(9 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
Lately, there is a lot of talk going on about “national service”. Ok, so, it’s not new. President Obama said this back in December 2007:
MT. VERNON, Iowa – Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday advocated a major expansion of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other national service programs, saying “This will be a cause of my presidency.”
The Illinois senator said that the government is not keeping pace with those who want to serve. “We will create new opportunities for all of us to serve,” he said at a rally at Cornell College.
Obama evoked the memory of President John F. Kennedy and his Peace Corps volunteers. “JFK made their service a bridge to the developing world,” he said.
So, what is prompting this essay? Well, it’s a bit convoluted…
I read this article by Laurence Leamer and within the article is this passage:
As Harvard University political philosopher Michael Sandel told Thomas Friedman in his column the day after the historic election: “The biggest applause line in his stump speech was the one that said every American will have a chance to go to college provided he or she performs a period of national service — in the military, in the Peace Corps or in the community. Obama’s campaign tapped a dormant civic idealism, a hunger among Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves, a yearning to be citizens again.”
It is the words spoken by Michael Sandel that caused my consternation. Obama tapped people’s desire to serve, to be “citizens again”?
President Obama did a lot of things during his campaign. I would cite the two most important things Sen. Obama did during his campaign were speaking in complete, coherent sentences, and not being a Republican. But, tapped into an ideal that people wish to be citizens again? When did I stop being a citizen?
Mr. Leamer ends his article with; “We are ready, Mr. President, ready for you to lead us.”
Yes we are. We are ready for a Democratic President to lead us out of the economic, military and moral nightmares created by George W. Bush and the GOP. But, ready for President Obama to “lead us” back into being “citizens again”? Not so much.
There are 3 ways a person becomes an American citizen naturally; by birth in the United States, by birth outside of the United States where both parents are American citizens, by birth outside of the United States where one parent is an American citizen (with further restrictions). A non-American citizen can become an American citizen by naturalization procedures, as well. So, as an American citizen already by birth, when did I stop being a citizen in Mr. Sandel and Mr. Leamer’s eyes?
This isn’t so much about citizens serving their country, as it is this mentality that, somehow, citizens need to serve our country in today’s age.
Do we need to require, or even ask, citizens to serve in our armed forces? Outside of a war that drains our military (think Iraq/Afghanistan here), no. This was one of the Democratic Party’s failings; when President Bush invaded Iraq, the Democratic Party should have pushed for a draft. Because it wasn’t politically expedient to ask, when the war started, for a military draft so that everyone could share in the sacrifice, we now have veterans who have served so many tours in the Middle East they are broken physically and mentally. But, even now, with the economy down, military recruitment is again up. There will always be those who are poorest among us all but forced into military servitude due to lack of any other options available to them. That is simply a fact of life, right or wrong.
Do we need to require, or even ask, citizens to serve in project building? Outside of major national disasters, no. It hasn’t been that people aren’t available, even willing, to work to rebuild roads, bridges, or repair other infrastructure, it is that the funding has never been there to do it properly.
The fact is, America is no longer a nation who has those needs even with a national unemployment rate of 7.2%. While Jerome and bonddad have their disagreement on TARP and who is right, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize both are right and both have still drawn the wrong conclusion.
When the economy tanked, it was foreseeable that banks would freeze their own capital and not lend it out, thus, freezing the system. That is what the TARP funds were for; to give the banks extra money and let them use that infusion of money to unfreeze the lending. It wasn’t the infusion of capital that was the problem; it was that the banks then used that infusion of funds in ways other than intended without consequence. So, yes, the funds were necessary, and, yes, it did become simply a $700 billion dollar heist from our treasury.
As noted elsewhere, it isn’t that American’s aren’t simply spending; it is that they have nothing to spend. They are broke. All of their resources tapped out. The “trickle-down” theory sold to poor idiots so the rich could get richer doesn’t, and hasn’t, worked. The rich simply got richer while the poor stayed poor, but, in the past, families had disposable income. Today, they don’t. Wages have stagnated to the point while inflation rose, to the point there is no longer any disposable income.
I don’t need to sacrifice for my country today to be a “citizen again”. What I need is a government that is not beholden to the rich at the expense of the rest of the 99% of the nation. I am a citizen already and have been one. It is my government that is no longer fulfilling it’s promised role; to be a government by the people, of the people, for the people.
So, while people like Mr. Leamer and Mr. Sandel may wish to harken these times to the days of old, when America needed its citizens to sacrifice there time so that the nation could grow and expand, I prefer if people would harken back to the days when our government actually performed its duties to the citizen.
13 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
…agree and disagree. On one hand, the US has a genuine economy of abundance. The idea that people should need a job in order to have eats and sleep and a chance at education is incredibly moralistic, and not in a good way.
On the other hand, people feel far more invested in institutions where they’ve made an active contribution. And, arguably, if we still had draft, we might not have Iraq to deal with at all.
What I find kind of icky about the national service and “day of service” meme is that without real government programs to help the poorest and least powerful, it is just a gentler, kinder version of papa Bush’s “thousand points of light”. You get to feel good, like you’ve done your bit, and this is somehow anodyne to the fact grandma can’t get chemo.
a two way street. Being a good citizen means to me to promote the common good to work for more then just personal enrichment at the expense of others in both my community and the world at large. When he says sacrifice I think he is talking about changing our purpose, not living in a screw you I got mine culture. I also feel that part of being a good citizen means not just participating in electoral politics but being part of the process of making the government accountable, of being heard. I see what he is up against and the best way for me is to work to push the government into being accountable and to move the center to a place that is not driven by the rich and the pols. Obama has to pick up where this left off he has no choice. You start where you are and it’s the process that must involve ‘we the people…’
I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who coined the term reeks n wrecks, the Reclaimation and Restoration Corps. Another future dystopia novel.
Still say they deliberatly tanked the economy to further advance the cause of globalism, which brought us economic collapse in the first place.
But I do not agree with the whole of it!
Many things have happened to Americans over these past eight years, over which they had no control. Their companies folded, or thousands were laid off — with no unilateral jobs available to them. Those people joined the ranks of the “unemployed” — and, despite what has been said over these past eight years, the stories of these “unemployed” have NOT been told, for the most part. Unemployment only provides people with six months’ of unemployment (not enough to pay bills) to look for jobs and find jobs. Usually, it just doesn’t happen in that time frame and so these people are effectively off of the unemployment statistics, because they disappear from the scene after six months. Of course, if you don’t have a job, it’s difficult to pay your mortgage and other necessities — duh! And, once that happens, creditors, in their benevolent fashion, up the ante to 20%, even 25% interest for those in arrears. It’s an impossible situation. What happens to these people? Whole families have ended up “homeless,” or they take menial jobs that in no way can satisfy their necessities or indebtedness — it becomes a downward spiral. They have no medical insurance and can barely make ends meet under any circumstances — what services would you like them to perform? (On that point, I agree with you!) But, that is not the point here — the purpose of having people get out and join in groups to do this and that is MORE an effort to have people become involved, become involved with each other — their lives, their needs, etc.
Who deregulated banks, investment companies, etc. from any kind of ethical and moral behavior and guidelines for such? Who?
As to “nationalization” of the banking system? Well, I definitely have very mixed feelings about that! Essentially, that is, without calling it such, what Bush attempted to do. But that effort was not to benefit you at all, to the contrary! Herein, lies the dangers of “nationalization” of banks, investment companies, etc. While I agree that there SHOULD be rules and regulations that they must adhere to, I’m not sure I agree with the notion of “nationalization.” simply, (and, as a lesson) by what Bush has demonstrated. Confused?
O.K., here is a comment, which I posted elsewhere that explains my feelings on this:
I think that Obama (and Sandel) have it exactly right. We’ve seen whar 40 years of obsession with “me and my wants and my rights” has bought us. They are flipping the paradigm right over on its back and saying: let’s talk about duties and obligations for a change. This is the first society in history where the citizens talked constantly about “rights” with not a whisper of a word ever said about “duties” or “obligations.” It has created a sick, solipsistic, narcissistic citizenry, a citizenry from whom the endless, birds-nest cheeps of “Me! Me! Me! Me!” has reached deafening volume. It’s time for less dialogue about “our rights as citizens” and more dialogue about “our duties as citizens.”
They are not pushing these national-service concepts because they are “needed.” They’re pushing them because these are the means by which you inculcate a sense of shared duties and obligations, without which no healthy, committed society can be built or, having been built, survive.