The Time cover to the left caught my eye back in the Spring when it came out--the article's in it are well worth the read. The "national service" options proposed are compelling, with suggestions for volunteer possibilities similar to the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, but with different focuses--e.g., a green corps (volunteers focused on energy/environment issues); a health corps; a senior corps (of older/elderly folks helping out in myriad ways); etc. The presidential campaign began to focus on this issue with a September "National Service Forum," which both McCain and Obama participated in. I'll paste a video of it below, but here's a great quote from Obama during the forum that sums up some of why I think he would have it in him, above and beyond McCain, to call our nation to really give of themselves for a larger good (he was responding to a question about what he would've done after 9-11; the transcript is available here):
"I have to say that the president did rally the nation in a speech at Ground Zero and subsequently. We went after those who had attacked us, appropriately. But rather than tell the American people to shop, what I would have done is to say, now is the time for us to meet some great challenges. We’ve been tested. And yet we have survived it. And we are going to be stronger than we were. And the way we’re going to be stronger than we were is to tap into the feeling that everybody has been caught up in.
We’re going to have a bold energy plan that says that we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 or 30 percent over the course of a decade or two. We are going to ask all citizens to participate in that process, not just government, but each and every one of us are going to have — are going to make commitments in terms of increasing fuel efficiency in our cars and homes, and the government is going to be in partnership with citizens to make that happen.
We are going to tap into this desire when it comes to first responders. One of the striking things, as you travel around the country, is the number of small towns and medium-sized towns that rely exclusively on volunteer firefighters. And think about what we could have done all across the country as part of a homeland security initiative to organize groups around the country that could serve in those common ways.
And I would have asked very explicitly for young people to engage in community service and military service."
The question of course becomes, what
specifically would the candidates do to promote national service? You can see McCain's plan
here and Obama's
here; both are similar in ways, which I think hints at the consensus there is to actually make something happen on this front. I like a lot about both, but: Obama
was a community organizer; he did
give a speech explicitly on this subject (though McCain
approached the idea in past speeches too)
; and he also has a detailed nine-page PDF you can look at
here (which McCain
doesn't have anything close to right now). William A. Schambra, director of the conservative Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal,
said in July: "McCain is likely to have the strongest service component of any Republican in recent times...[but it] is not likely to be as expensive and sweeping as the Obama proposal. Obama has a very extensive program, has for a long time." (And I would take issue with anyone that does not think Obama's program is worth the investment, as we are financially able to.)
All of that makes me think Obama understands this issue in ways McCain does not. And while McCain of course understands military service in ways Obama doesn't
, the beauty of these national service initiatives is that it would create
many more ways, beyond simply militarily,
to serve our country. A quick story to illustrate the import of alternatives to the military: I have a friend who was considering enlisting because his college and related debt had become too much for him and because he thought it could provide entree into some good job opportunities. Think about that--we provide massive enlistment bonuses, as well as options like college tuition repayment, for the military, but for nothing else that I know of (to that degree). And we wonder why we are such a war/military-obsessed country, why gun violence plagues us, and why peace as a practical possibility is not talked about or pursued in meaningful ways by our people or our country. We need to give folks like my friend
more options
beyond the military to serve their country and the world, to develop job skills, to deal with, or pay for, college debt (
just as we do for those who join the military). The Peace Corps is not enough, AmeriCorps is not enough, and both, as Obama has so insightfully pointed out, have to turn
many away each year--don't we
want people,
particularly young people, to serve, to get the hell outside of themselves?! I know I could have used that, after high school and during my teenage years in general.
But one last point before I paste the Obama and McCain forum video, related to that idea of teenage-service opportunities. There's a section in
Obama's service plan PDF that focuses on the need for a "service-learning" surge. This especially sticks out to me because my mom, who is wonderful in so many ways, has been incorporating service into many of her college classes, and even teaches a course that is explicitly service-learning in nature (in the class they read numerous biographies of leaders such as Ghandi, King,
Sister Helen Prejean; they then go out and
serve their community for a certain number of hours). But, with Obama's plan, the introduction to his section on service-learning says:
"[Obama] believes that all students should serve their communities. Studies show that students who participate in service-learning programs do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and go to college, and are more likely to become active, engaged citizens...The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year. Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under their belts." As a teenager, that type of service would have
changed my world
real quick, period. Because of this type of nuanced (and detailed) solution from Obama, and for reasons I've posited in this blog (such as the
series of posts I did on the values of Obama), I think he is
uniquely equipped to provide
leadership to move our country into a
whole new era of service--not just service to the abstract idea of "country," but a selfless approach to service as a way to bring about a larger good for the many (opposed to the current prospering of the privileged few, as
"income inequality [grows] to levels not seen since the Gilded Age").
I'd encourage people to think about that idea of which of the candidates could lead on issues such as this as you watch this fairly in-depth forum with the candidates on national service from a few weeks ago (if you're able to take the time to do so); McCain went first, followed by Obama:
2 comments:
your military comments are a little infuriating. military does not have anything to do with the occurrence of gun violence. i would say there is actually less gun violence because of the military keeping us safe protecting our freedom. the military has proven to be a life changer for many people to get off the streets where there is real gun violence. and those who are risking their lives for the country deserve a bonus and the gi bill.
Why do you think it is the role of government to provide service opportunities?
Hi,
I hear what you're saying, and maybe i should have phrased that differently. I don't think that having a military necessitates gun violence, as there are of course lots of countries (in Europe i know for sure) that have a military but don't have gun violence; i also don't know that there's less gun violence as you suggest b/c of the military though. My point was more one about priorities--our country focuses so much more on the military, defense spending, etc. than it does on on alternate ways of national service, the teaching of conflict resolution and peace in our schools, etc. Those skewed priorities that in the end put human life too low on the list, are the reason more specific solutions to problems such as gun violence have not been realized; but i guess the way i wrote that wasn't clearly stated enough, so my apologies for that.
I think a lot of the options for service mentioned in this post, proposed by both candidates, are within a natural role for govt.; as i've said before on here, the govt is just uniquely situated to organize national initiatives--particularly with areas like this where so many agree that our people (young and old) need better options to serve and get acquainted with the hard realities of life.
Post a Comment