August 2003

We Don't Need a Draft, We Need a National Service Requirement. One That Pays.

"It's important to make all 18-25 year olds do something important with their lives before they become tired and bitter like us." - Godzilla and Grandpa

Occasionally, in the months preceding "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the subject of a military draft would come up in conversation on TEEvee or on radio. We were all, like, "Whatever!" The involuntary draft was, and is, a bad idea. Forcing young men in their youth to serve in the military against their will is a lose-lose situation. On the one hand, people uninterested in fighting are forced to do so, which is not always conducive to a strong military force. And on the other hand, the rich and influential will keep their kids out of the military, making soldiering a poor-man's burden (see Vietnam as opposed to WWII.) The draft as it was- a terrible idea. The idea of mandatory service to your country, however, is very good- even here in the free-loading United States..

Our proposal, which is neither new or entirely original, is to create a universal "National Service" requirement for all eligible, young, Americans (men/women, 18-25.) Of course, it would not be volunteer- thus the participants would be compensated for their time. Like Jury Duty, but better. Although we like the idea of a National Service requirement, we know that many would balk at the idea for various reasons. We hope that some of the minutia of our plan can offset knee-jerk opposition to it.

First, we propose that each person be required to serve in the program for one whole year (12 months) or four summers (to accommodate the college students) between their 18th and 25th birthday. One year, at that time in their lives, may seem like a lot, but Grandpa's suggestion of two years would have been comparatively worse.

In order for this plan to accommodate the tremendous variety of people forced to work in this system, the service would not be isolated in one federal agency. Each person would be able to choose from a variety of federal, state and local agencies participating in the program. (We know that modern government-speak prefers the word 'initiative' in place of 'program,' but that is stupid. We prefer to use the right word in this case rather than be jerks and use the wrong one.)

We support the variety of this idea because a lack thereof would be a major pitfall. In this plan, the agencies would be required to compete against each other for the participants and the federal dollars. Each man and woman would be paid from a central federal fund, dispensed to the agency the respective youths serve with. For example, the Colorado State Parks Department could add an additional monetary benefit to serving with them, thereby generating the maximum number of applicants.

By including state and local agencies in the program, newly-minted citizens can choose to work near their college, parents, or with their friends. For those people not attending college, the opportunity would arise for them to work at a job they would not otherwise have access to in their home town.

Also, by allowing the program to be managed at a state and local level, it naturally prevents the Department of National Service to become much more than a small, money dispensing agency. The states would be responsible for the management and oversight of the specific programs and their people. What's more, the federal agencies participating in the program (Armed Services, Park Service, SEC, etc.) would only be adding to their employee base, not creating more government, per se.

So that is how a National Service Plan could work. But what about the question of why? Why would America want to do this, other than out of a misguided effort to make our kids pick up our trash off highway medians? Well, first of all, we're not talking about chain gangs. We're talking about pointing the youth of America towards Jefferson's ideal of an informed electorate. One doesn't fully appreaciate the community they live in until they truly have a stake in it- and an investment of time is the most valuable thing a young adult has to give. Oh, and all that energy.

Of course, there's one tremendous problem with this idea- that of mandating people into service. Just as we would resent having to fight a war we don't believe in, we could see than people would resent having to serve their nation in any way. After all, Americans value their right to not care these days. This is why something like AmeriCorps is such a great start to the idea of National Service. As a back-up plan, we would propose that people who serve their nation for two years, whether it be in the military or fighting poverty be sent to college for free. For four years. What better way to show that bettering your community betters everyone?

The ultimate benefits from this program, as we see it, are many. First of all, each American, after the program matures, would have a common experience of service-to-their-country, making being an American a more unique and rewarding life. Second, it would guarantee a lower level of unemployment in this country, and raise the number of experienced workers among those opting against attending college, thus opening up greater opportunities for every young man and woman from anywhere. Third, by introducing every agency to a maximum number of potential employees, federal, state, and local agencies would become better staffed, and more efficient. And, of course, this would lessen the rather constant complaining about government and give people a chance to do something about it. After all, our rights come with responsibility as well.

Lastly, and on a more philosophical level, Americans would all know the benefits of working for their country. Whether you serve in the Air National Guard or the State Lottery, one will have been introduced to part of the machinery of a thriving and potent country. To us, the idea is long past due.