program that gives additional weight to an applicant with a certificate of completion from a qualified program. They know the value of this and if it was uniformly applied it should be fair to all involved. 3) Our Federal Student Loan program is a disgrace. This is largely because it is not properly underwritten. A proper program for gap year kids could be a pilot for much needed reform of the federal student loan program. Specifically, it could start out offering loans at no interest but if the default rate grew to a number – say greater than 2%, then interest would start to be billed on all outstanding loans and from that point the interest rate would rise or decline based on the default rate. Then all the borrowers would have an interest in seeing their fellow students succeed. Colleges should have skin in the game too. Their eligibility for loans for their students should be effected by the performance of their graduates. Better performance, more loan availability. Reforms like this would make Mr. Bandow very happy, don’t you think? No compromise on personal liberty and more fiscal soundness in our government. It would make everything better in my mind – even Penn, if that is possible.