Funmurphys: the Blog

David Broder's Call For Service

David Broder is a sober, thoughtful pundit who rarely provkes a gut reaction in me. But his column about national service provoked one in me, and that amazing thing is that I'm still churning away days later when I have a chance to write about it.

I suppose what provoked the response was the root attitude towards people and liberty that incensed me so. National service is such a seductive proposal, and yet one so at odds with the notion of liberty for all that this nation was founded on. And Mr. Broder's tying it to the military echoes Edward Bellamy's great socialist novel, Looking Backward. Perhaps it was the way Broder wrapped socialism in the flag that I found so offensive.

David starts simply and appropriately enough, admiring the success and quality of our armed forces on Memorial Day. But that's not enough.

"It does not demean or dishonor them to suggest that this holiday is also a time to consider whether the ideal of national service, which they represent, should be extended to a much larger part of our population -- especially our young people."

So now we're going to take the all volunteer army, an army composed of people who are doing what they want, who are at liberty to fight for their country, and somehow that relates to compulsory service, people forced to unwillingly labor for others' ends. There are many service groups, here and abroad, that would lovingly support anyone who willingly wants to labor for his fellow man.

"But there is also a real cost to this country for indulging the notion among those who are entering adulthood that they have no obligation to their country.

...

But even acknowledging all of this, compared with any past generation of Americans and to any similar cohort of young people in the world, most American youths have extraordinary opportunities, because this country has decided rightly that they are the very best investment we can make.

Is it wrong to suggest that those who are the recipients of this national investment might be asked to give something back to their community and their country? I do not think so."

Ask away David, but do not tell. Is there anything stopping people from volunteering their time, talent, and energies for causes they think are worthwhile? None. So please, ask, exhort, implore, plead, beg, admonish all you want. But there is a big difference between reminded people how nice they have it, how they are but pygmies on the shoulders of giants, and forcing them to do what you think they should do -- that big difference is the difference between liberty and tyranny.

"Through the luck of history and through the decisions of their elders, no young Americans for three decades have been required to give up a period of their lives for military service. That exemption has nothing to do with their merits or their superior qualities. It is purely a matter of timing."

Um, David, the draft is a rarity, not a constant, and traditionally (in this country, anyway) has only been resorted to in times of war or more recently in times of cold war. And even then it wasn't universal.

But this is all warm and up throat clearing.

"Meanwhile, we know that large unmet needs abound in this society. In the past few months I have gone to briefings on reports documenting the looming staffing crises in nursing, in teaching, in a wide variety of social services and in the bureaucracies of state and federal government. In each of these fields, an aging workforce, often underpaid, is being forced to work beyond acceptable limits to meet the demands of this society. "

You've got to be kidding me. We need to force young people into involuntary servitude so that we'll have enough government bureaucrats? Say it ain't so, Dave. Actually, nobody is forced to work beyond acceptable limits to meet the demands of this society - you can always quit and do something else. But under national service, people will be forced to work, although not for the demands of society, but for the demands of David Broder. Perhaps we should handle this through the market, you know, where you pay people to do what you want. Why do we have to meet this looming shortage the soviet way? I don't recall it working so well for them.

"Meanwhile, each year at this time, hundreds of thousands of young men and women are graduating from colleges (where the cost of their education has been subsidized, directly or indirectly, by the public) and are being encouraged to pursue their careers, without much regard to their societal obligations. Those careers can be productive and fulfilling and often of great value to the nation. But the good that these young men and women (and their counterparts finishing high school, junior college and trade schools) could do if they all contributed a year of their lives at the outset of their careers is almost incalculable."

It isn't seemly for a man of David's age to drool over young people, but drool he does. Who decides what all these young people are going to do? David Broder? Society at large? Guess what, the market is how society at large determines the worth of people's contributions (see F.A. Hayek). Forced labor (or national service, same difference) is how a privileged few determine the worth of people's contributions. OK, can you tell that this is the truly maddening part? If all that matters is the good that youth could do if they contribute a year of their lives (of course, it isn't a contribution since that implies something voluntary which isn't what David is talking about), then why stop at one year. Wouldn't the good be twice as much if they were required to forgo two years. But let's not think small, let's go whole hog. Why not just force them to do good until they drop dead while still in the state's harness? Oh yeah, that's been tried and didn't work out so good.

Why don't we have all those people collecting social security staff government bureaucracies? Rather than demand that our youth give up a year of their lives for David's desire to do good, why don't we simply require that all those people collecting government money work for it? No doubt that would be awful and demeaning and unworkable; requiring college graduates to work for nothing but the honor of being an American would be ennobling and easy to administer.

"Especially at a time when vital home-front tasks are being shortchanged because of tight budgets, the wealth of talent and energy represented by our young people could make a huge difference if applied to the nation's needs."

So my choice is to raise taxes or send our children into involuntary servitude? Isn't there a third way?

"It would take the spirit of this holiday and give it real substance."

No, it would pervert the ideals that this country stands for, and defame the memory of those who died so that I and my children could live in freedom and be at liberty to pursue the aims that we think best. That's the whole crux of the matter - how do you organize your society. Do people create a better society by each individual working to the goals that they think are best; or do we force people to serve others. This country has demonstrated over the years that the first method creates the better society.