It’s not just compulsory military service that 18th Congressional District candidate Colleen Callahan was talking about in a recent debate. According to the Journal Star:
[Callahan] said she’s in favor of “drafting” citizens for some form of national service, be it military or not as a way to bolster patriotism and bolster America’s standing at home and abroad. […] Callahan said the idea of a draft for national service had not come up before in talks with her staff and she hadn’t formulated a plan.
In the future, she may want to bounce her ideas off her staff first before trying to make up policy on the spot during a debate. While national service is laudable, making it compulsory is the sticking point. Many people have argued against forcing our young people into mandatory service for their country (other than a military draft in war time, of course), for a variety of reasons:
- It drains service of its virtue. Michael Kinsley writing in Time Magazine last year had this to say about compulsory service:
So what would a plan for universal national service look like? It would be voluntary, not mandatory. Americans don’t like to be told what they have to do; many have argued that requiring service drains the gift of its virtue. It would be based on carrots, not sticks — “doing well by doing good,” as Benjamin Franklin, the true father of civic engagement, put it.
- It’s self-contradictory. Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute says:
Compulsory national service turns young people into temporary slaves in order to inculcate in their minds the opposite premise: that they have a duty to selflessly serve society. To justify such a policy on the grounds of promoting appreciation for freedom is perverse. To call it patriotic is obscene.
This is closely related to Kinsley’s point. How do you teach patriotism — “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it” — when, under this policy, one is forced unwillingly to sacrifice for it? It undermines the virtue you’re trying to teach.
- It’s a tax. Gary Becker, University of Chicago professor (economics) and Nobel laureate, argues that compulsory service is a “tax in kind, on the time of young persons, rather than a tax on income, wealth, or spending.” Also, it’s a “narrow-based” tax, only exacted on young people — those with “weak political power…compared to groups who benefit either directly or indirectly from such taxes.”
- It’s a cap on the earnings of young people. Becker goes on to say that, besides it being a bad tax, it’s “partly equivalent to a ceiling on the earnings of young people,” because young people could get a higher-paying job, but would be prohibited from doing so under a compulsory-service scenario. They would essentially be forced to work for lower wages for two years, which is pretty much equivalent to having a cap on their earnings for two years. That prompts Becker to ask, “would politicians or anyone else who advocate compulsory service call explicitly for such a ceiling? I very much doubt it!”
- It’s expensive. Someone should ask Callahan how she proposes to pay for this initiative. Richard Posner, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge and University of Chicago Law School lecturer, observed that:
If 4 million persons [the approximate number of Americans who turn 18 every year] were conscripted for one year’s national service, at an annual expense of $27,000 per person [the federal contribution to AmeriCorps volunteers, used as a benchmark], the program would cost more than $100 billion a year–probably much more, because the $27,000 figure excludes the overhead expenses of the service organizations that receive the per capita grants.
Callahan almost immediately started backing away from her comments, according to the Springfield Journal-Register.
Callahan said Thursday that the question put to the candidates a day earlier was merely hypothetical and that her answer was conditional.
“I’m not advocating it,” she said of a draft. “I wouldn’t introduce legislation that says that.” But, she added, “When I’m the congressman, if that came up for my vote, would I consider it? Yes.”
So, Schock wants to send nukes to Taiwan, and Callahan wants to reinstate the draft. We’ve got a couple of real winners here in the race.
To think of all the effort she put into ridiculing Mr. Schock for his Nukes to Taiwan statement. This must be the “comes around” that immediately follows the “What goes around”.
I would say the draft is more defensible than nukes to Taiwan. Her defense of and case for reinstating the draft is not what I would use. Still kind of baffling why she brought it up at all.
The problem with the draft is that EVERYONE is eligible. It is Democratic. The rich fat white guys in the east that like to send other people’s kids to war don’t like the idea and neither do the Republican “patriots” like Rush, Sean and Glenn Beck who talk a great game but never served their country for a minute.
… just like John McCain and Sarah Palin who….oops, never mind. Both have children serving in Iraq.
Joe Biden’s son is serving as well.
This for anyone left wondering whether the $15 fish dinner was a good investment.
Perhaps the saying we should keep in mind is:
You get what you pay for!
The list of Callahan’s critics blows my mind. From Becker in his ‘ivory’ tower, to Brook in his ‘matchstick’ tower…both excellent judges of the the condition of America’s youth today [HA!]. Would you expect anything else from either of these two yahoos?
I agree, CC could have/should have chosen her words MORE carefully. The same goes for uber- politician Schock [on more than one occasion].
Most, if not all nations where ‘service’ is compulsory benefit; as do the young men and women who serve. Of course this is not something the U.S. can just jump into.
Everyone speaks of the ‘cost’, but not about the benefit… as if all of our wayward youth do one of three things out of high school [if they finish high school]:
1.) Junior College 2.) University 3.) Pro Sports.
“Thanksgiving is a typically American holiday…The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production.”
Rather than make ‘service’ compulsory, how about making it an ‘ultimatum’?
Given the neo-conservative intent on basically running the world wouldn’t it behove them to greatly increase their military to do so since the current small situation in Iraq has already stretched the manpower issue to it’s breaking point? Now, I would exclude all middle to upper class white republicans due to the fact that they have proven time and again that they are types you want behind you on a college debate team but never backing you up a in a firefight due to their upbringing as soft non-agressive self-centered people. I wouldn’t want my back covered by some well versed nerd who’s never been in a fight in his life. Give me a ruthless thug every time.
Elias, you racist bigot. If someone said something half as nasty about non-white democrats you’d call them a hate monger, wouldn’t you.
Off topic: this line ….
Americans don’t like to be told what they have to do …
made me think of Hurricane Ike and the non-compliance of 100,000 or so people who did not like to be told to comply with the mandatory evacuation order…
their selfishness is not putting first responders in difficult situations which were not necessary. A waste of resources — people, money, equipment and supplies — you get the idea.
We live in a different time. Gratitude and giving back seem so old fashioned to many — rather what’s in it for me. Being of service, being grateful that you willingly can give service is very different that compelling people to be of service. My mom just to tell me — that a man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still.
I read a book about the Marine Corp and drill sargeants — a real eye-opener about morale and getting the job done when the standards were lowered for recruits — in one world — disaster.
“The problem with the draft is that EVERYONE is eligible. It is Democratic”
KCdad
No, KCdad, the problem with the draft is that it is involuntary servitude, which is (and should be) unconstitutional. The same goes for “national service,” which is all the rage in progressive (read:statist)circles these days. What is “liberal” about forcing a possibly unwilling person to fight and kill (or become cannon fodder)for the state? If the United States can’t find enough willing volunteers for its military, perhaps it needs to re-evaluate the wisdom and morality of its foreign policy. Ms. Callahan, we did away with the draft for a damn good reason, so give up already. Rehashing bad old ideas is a good way to increase the percentage of Americans who just say no to voting.
“…the problem with the draft is that it is involuntary servitude, which is (and should be) unconstitutional. The same goes for “national service,” which is all the rage in progressive circles these days…”
– Maybe if we set military draft [service] aside for a moment. We should consider that before ANYTHING like a ‘National Service’ plan be implemented, there would have to be some hard planning.
One-two year national, state, or even local level service is not going to break anyone’s back. Like I said earlier, if every [graduating] high school student went on to be a PRODUCTIVE member of society, fine. The number of people who go on to be a drain [financial or otherwise] SHOULD be made to give back.
The number of college students who sit there in a daze and stupor, fully expecting [a barely earned] college degree to land them six-figures is amazing. A little ‘slap-in-the-face’
reality would do them good.
If Callahan can develop a sound plan, I would like to hear it.
If Schock can develop a sound plan for sending nukes to Taiwan, without starting WW III, I would like to hear that to.
HA!!
You pepole are no match for my whit and inteligance.
Helmut.. are you a patriot?
How is serving your country involuntary servitude?
What was that “damn good reason” that we got rid of the draft?? Could have been we were in a immoral economic hegemonic war in Asia and the working and middle classes got tired of the elites not getting sent overseas?
Do you have any idea how much money is spent on “buying” soldiers from the poorer sectors of society. We don’t have a volunteer army now, we have a home grown mercenary army. The 9/11 surge in recruits was a bad joke.
“You people are no match for my whit and inteligance.”
Left by New Voice
nor your typing….
kcdad:
If you believe questioning my patriotism strengthens your argument, you are mistaken. You did not (and cannot) refute the evidence. You are simply appealing to emotion and you are promoting a servile attitude that invites a dangerous expansion of federal power.
I am not the property of the state, are you? Being forced to participate in “immoral economic hegemonic” wars might interfere with your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, don’t ya think. THAT is why I called a draft unconstitutional. You should recall that patriotism can be (and often is)the last refuge of scoundrels. You’re reply to my post mirrors that of the draft-evading chickenhawk Bushites more than you would care to admit, sir.
Require more proof. Don’t take it from me, read the 13th amendment and reflect on those words. This amendment would seem to indicate that a draft and national service would both be unconstitutional policies. But I suppose you think if good “progressive” candidates were in office, everything would be ok. If we just stick it to those rich, mean white guys, no one will make a fuss. Everyone will just fall into line and be ready to take orders, just like when FDR was in charge, right kcdad. Ooh,sounds a wee bit fascist to me, but whatever gets you off, buddy.
Look,I don’t need instructions from you or the selective service board on how best to serve my country. I have found my own ways and they did not include military service. My father and grandfathers did CHOOSE to serve and I honor that service. Don’t you see how forcing people to fight under threat of imprisonment undermines the true patriotic impulse many people genuinely feel to risk their necks for their countrymen? Furthermore, maybe instead of trying to control other peoples destinies, we should work together to question the necessity of the wars we are fighting or the empire we are building, instead of looking for ways to needle the much discussed “top 5%.” Ok, I think I’ve given you enough food for thought, if you care to indulge.
Helmut O’ Hooligan,
Nice try at a subject change.
“draft-evading chickenhawk Bushites” ???
Even IF the Pres did manage to evade Vietnam, he DID learn to fly a fighter jet, which one does not do by doing nothing. This is no easy task.
Have you ever learned to fly, ANYTHING? I have. Flying single engine planes is one thing. Fighter jets adds a complexity that few ever achieve.
p.s. – Liberals ALWAYS attack when they have no real facts with which to back themselves up with.
Wonder what those WWII vets think about their drafted service. Last I recall they were immensely proud of their service and that our nation was too. Saying draftees are no good is a slander on the service heroically performed by so many millions who were.
mdd!: You accuse ME of changing the subject and then go on a tangent about flying jets? What the hell does that have to do with the constitutionality of the draft? Look,you obviously didn’t have the fortitude to consider the rest of my comments so you latched onto the tiny part about your hero. Did you even notice that I was taking on kcdad and his leftish sounding talking points? Didn’t consider that, did you Einstein? But liberals like me get our info from sources outside of FOX, FreeRepublic and Rush, so I’m sure you’re not impressed. Mega dittos pal.
mahkno: I did not say anywhere in my post that “draftees are no good,” and I wouldn’t say that because I don’t believe that and it would be simplistic and stupid, much like your post. The purpose of my post was to question the wisdom and constitutionality of the draft. Like mdd!, you were so caught up in mindless flag-waving, hero worship and hyper-nationalism, that you didn’t look at the rest of the post. You focused only on a tiny portion, and then managed to grossly distort what I said. I suggest that you brush up on reading comprehension.
Really though mdd,
Your statement that “the Pres did manage to evade Vietnam,” puts the pooh-bah on any respect I may have had for “the Pres” or any of his greedy Rep-Con buddies. Before you say it, I feel the same way about duty-dodging Dems as well.
P.S. I guy by the name of ATTA learned how to fly a jet as well.
Helmut… it isn’t the draft that is immoral, it is the war.
No, you are correct, you are not the property of the state, you are a product of it.
Appeal to emotion? Of course. There is nothing unemotional about life. (Especially when it comes to nationalism)
I am sure you honor the service of EVERYONE who served in your stead. Talk about “chickenshit”.
Do you have that “I support the troops” bumper stick on your car still?
kcdad:
1.)The war is indeed immoral. The draft is both immoral and unconstitutional. Again, read the 13th Amendment. Or do you, like President Bush, believe the constitution is just a “goddamn piece of paper.”
2.)I am not the product of the state, I am the product of human genetic material. I do use government services and I pay taxes for those services. That does not give the government the right to force me into involuntary servitude (this is the language used in the 13th amendment). Government can only restrict my freedom if I break the law.
4.)No, I don’t have that bumper sticker/magnet on my car. Keep whacking away at that strawman you have in your phony populist imagination. Americans have a bad habit of thinking that symbols and a very superficial awareness of what is going on absolves them of the responsibility to truly understand what the government is doing on their behalf. I would not be a part of this phony charade.
5.)”I am sure you honor the service of EVERYONE who served in your stead. Talk about ‘chickenshit’.” There you go questioning my patriotism and my support for the troops. You are no more intellectually honest than those you criticize. Now go watch a Michael Moore movie and fondle yourself brave patriot.
Helmut, I don’t think the 13th. amendment was meant to outlaw the draft, which was created by – Abraham Lincoln. Yep, there was no draft in the Revolutionary War, or at any time prior to the Civil War. Arguably, the founding fathers thought the federal government lacked that power. Lincoln instituted the draft, without which there would not have been enough cannon fodder for the Union Army. Of course, you could buy your way out of it legally back then. So far as I know the draft expired after the Civil War and was not revived until another liberal icon – Woodrow Wilson – got it for WW I.
He was going to “save the world for democracy”. As they say, How did that work out? But I guesss neither Wilson, nor FDR, Truman, or Lyndon Johnson thought the draft was unconstitutional. Perhaps they should have consulted you, Helmut?
The Mouse:
You are correct that it did not specifically outlaw the draft. The 13th amendment was added in 1865 and, like the 14th amendment (Equal protection under the law…), was inspired mostly by the end of slavery (incidentally, the 14th was used more to protect “corporate personhood” than black people in those days).
The point I have been trying to make in this discussion is that the language in the amendment appears to indicate that a draft, like slavery, should not be legal. Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, used this argument when he was trying to convince the Nixon administration to do away with the draft. In fact he explicitly compared the draft to slavery (rightly, I think) in the hearings. While I would disagree w/ Friedman on some (mostly economic) issues, I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his role in standing up to the military establishment and helping to demolish the draft.
So, I think you are right that the founding fathers thought the central government lacked the power to institute a draft. Only the federalists would have approved of such a statist policy. Due to fears of a standing army, a draft would not have worked in the the late 18th century, and it never should have been implemented later on.
Stating that Wilson (who was a “Progressive,” a serial violator of civil liberties and a vile racist; not a liberal in any TRUE sense of the word.), FDR, Truman, Johnson, etc. didn’t think the draft was constitutional also doesn’t mean that it is constitutional. Presidents have repeatedly violated the constitution throughout our history. So if you were trying to argue the legality/legitimacy of the draft, your argument fell flat right there.
Helmut, I agree that just because some Presidents thought the draft was constitutional doesn’t mean it was, but neither is the opinion of an economist very persuasive. I think it’s fair to say based on the historical record that the 13th. amendment is not really the issue; the draft was arguably violative of the pre-13th amendment constitution. Many in the Confederacy (which also had a Civil War draft) thought so, and, since that was a country with no legal or moral qualms with slavery, I think that interesting. Finally, since you are a “true” liberal, and that definition has gotten more than a little fuzzy in this country, perhaps you ought to come up with a name that people understand?
The Mouse: Fair enough. You make some interesting points, and I don’t think we have any major areas of disagreement on this one. Great point regarding the confusion over the term liberal. I totally concur. If I were to be more precise, I would place myself on the Left flank of the libertraian movement (hence my disagreement with some of Friedman’s ideas)and call myself a Left-libertarian.