How can we nurture civic responsibility?
Trent Lott, the Mississippian who was majority leader of the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2001, considers himself a hard-line conservative. He’s shocked these days to learn fellow Republicans dismiss him as a mainstream moderate. His willingness in Congress to negotiate and compromise and to treat his political opponents with a little respect is the reason.
One of Lott’s opponents was Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat who alternated as minority and majority leader in the U.S. Senate from 1995 until he was defeated for re-election in 2004. The two maintained a private phone line between their desks in the Capitol so they could keep their communication open and free. That’s one of the things revealed in the book the two former senators wrote together: “Crisis Point: Why We Must – and How We Can – Overcome Our Broken Politics in Washington and Across America.”
The two were guests Wednesday on National Public Radio’s “Diane Rehm Show” to promote their book. Though the two represent nearly opposite ends of the current political spectrum, they have found much common ground. They both were taught as children that public service is a noble occupation and are appalled by the bilious rhetoric directed at Washington and government in general. They believe citizenship requires participation and obligation, and national service would fulfill that requirement.
The concept of national service is talked about a lot and has much bipartisan support, but when it comes right down to it, not many in Congress are willing to fight for it or pay for it. We do have opportunities for national service, everything from AmeriCorps to Foster Grandparents, but these are programs that must constantly struggle for funding.
Jack Wingate joined Teach for America after 30 years in the business world. “I became a teacher after spending nearly 30 years in the business world. I’d come to the realization that the career ladder I was climbing leaned against the wrong wall, and I began to look for opportunities to serve.”
Wingate now teaches at a middle school in Atlanta.
National service – and military service, as well – are voluntary. But what if national service, either military or civic, were compulsory. Would this not create better citizens?
“Suppose that upon high school graduation or reaching the age of 18, every American were given a randomly selected lottery number based on their birthday and that a certain portion were selected for civic service, wrote the Brookings Institute’s William A. Galston in 2010. “They would be offered a choice – two years of either military or civilian service. Those doing civilian service would receive stipends large enough to pay living expenses, as members of AmeriCorps do today.
“This system would produce a number of desirable results for the country, as it would benefit from such service, but also for those who perform it.” Young people “would begin to understand that there’s more to citizenship than simply asserting their rights.”
Ron Fournier, in an article in the National Journal, proposed compulsory service for all Americans between the ages 18 and 28, presumably without deferments, either in the military or in community-building groups.
This may seem like a radical idea, and it is. The cost would be enormous, although not nearly as expensive as a war in, say, Iraq. How could it be enforced? Would we imprison all those who refused to serve? And what good would that do?
Nevertheless, compulsory national service would transform us from a nation with too many spoiled, self-indulging brats into a one of citizens who have a sense of ownership and duty.