I am all for it. Just 1 year is not enough. Yes, you can criticize me for saying that but one year of service for a service member is just getting acclimated to the military. Myself, being a Veteran I know. 2 years should be the minimum. You all have to remember the attrition rate just from boot camp is high. So, yes it may be mandatory but you may not make it past the first week, month, or year.
Not everyone is designed to be a soldier. It's a certain type of individual that will put his/her life on the line for others. You can't force that.
13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii
1
Okay, why stop at 18, why not make this retroactive and make every adult serve a year of national service? Until this happens, lets stop taking away kids freedoms and instead let them live their life.
1
I totally believe this should happen. Either military service, civil service, or humanitarian service. For 2 years. Out of high school. This is how you become “invested” in our country, learn valuable skills and earn work experience. We benefit as a nation by having a strong defense, improved roads and infrastructures, or social services. After your duty is finished, you get FREE community college.
As a former Marine Recruiter, this would be detrimental to the service and a waste of taxpayer money. There are plenty of people that want to be Marines, but a slim fraction of that pool are actually qualified physically, mentally, and morally. Not to mention the ones I threw to the Army office, because they wouldn’t fit with our services ethos. And one year of service? I barely had finished my MOS school by that point. Focus needs to be on the schools to get them physically and mentally straight. That way recruiters can do their job.
1
Mason, I agree with you. No matter how beneficial I think it would be to most youth, mandatory military service would degrade the professionalism and integrity of our fighting forces. Not sure about the Marines, 😉, just joshin bro.
I do believe that some kind of national service though could close some of this divide we seem to have come to as a nation. As others have mentioned there many varied paths this could take; healthcare, forestry, national parks, infrastructure, etc. The life and job experience that comes with that, not to mention experiencing different social strata or regional cultural differences and work experience would do a great deal toward instilling a sense of community and country in our youth and our nation as a whole. A year or so out of a 21/22 year old’s life isn’t much, and like the military, most will have memories, friends, and experiences that will last a lifetime. Albeit better than some of our military ones.
I've long thought this would be a great idea when combined with higher education. Give 2 years of civil/military service in exchange for 4 years of paid college. Civil service could be in an area of interest ... child care, IT, healthcare, job training centers, meal services for the elderly or disabled, construction. The list goes on. I'm for Tim's ideas previously posted. I wish the option had actually been available to me when I was 18.
The good idea fairy strikes again!
It is a good idea. Easy to say, hard to do. Even harder to do right. But not impossible.
I asked a career military friend once about conscription and he said it was a huge mistake because it would populate the ranks with incompetent people who don't want to be there, are not serious, and are disruptive.
I am however very much in favor of a year of public service, military or not. We have become a nation with very little commitment to the nation and a drifting national identity. It has been demonstrated that community service is the one thing that consistently conditions people to be kinder and more accepting of others, because they are compelled to work with people they would not otherwise directly encounter, and because it demonstrates exactly how difficult democracy really is, how many kinds of needs have to me met. Service is the perfect antidote for the selfishness that has devoured our culture.
The only thing Buttigeig gets wrong is how to compel people to do it. He seems to waffle around on that part when it's probably quite simple. No punishment for those who refuse to do anything, but restricted access to certain public benefits like unemployment insurance if they do not.
I think national service is a fantastic idea. I don't think people should be forced into the military, but a civic year - would be beneficial to all.
1
I brought up the idea of mandatory/conscripted service at a protest meeting in college after the US (Nixon) invaded Cambodia in 1970 during the Vietnam War. Even the more ardent protesters were generally in favor of having some form of service for our country.
Today, national service could include things similar to the CCC in the Roosevelt days. It could include restoring forests and wetlands, helping at rural medical clinics, helping as tutors in schools, helping with projects for local governments, etc. Such service should be compensated at $15 per hour and FICA.
If you want cheap labor, it’s a good idea. If you want a rite of passage, isn’t that high school? Or college? If you want to create national pride, forcing people to work somewhere they don’t want to for low wages and keeping them from what they would rather do sounds dumb. If you want your child to work harder, that’s your job as a parent. Don’t pawn it off on national service.
1
@MarkA You make some really good points. We have twelve years of mandatory schooling which youd think would instill the values and such into the children. Why would they need even more time with these persons?
I serve in the military. While I have considered it an honor to serve with many of those that I have, I've also had those that didn't want to be there and made it very evident. I cringe to think about a large group of individuals who do not want to be there being forced to serve. It would be of no benefit to the country or to the devices. I am adamantly against this. We are not babysitters.
No because it's expensive, there will be a lack of resources, and we have a volunteer force. It will also force the military to change to rapidly because of feelings.
I think this is the only way we will save our country and de-indoctrinate our children to liberal lies.
It take a year to train them it is not enough time.
This idea might be acceptable, if it included everyone regardless of age, gender, medical condition, wealth, or occupation. (Meaning even 'bone spurs' could be forced to serve.). The disgusting reality of the traditional draft was that older and richer and more entitled Americans sent teenagers and young twenty something males off to kill and maim people they didn't know and be killed or maimed by people they didn't know. National service is a nice idea, very PC, but let's at the same time address the nitty gritty of the real intention, set up a draft to service the business of the military.
1
A resounding yes. Offer all of the choices listed in prior comments. Thus nobody has any reason to be exempted.
A year of dreams deferred and income impoverishment for an American. A young person is suspended from their career, progress (in study, practice) of their chosen field. An interruption for a year - a year not lost by their counterparts in France, Canada, etc., and when they become competitors most of the world has a year handicap on our people, so who gets the corner office? A year of tree planting may be something they'll always remember fondly, and maybe someone can define how we get 'united' and how the 'United' state measures out as 17.43 this year - aren't we proud. But I think our 24 year olds that know what they want to do should be free (antonym of indentured) to show their stuff, ride their dreams hard, and be very much less ready to be a convenient supply of soldiers.
Forcing another person to work a job with very low pay in a potentially harsh work environment is indentured servitude. Time and again without exception rich kids get plush assignments while the poor and middle class kids get mediocre assignments at best and horrible assignments at worst. Mandatory service requires a one size fits all environment and total obedience. This generation's children have not been raised to be blindly obedient. Thank God. I cannot see how mandatory service would unite a country. Any draft causes the opposite. The Bush and Obama kids get to be fighter pilots, the poor kids clean toilets.
37
@Norman V. See QED's comment - a person who actually did national service. And study the CCC and WPA and you might change your mind. Maybe.
5
@Norman V. Get real. You start questioning authrity REAL FAST when you live in the barracks.
@Norman V. Thank you for pointing this out. I find it highly disturbing how easily people volunteer other people for this project.
3
Not in favor of mandatory military service, but yes, in favor of a year of national service. No deferments, no exemptions. Find something for every single 18 year old to do. I do have a stake in this--my 11 year old (from a fairly comfortable upper middle class family) should not be exempted if this exists when he turns 18.
39
@A Professor
Regardless of claiming your offspring as your "stake," it's clear that you and the other "no deferments, no exemptions" commentators fully intend to exempt yourselves from the law.
"Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can force your now-eleven-year-old to do as your 'stake.'"
2
Yes, as long as it is not only in the miltary. Healthcare. Forestry. Building.
Think of how we could address failing infrastructure and promote a sense of community responsibility.
And NO deferrals for bone spurs or any other condition. Period.
47
@Leslie, you act like trump was the only person to get a deferral...for some medical condition. Go take a look at your guy, Biden and his supposed asthma. Pot meet Kettle
I am for a mandatory national military or civilian service for citizens. I was drafted to mandatory service in Germany in the 70's and spent 15 months each day with folks from all walks of life. It greatly enriched my experience and increased my sense of social cohesion. I can imagine that many young people would feel the same given the opportunity. Also imagine that the kids of politicians would have to serve, potentially in the military. Those politicians would think twice to vote for war.
42
@QED Socialist want government sponsored jobs. This is how its done. It also helps the war mongers. No, because it's expensive, there will be a lack of resources, and we have a volunteer force. It will also force the military to change to rapidly because of feelings.
I'm all for it. Make it flexible, mandatory (or if politically necessary, voluntary but with strong incentives) and beneficial to participants as well as society. Examples could be military service, commitment to teaching after national service, commitment to serving professionally (e.g., medical care or legal aid in underserved locations or communities), public infrastructure construction, volunteering at shelters, etc--any number of things. Consider prioritizing initiatives to prevent or mitigate climate change.
Examples of incentives:
- One year non-military national service: Two years college tuition.
- Two years non-military service: Four years college tuition.
- Military service: Four years college tuition plus home-buyers' assistance/housing stipend.
- Commitment to (post-educational) professional service: Debt forgiveness and/or home-buyers' assistance/housing stipend.
55
@Tim The problem is the rich wouldnt participate based on those incentives so it would not be any kind of equalizing experience, it just would further the existing private / public education gap.
2
@Tim Would you serve for a year of national service right now? Probably not right? Why force others in that case?
@lbroom "equalizing experience"? Why would anyone want that? I would think all the many experiences of the people that make up this world is what makes the world a beautiful place for the most part. The only reason why things are not actually progressing, but regressing is that people desire to make everyone worker drones by giving them an "equalizing experience". Gross
Oh and I got news for ya. the private / public education gap will never go away.. Ever.. It's just a factor of life on all sorts of levels.
This is an absolute yes. Minimum 18 months to two years. Civilian conservation corp, direct foreign aid: roads, bridges, schools, medical facilities. Urban renewal: low cost housing construction,( habitat for humanity) rural service: farms during peak times. Elder, Vfr care. Rotate through multiple stations. Serve in the border patrol, home security. An initial 90 to 150 day military style indoctrination and physical Conditioning, military and survival skills. Service and instruction up to 3 years, to be released you must pass a ged, 2 to 5 skill proficiency ( with job employment relevance). minimal 1 or 2 foreign basic language. You receive funding for 2 to 4 years of local community/ technical and state university. And a deposit in a 401k that cannot be touched that is invested in stock and bond market and a darpa/nih/nsf venture capital fund. And a cash payment and encouragement to travel. Mix up the classes, share a common experience.
1
As a millennial and a 1st generation emigrant, I have to say that I was against it. Now that I am in my early 30's and "part of the establishment" I see persons of my generation struggling and those that stay resentful of society. Mandatory military should be reconsidered. Some persons are not cut out for mundane office work, or are inclined to "learn to code," some find even going to a community college daunting and a waste of money, some want independence or be a part of something more without working up to it without discipline. I find in this very tech oriented, instant gratification society we live in some manual labor and unplugged sessions are needed and also would make more people connected to the government and more active in politics or wanting to stay informed.
1
JFK got it 100% right: "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." End of story.
13
I think every 18 year old who is able should serve their country for one or two years either in national service or military. Our kids need to learn to serve and give back to the country. Freedom is not free. We all need to participant.
45
@Emily Axelrod
Perhaps you should read the 13th amendment to the Constitution. There is a reason that Mr. Buttigieg - contrary to the headline - did not call for mandatory civilian service.
3
@John Fox That's a bit dramatic. Slavery? When people do participate in public service they are greatly rewarded two ways: pension and health care, and a bigger world and exposure.
@John Fox For the PRIVILEGE of US residency, you have a DUTY to serve. Nuf said.
2
Hell no, we won't go.
13
Make it voluntary with strong incentives like college assistance and other GI Bill type concepts.
The forced draft was a disaster but volunteering to help fellow citizens in need could be a growth and maturity building experience.
1
The draft? Again? LOL. That’s one less Dem you all gave to consider.
Buttigieg's idea is a good one. When I've heard him speak to the subject he's talked about non-military service. As a vet I agree; the military shouldn't be burdened with anyone who doesn't want to be there.
But the benefits Pete speaks of, learning to live and work with people far different from you, is something America needs.
2
I think it should not be military service but rather along the lines of Americorps, Peace Corps and the civilian public works corps that was active during the Depression. Imagine if all corps members were trained in basic first aid, survival, home economics, peer mediation or alternatives to violence and focused on after school programs, forest management, environmental protection, or infrastructure projects. And what about community gardens or beautification projects that involved the youth? There's so much talent to be tapped and a service requirement would level the playing field.
5
Two years is more realistic to ensure a cohesive unit.
3
I think it’s a great idea. Military or Americorps or something similar.
2
Many students are taking a 1 yr sabbatical after their education, high school, college or grad school before continuing or going to work. One year national service should not be a question. Making it mandatory might. Making it attractive could be a problem. Given our government's persistence in war, serving in the military is not attractive.
3
Let’s make this National Service ideal an FDR, JFK (patrician, noblesse oblige) top down endeavor. Meaning privileged supposedly “woke” Greenwich Connecticut, Scarsdale, Englewood Cliffs, Alpine, New Jersey, Upper West Side, Brooklyn Heights, preppie, pseudo hipsters taking a selfless branding break.
4
I am in favor of this proposal. The military seems to be the organization best prepared to run this program however the participants should not be considered military transcripts, national defense not being the program’s mission.
Service should occur after high school or by age 19 for those who don’t finish high school. Deferment and waivers of service should be severely limited. It is the best way to bring together Americans of all races, religious beliefs (or not), economic status, sexual orientation and political bent. It serves as a national finishing school. I’m not sure a year is long enough; 18 months sounds like it gives sufficient time for training and deployment. It should be a residential program with work assignments suited to individual skills, interests and the needs of the nation. Ideally, everyone would be assigned to a work unit in a location other than ones’ home town.
The maturity gained and the exposure to new ideas and possibilities gives the recent high school graduate a new perspective and a head start on his or her journey to a responsible adulthood.
1
As a veteran (1966-68) and professional in the field of mental health some form of mandatory National Service has always made sense to me. Transitioning from adolescence to adulthood is always a challenge and tribulation.
The challenges a 18 year old would face in serving in some form of National Service-military being only one of many choices-would assist in that transition. Becoming an adult is dependant on the awareness of the responsibility to others and that we belong to something greater than ourselves.
While these concepts are easily understood they are profoundly complicated to develop as beliefs and moral guides for behavior as citizens and members of a complicated society.
The separation from family and community of origin, thrust into the midst of other similar aged young adults focusing on common tasks and responsibilities creates a subtle yet intense psychological crisis.
Supported by the structure of the program, fellow participants and the fact that their country expects this of them would generate an awareness of the obligations and responsibilities of adulthood.
Because of the separation from family, home and community this experience would merge with childhood experiences and be used as a source of guidance and strength as an adult.
This is what I have received as a direct result of my service. This is the gift of national service. Our country needs to give our young this experience!
2
I have believed in this concept for years but I would argue that public service does not have to be a year in the military. I served in the Army so I recognize it’s not for everyone and there are many ways that one can serve their country, from working on infrastructure projects to working with the elderly. That year of service could be designed to allow young people training and exposure to different careers. If we are considering free higher education then this “give back” in exchange would be a win win.
6
I think it's a great idea. They would help plant trees, fix infrastructure. they wouldn't need much money during the year, so all of their earnings could go towards starting a business, or education, buying a house.
5
You know how you unify a country? By giving all people the same affordable healthcare, wages they can live on, have billionaires pay a little more in taxes, by not electing a person like Trump (meaning get rid of electoral college), by having rules and regulations for everyone - not just those on the lower ends, by providing equal justice, by providing affordable and equal education.....and the list can go on. Those are some basics of how you can unify a country, not by forced involvement in the military. But who knows, when every one has a chance to a decent life, people might then have more pride in their country and are willing to give back.
13
The military branches are going to continue to have trouble recruiting because the US government, led by both parties, has simply lost all credibility with respect to foreign policy (well before Trump). When both parties repeatedly engage in wars of choice against countries that never attacked US soil, and conveniently never send their own children to these wars, yes, the branches are going to have problems recruiting. This goes back to at least LBJ and Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam. But continues forward to Bush-Cheney and the Iraq War; and Obama-Biden's continuation of the Bush-Cheney wars (despite all of their rhetoric, ending their presidency/vice presidency as longest wartime prez/vp in US history). Obama-Biden also tried to be sneaky and take a page out of the Bush-Cheney playbook by hiring thousands upon thousands of private military contractors to hide continued involvement in Iraq. Mandatory national service, by itself, will not unite Americans. Foreign policy that respects the voters instead of being conducted for the benefit of the military-industrial complex is what will unite Americans.
4
There are dozens of countries that require a year or more of mandatory military service: Israel, Norway, Sweden ....
These are countries I have worked in, and people I have worked with. These people have an internalized commitment to their country. We American's have a "national pride", which means we are untested citizens living in an adult DisneyWorld.
4
My thoughts? Bring back the draft.
3
I think there are some significant questions which must be addressed before going half-cocked in favor of some form of compulsory service.
How many people are willing to take an oath that says they will take orders from Donald Trump or someone like him in the future (the Commander in Chief)?
How many parents are willing to let their child fight in any combat role when Congress has deferred its constitutional role to declare war to the President for 74 years?
How many prisons will have to be built to house the probable high multitude of draft-dodgers and refuseniks?
What kind of punishment will we as a society inflict upon on our youth who refuse to comply?
Will conscripts (military and non-military) be required to give up their Constitutional rights for those of the military code of justice?
Will conscripts in non-military positions who refuse to work, but showed up because they were forced to, be punished?How? To what extent? To what end?
Who will benefit from the free or low-cost labor deployed?
How much will taxpayers incur from this massive increase in government labor?
Will conscripts include everyone in society, or exclude certain types (e.g., women, seniors, transgender, resident non-citizens -- legal and illegal, single-parents, disabled, etc.)?
What exemptions will prevail?
Will we as a society try to stop any of our youth with use of force from fleeing the country to avoid such service?
These are just some of the questions I think would need to be addressed.
7
Eliminating the draft resulted in a professional army. I believe the draft would make our government more careful about when and where we use our troops.
2
Demographic figures identifying various ethnic/religious entities comprising various city population figures, university enrollment transparently available. Yet same such figures regarding those serving in the United States Military Service forbidden. Why?
2
Beto has been talking about this- and flip flopping about it- for a while. This is not Pete’s idea, or even Beto’s, for that matter.
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/jan/10/beto-orourke/beto-orourke-flip-flops-requiring-public-service-y/
1
Yes. Non-military, not allowed to be right close to home, mental health screening required.
4
Sounds very interesting but the donald trumps of this country will always find a way out.
3
I could not agree more! Yes national service for all - 2 years. Choose from military or non-military service. Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, National Parks Service, Peace Corps, US Red Cross, Doctors without borders, etc.... This will be an egalitarian melting pot, where young people meet cultures and demographics they would never cross paths with at home or at college. And they will learn valuable skills that will stay with them a lifetime. The country will benefit and all our young people will benefit, too. We could also link service to free college or vouchers for higher education.
17
I believe mandatory national service is in the best interest of the country. It should not be seen as doing something special but rather the norm.
12
yes, yes, YES! I am an AmeriCorps alumni who completed two terms of national service with AmeriCorps NCCC. It opened doors, taught me so much about myself and the communities I worked with, and in essence, changed my life for the better. I spent 22 glorious months working in communities throughout Colorado and Texas, working on infrastructure projects that had real, tangible benefits for communities - doing fire mitigation work, building and repairing trails, and volunteering at local nonprofits. It was by far the best way I spent my early 20s, and I walked away with confidence and experience I never could have gotten anywhere else. I encourage all of the young people I meet to look into AmeriCorps, and should be an option for mandatory public service.
And on top of it all, I earned a generous education award that I put towards earning my masters degree in social work, affording me the opportunity to graduate without loans from a public institution. I couldn’t be more proud and pleased of my decision to join AmeriCorps and make a difference in such important ways.
19
[ YES]
Will there be a training challenge at first: yes, and so the powers that be figure out the systems that work.
I want everyone to feel that they actually have skin in the game.
7
The fact that a discussion of national service is quickly conflated with military service (albeit with mumbled qualifications about other possibilities) tells future historians everything they need to know about our society. Are we really so devoid of imagination or substantive social solidarity that the phrase national service doesn't immediately bring to mind young people working in national parkas and Head Start classroom? Helping in post office mailrooms? Learning about databases at the IRS? Guiding tours in DC? Are we that infected with the violent virus of militarism?
9
I am the mother of 19 and 17 year old daughters. I realize that as a country we need the military to protect our freedoms. As a mother, I would do ANYTHING and everything to protect my daughters from servitude to any person, organization or country.
Second...in a country where education and healthcare are a massive overwhelming economic burden for the majority of us...why would I give up years of my life in servitude?
5
@sonya I think that framing it as MILITARY service misses the point. Maybe a young person would actually benefit from developing some empathy for other people that they otherwise wouldn't encounter. And they could earn money, or get scholarships, for college in a program that would be similar to the GI bill.
Or they could just sit on the couch, vape and monitor their social media feeds.
4
@sonya
As far as I’m concerned, until we have passed the Equal Rights Amendment, women should rema exempt, just as they are from draft registration.
If it is just to pull in more recruits for the armed forces, here's an idea that probably kills two birds with one stone. Offer expedited green card/citizenship to would-be immigrants in exchange for serving a certain amount of time, say 5 years, in the forces. That way we fill the ranks in our armies and give many willing and able would-be immigrants a legitimate path to becoming a US citizen at the same time.
2
I grew up in Germany during a time of required military service for all young man.
The 7 months I served were the dumbest waste of time I have ever experienced. Study after study confirms that the military does a particularly bad job in using conscripted forces in any useful way. We cleaned little scalpels, then we cleaned them again, and again we cleaned them.
After 7 months I became a conscientious objector, less so because I really believed I was a devout pacifist, but more because I just couldn't stand the mind-numbing stupidity of the military service. I was ordered to serve on an ambulance. The remaining 8 months of my service have been extraordinarily rewarding, if sometimes emotionally draining.
I do believe that national service could be a source of great pride, both for the country and for the youths. However, these programs must make sure that the time served serves both, the country and the youth.
8
What would 4 million untrained Federal employees do? They could work in hospitals, but most people prefer trained nurses to conscripted teenagers. They could teach school, but most people prefer their kids be educated by trained teachers. Even the military has gotten so technical that recruits often receive more than a year of training. I guess they could all work food services and janitorial, but does that constitute national service?
4
They could clean parks, get some basic skills in how.to enter data, get some basic skills and run non-academic after school programs or for those who qualify, tutoring. They could be companions in old age homes, create the bridge between aging food and food insecure communities. They could help move birds way from airports and help test water supplies. I could keep going all day...
5
This is a great idea. What about the surprising number of people who will turn out to have bone spurs?
10
More details are needed Pete. What's your age cutoff? Are you flexible with Reservists or Coast Guard or is it just National Guard? I'm turning 29 this year and I have no issue spending 2 years serving my country while i'm still in great physical health. Being paid with great insurance for the rest of my life would make me sign up in a heartbeat.
2
America is falling apart. We are so divided, and when I was in the Navy I noticed that there was basically no white Democrats who were willing to serve their country. Everyone was either a southern good ole boy style soldier or a minority that was doing it as a way to pay for college or a leg up from being poor.
I see liberals and conservatives living in different universes, and unable to agree on basic facts. Everyone is part of some tribe, and identity politics makes me a educated-white-transgender-woman. I'd much rather be an American.
I served in the Navy (although I wouldnt be allowed in today since I'm transgender) and the military made me believe in America. I wish America had a unified spirit, and I think the only way to get there is to have mandatory national service.
7
While a good idea in principle, I worry about harming certain career prospects when young people have to take a year off from training. I teach in a university, and I'm thinking of certain student athletes. Also ballet dancers and certain classical musicians. Suspending training at age eighteen could harm career prospects in areas that require specific and intense training. Maybe allow service earlier, later, or over a longer period of time as an option.
3
Good idea, though a lot of questions regarding implementation for those choosing a civic, non-military service option. Would people serving in non-military roles get a stipend? Tuition remission would work for some (i.e. Teach for America), but not all. How are the recruits to be housed and fed? What about health insurance? Would young parents be required to serve? If so, would they bring their kids with them? Would unemployed Americans older than 26 be eligible to enroll if they wished? Who decides what projects they will be working on, and figures out who gets sent where? And of course, Congress would have to appropriate funding. It's a great idea, but making it work would be complicated. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but I have to admit that a lot of Democratic contenders' ideas sound half-baked when you think about the details.
1
This doesn't sound like a bad idea. I wouldn't want my daughter to actually do anything within the military with what we have as leaders in the current adminstration right now but there are so many pluses to this. I do think the wealthy would somehow get their kids out of it though.
It would certainly be a way for young people to meet people they would likely not meet otherwise, to do something for their country and to have to get off their cell phones and computers. Something to think about.
3
@Lisa, given Obama-Biden's continuation of the Bush-Cheney "Forever" wars for their entire 2 terms, and expansion of neo-con, intervention-first regime change to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc. (even if some of latter involved more of CIA, private military contractors, Air Force, etc.), would you have wanted your daughter involved with the last administration either?
1
I think it's a great idea, many democratic countries do this, we have lost our sense of community as a country. Throwing everyone together to do work for that community whether military or civil service (no exceptions) is a great way to meet people of backgrounds you know nothing about, be introduced to the idea of service to something greater than yourself and grow up a bit before beginning college.
3
To force people to do something they have zero interest in is a waste of time, money and effort. If the Army is short on people set up a French Foreign Legion style branch. 5 years of service - citizenship. They would get the toughest, fittest, most loyal and devoted soldiers from all over the world. The Foreign Legions acceptance rate is approx 20% and they are never short on volunteers
4
I think civil service in one format or another is a great idea. It could bring people from different regions of the country, allow young Americans to see parts of the country to which they have never been exposed, and get a tremendous amount of work done.
The idea that individuals don't owe society or our nation anything is unpatriotic, and it would also expose greater swaths of the electorate to the burdens of war, poverty, drug addiction...so that most of the country is not so insulated from the hardships these things impose.
2
How about offering a semester's tuition (let's say, whatever the state's land grant university charges) for a year of volunteer service in one's local community? Maybe limit the age pool to 18-26. Might be a good way to figure out what you want to do in life AND be a benefit to local libraries, nursing homes, schools, parks, YMCAs, organizations that help others...
@Katrin One semester paid for a year's work...that is a bit of the cheap side I think. A year for a year is more attractive.
1
Mandatory service between the age of 18 to 26. It would not have to be military. Red Cross, Habitat, Peace Corps, serve anywhere, anyhow, anytime (from 18 to 26) but serve.
4
It might make more sense to require seniors to do a year of low paid service in order to qualify for Medicare and exempt those who had previously served in the military.
Absolutely not. Best to have the sons and daughters of politicians and congress serve mandatory terms when their parents are elected.. that will ensure all avenues are exhausted before war or an invasion is decided.
11
@salvador. This is the best idea so far!
1
I doubt the constitutionality of mandatory service other than by a draft into military service. Congress has constitutional authority to raise and support armies, an authority that at least implicitly allows Congress to create a system of conscription to maintain a military force. The Commerce Clause would allow the federal government to offer incentives -- even all-but-irresistible incentives -- for nonmilitary service, but compulsory nonmilitary service would likely violate the 13th Amendment.
In any event, mandating even one year of nonmilitary service will create, I think, substantial practical problems, including how to train and place millions of people in jobs without displacing others (likely older or nonwhite individuals) who already hold many of those jobs.
I favor (as I have since high school, more than 50 years ago) a military draft without exemptions (except for extreme disabilities, such a paraplegia) and would include conscsription into the National Guard and military Reserves. In 1969, during the Vietnam War, I withdrew from college -- surrendering my 2-S deferment -- and enlisted in the Army. I went through basic training with some individuals who could have received -- probably should have received -- exemptions of one sort or another then available. But they were there nonetheless. It was clear then, as it should be now, that the military has plenty of jobs that people with limited physical abilities can perform without displacing others.
3
I'm in favor, and think it could have hugely positive effects. Universal service introduces us to people of all backgrounds. I consider that one of the true positive benefits of my time in the Army. It would make available a huge workforce for repairing the national infrastructure, and the resulting skills and experience for those who go through this would be invaluable.
But questions arise as I think about it. How could this be funded in a country held hostage by the toadies of Grover Norquist? Could it be truly universal, or would there be college or other deferments that the Cheney's and Trump's benefited from? How do you get universal service when the Army is unable to fill quotas because so many potential recruits have fitness or drug problems? And how do we ensure that people who do mandatory service in the military don't get dragged off to fight in whatever adventure the chicken hawks in Washington dream up? I have no issue with mandatory military service when the country is threatened, but I have a big issue with the idea of non-volunteers being forced to fight in an open-ended war that benefits no one but oil companies or the defense industry. Anyone with memories of Vietnam will understand my concern.
I do not think it unconstitutional despite comments about the 13th Amendment. That argument has been made and has failed in the courts. But of course it hasn't been tested for non-military universal service.
4
@Joe
If everyone has a son/daughter wife/husband or any relative in the military it becomes more difficult to engage in all out war because everyone has skin in the game, I have a feeling that the draft was no longer used after Vietnam because the whole country protesting looks really bad on TV
3
@ESR I couldn't agree more. But I worry that wouldn't stop some in Washington from trying. For supposedly smart people, our leaders do seem to repeat mistakes (Vietnam, then Iraq and now (maybe) Iran.)
1
@ESR The Republicans holy savior Reagan considered reinstating the draft and was met with an onslaught of protest within and outside of his conservative bubble.
1
Eighteen months of obligatory National service would be more reasonable and beneficial to the individual and the country. The service could also be designed to bolster the GI Bill or create a pipeline for Universal Basic Income and avoid the perceived stigma of creating a welfare state.
3
I believe mandatory service is unconstitutional and a violation of the 13th Amendment. However, the concept of national service (non-military) is valid with inducements such as free college education or other to fill the ranks. In addition, I would encourage this service to "mix the ranks" by race, gender, and physical location so that a wide assortment of Americanism may be experienced. My service in the military at 18 was an eye opening experience that increased my awareness and tolerance for others and other points of view.
1
Excellent idea and there should be no exceptions allowed for those with enough power or influence to buy their way out of it. The added benefits are that it will provide an opportunity to serve with other youngsters from varied backgrounds and in times of foreign military misadventures and saber rattling like we have now, they and their parents will be the first one to call their Congressperson and give them a piece of their minds.
5
I think the idea of one year of mandatory national service is excellent. I believe that our country will be the better for it: people of all economic and social strata will interact and learn many things from eachother that just might make for a better understanding of ourselves as Americans and create greater cohesion - at least better understanding of - our fellow citizens.
5
There should be mandatory service for all, with many options so that we can build community and improve society in many ways. We would not have gotten stuck in endless unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if we still had a draft. Given the extent of communal needs, costs are irrelevant, especially if those with truly excessive resources could provide the bulk of the funds.
5
I think it's a tremendous idea. Many nations do it. it shouldn't be only military. social service is important too. I believe it would promote social cohesion.
8
As someone who is just out of the age range of being affected by this, I would hesitantly support it. If “service” included options like the AmeriCorps or Peace Corps, then sure. If it means joining the military, then sorry, l’d rather do time in prison than fight in an American military venture.
13
Citizenship and service are not slavery. Perhaps it is more a social rite of passage to becoming an adult. Investing your time and talent to the betterment of YOUR nation.
Too many people never volunteer, do service or generally give of themselves, not because they are bad, but because they are not challanged.
The experience always benefits the giver as much as the receiver. Get off the sofa!
11
make it 2 years
5
yes to this, in service to our nation, citizenship - belongingness - inter conectedness - our inclusion - our shared fate
4
If you really want to make this a reality, then don’t make it mandatory. Last I looked, this was still a free country. This means that if a citizen doesn’t want to serve the country, then they don’t have to. Incentives to serve must be offered to (I assume would be) those citizens over 18. It would have to be made interesting. The individuals would be allowed to choose how (and where) they would serve. And after the service is completed, then if the server chooses to go to college, tuition would be waived for the first year, at any colleges that accept the server.
1
National service? No. what I would like, however, is a return to the draft with no exceptions except for highly verified medical conditions. In case of war everyone, including the children of the war hawks in DC and the children of the .01% ages 18-25, gets called up. If the feckwits running the show want to have us in perpetual war then they need to have some skin in the game as it were.
3
America needs it on several levels.
It would actually work best if a person had to perform that service several hundred miles from where they have lived.
America is diverse, and to appreciate its diversity and underlying unity going somewhere else in America helps.
8
I agree.
1
“National Service?” Where, Lauren Katzenberg, did you get the idea that Americans are somehow the property of the Federal Government - like slaves?
4
@Charlierf It was not implied the young people would not be paid.
1
Mandatory national service was the National Forensic League high school debate topic in 1968-1969. Affirmative always lost because it would cost billions of dollars and no one could ever come up with a sensible way to fund it.
3
@Flâneuse, high school students more sensible than most of our politicians. As if cost and finding way to fund it stopped LBJ from pursuing "guns and butter" simultaneously and so destroying the credibility of the Democrats via his Vietnam adventurism and 58,000+ dead Americans that he ultimately delivered the country to both Nixon and helped the rise of Reagan.
Or Bush-Cheney's simultaneous prosecution of multiple wars while cutting taxes. . .
2
Yes, yes, yes.
Look up from your phone, put down the X-box.
Meet someone from a different part of the country
Discover something you have in common with a person who is totally different from you.
Learn a new skill.
Develop respect for people who literally put their lives on the line for you.
Research LIFE without an app, tablet or Google.
Become grateful for what you have.
13
I think it would be great.
3
If the military is facing a shortage of enlistees, maybe the answer is to cut down on needing so much cannon fodder.
A lot of commentators seem to assume that just about every young person is college-bound. Not so, and probably shouldn’t be so.
I haven’t seen anything yet about including people with disabilities. Everybody should mean Everybody.
All that said, this strikes me as a terrible idea. Nobody likes make work projects, young people are going to see right through this attempt to gin up their patriotism.
4
It’s always interesting when articles about increasing military enrollment make no mentions of the reasons why some don’t enroll (women face high rates of sexual harassment, for example, and trans people are currently banned).
If the military wants more people to enlist, the culture (and regulations) need to be changed to actively welcome all potential recruits.
6
Old people decide what very young adults should do with their lives, just as they come of age?
Lots of us lived for the day we wouldn't have to be under the control of our parents anymore. The idea of the government stepping in to "give us something to do" is odious.
Many of us weren't lost at 18 and fully capable of finding something worthwhile to do with ourselves without the govt.
deciding for us.
Needing a military to protect this country is one thing, and entirely reasonable.
Wanting to conscript 18 year olds for a year or two to force them into some sociological experiment to make this country more socially cohesive? To be accomplished by forcing people to do jobs they may have no aptitude for or interest in? Not to earn a living but because the idea of this social/political experiment appeals to people who are too old to be required to participate?
This is bizarre.
13
I love the idea of 2 years of civil service after or during high school = 4 years of free public college, all expenses paid. It will help enlist a sense of national pride, service, and bonding. Cohorts should be localized so that kids from the same community can interact with each other. NYT recently published an article outlining the xenophobia of St. Cloud, MN residents to their new Somali neighbors, what better way to help bridge the gap then having the young people of both communities come together to solve the communities toughest problems?
6
I believe that a mandatory period of public service for young people would be a good thing for them and for the country. I also think that we should propose a Constitutional amendment that would reward voluntary public service of some minimum amount, say two years, with the right to vote and run for elective office. Those rights should be restricted to only those citizens who take action to support their country and their communities.
Wayne Rives
Veteran, USCG
1
The year I spent serving as an Americorps volunteer was highly rewarding, and set a great foundation for my career with varied experiences and financial incentive to go back to school. VISTA, AmeriCorps, NCCC, and other programs managed by the Corporation for National Service, are long-standing and impactful programs. National Service beyond the military has been happening for many years. How about writing a companion piece highlighting the good people are doing though National Service, NYT? It is suprising to read many comments that illustrate a lack of knowledge about these programs.
9
@Paul, yes, there is Peace Corps also. President Clinton proposed Americorps as among his ideas during the 1992 election and then was able to deliver on it during his first term.
1
And here in South Korea, over 90% of men are compeled to serve in the army for a year and a half. While in service, men are paid $180 per month where prisoners are paid $300 monthly for job subsidy. So frustrating to call S. Korea a "democratic country".
1
One year wouldn’t probably work, considering the investment. But I think the concept is an excellent idea. Right now too few people have skin in the game and I don’t only mean young people. We have perpetual wars because so few Americans are touched by their consequences.
It might also help us bridge some of the gaps that separate us so much now.
4
I think that young people working together may help to create cultural bridges and bring us together as a society. Currently we don't share much except for a passion for the NFL. And I think a military draft with no deferments will be a deterrent to starting unnecessary wars. The sons and daughters of the privileged would have to serve. If a war is that important, we should all have to sacrifice.
7
I agree. Domestic or military service broadens a person’s perspective. Our bifurcated socio-economic nation suffers from the lack of understanding that we truly are all in this together. I like the idea that post secondary education, whether college or technical training is granted and a formal system that supports transition from service to a meaningful position in civilian life would make a significant difference socially and economically.
7
It's an excellent idea but with two caveats: 1)Government contributions to college and 2) elimination of existing college debts if the volunteer has graduated.
5
I think a mandatory one or two year government stint for every American is an excellent idea. It will introduce them to ideas, cultures and people outside of their own experiences and instill discipline and a sense of community. Have been advocating for this for years.
12
In a country with the largest military expenditure and presence in the world, why do we need to increase participation in the war state? We need to be reducing the gargantuan military, preventing wars, and demilitarizing the world. The idea of uniting the country behind a war machine is absurd. It's nonsensical, and although unlikely, it would make much more sense to require service in industries that could benefit human welfare, endeavors in education, science, infrastructure, government, medicine, and the social services.
9
@James Igoe. Doesn’t have to be military. Could be working in national parks or tutoring children.
3
I’m not sure what type of training and the duration thereof that would be justified for a mere one year commitment. Perhaps 18 or 24 months makes more sense. Inducements would be more effective.
9
@Reader In SC How about allowing someone to keep their citizenship? Or eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? How are those for inducements?
@Minidictum - how does your pithy position square with the 868 Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘Equal Protection Clause’ ?
1
1868 US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
1
Whenever the topic of mandatory national service comes up, it's the ones who have "aged out" who are most gung-ho about it...I wonder why?
15
@J. Hakim Whoa there. I'm 65 and I'd be ok with it. I'm a RN; I have something to offer as long as they don't kill me in Basic!
@J. Hakim. I am well over 65 and I did do two years of public service. To this day I talk about what an amazing difference it made in my life, how much it matured me. It was between my sophomore and junior years of college.
As a sophomore, I was getting B’s and C’s...not working very hard...and fooling around. When I went back to school after public service, I made straight A’s, and I still had fun, but I had matured, figured things out and stopped wasting time. I had become a different person.
1
Many friends and family in higher education have suggested this as a way to make the first year of college more serious and the students more independent. A year of growing up while serving the country, a year away from helicopter parents, a year of figuring it out....only good.
I personally have set up a gap year account for my grandchild. Must be used for travel or internship.
16
So... to encourage independence, you’re going to pay for it?
3
Mandating and financing a gap year for a grandkid smacks more of aristocratic paternalism than this article’s premise.
4
I fully support mandatory service for all 18 year olds - with the caveat that they have some choice in that service. The military branches would benefit, since some people would decide to stay after their mandatory service ended, but also other service organizations like Americorps would benefit.
I believe too many people in this country feel entitled. They complain about the status quo, but then do nothing to change it- or even vote. Too many people stay in their echo chambers and refuse to interact with other groups. National service for everyone means that our young people rub shoulders with others from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, living with others and learning to work with them. It requires everyone to give of their time and energy to the greater good.
I’m a democrat from California, but I grew up in Texas with a father in the military. I spend a lot of time now explaining Californians to Texans and vice versa. Something has to give. We cannot continue as a nation so divided.
14
This is a good idea symbolically, but perhaps not practically. The problem is you then have to create a bureaucracy to figure out what to do with a couple of million people who don't really want to be there. Better perhaps to create incentives to get more desirable people to enlist in the first place.
15
I've been saying the same thing for years: national civilian service for 1 year after high school. But I would add that young people should be sent to communities and placed to live with families different from their own, by random draw. The main cause of bigotry is the lack of frequent personal, meaningful contact with people outside one's own demographic niche. If there's any cure for the ills of various types of bigotry and prejudice, this is it. And then expand into international civilian service after people finish college or attain a few years of work experience, to do the same at the global level. This would mean young adults from all over the world coming here for a year, again by lot, but from countries different from the US in some major way, and American young adults being sent abroad, same criteria and also by randomized placement. Maybe no need to make it mandatory if there are incentives for employers to hire those who have completed their civilian service, like for hiring military veterans.
11
@UAPlaced to live with families?! Quartering young people in a national service corps? I think we as a country already decided against that.
4
William F. Buckley (and we know what side of the aisle he was on) wrote a book in 1990 about this very topic: “Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country”. He advocated for national service for young people 18 and over. Not compulsory, but encouraged with incentives. Definitely an idea worth examining.
9
Until our government can stop sexual harrasment in all organizations which these young people would serve, no way
7
I am against it vehemently, and I am surprised anyone could be for it. Can you imagine what such a program would be used for were it to exist now? We would have kids barely out of high school goose-stepping up and down the border to the tune of presidential slogans. We already have a problem with jingoistic patriotism in this country, and this would only make it so so much worse.
27
@David Weintraub, I disagree. I think that if every young American participated fully in America, even for only one year, "jingoistic patriotism" -- which IS a serious problem, I agree -- would find itself out of a job. Today's threats to American democracy (economics, peace, etc.) exist primarily because today's Americans aren't sufficiently knowledgable about, and invested in, their country. A one-year investment with on-the-job learning could do wonders.
16
@RR After twelve yeara of public school shouldnt they know these things? Maybe this should be addressed before we start talking about forcing kids to spend grade thirteen in some national service program.
1
I think mandatory national service after high school would be a very good idea, if done right (always that caveat). Many Democratic candidates are talking about some form of subsidy for attending college—participation in national service and support for college could go hand-in-hand.
I wonder, though, if we as a country could arrive at a definition of “if done right”? How would the national service and the military program intersect? Some would want to use participation in national service to instill discipline and leadership, while others would reject that. Some would want the service to be local to the community in which the person lived, while others would want them to serve outside of that familiar environment. Maybe, however, we could agree that such national service could be a variety of experiences that an individual can choose from, rather than a strict form. If nothing else, a national conversation on the topic would be enlightening.
16
@Greg Wetzel
I think a program of universal national service is a good idea. Let the participants choose what area they want to serve in.
The biggest problem I see is the wealthy and connected frontloading their issue into the plum positions, turning what should be a way for Americans to develop common bonds into the usual richie rich takes everything good.
I support the idea of mandatory national service (including folks with bone spurs :).
My idea is that national service would not be limited to the military... There are lots of other areas that should be considered that are similarly important to the nation and are as demanding and risky as being in the armed forces, e.g.:
* Federal and State prison guards
* National Forest Service firefighters
* Inner city medical services
I am sure there are others.
A big advantage of national service would be to widen the horizons of teenagers and give all Americans a common experience. I believe this would improve their life choices after service, give them a better understanding of what the government does, and make them better educated voters.
They would also act as the public's eyes and ears wherever they serve. This would help eliminate corruption and waste in our government institutions.
17
@Engineer
If 18 again, I would have done literally anything to avoid national service which required me to choose between being a prison guard and an inner city medical technician.
Ugh. Just ugh.
Imagine how people would hate this and try to get out of it.
4
National service, if only for one year and to be applied to 18-20 year olds would need it to be simple sorts of services that are quickly trained and not dangerous.
The suggestion that recent high school graduates or dropouts populate the staff of prison guards, front line fire fighters and EMTs is silly.
Incorporating them into on-going civic service projects at the municipal, county and state level could make sense if an unwieldy bureaucracy can be avoided.
3
@Engineer
Somehow you have listed 3 dangerous jobs that would NEVER be part of national service for young people.
For instance, there is plenty they could do in national parks or national forests that does not involve fighting fires or other dangerous activities.
Overall I think the concept of National Service is a good one. Obviously the "devil is in the details." Whether the service be in the military or in the form of other service,ie working in the Park Service, or like Americorps and where people are assigned or volunteer again is a matter of details.
As for length of time, I think 18 months to 2 years should be sufficient to allow for whatever training is necessary and to allow the individual to have a meaningful experience.
For me, any such program must require all 18 year old citizens to participate and without consideration as to wealth or status. Physical abilities must be considered but not be made an obstacle or disqualifier.
Such a program would, like general military service, bring together people of all walks of life and require them to work together for a common good. In my humble opinion, the residual benefits of this would be equal to or even outweigh the benefits of actual service performed.
Personally, at 18 the Vietnam war was just ending. I didn't support the war and didn't have to serve in the military. I would not have objected to such service as contemplated in Ms. Katzenberg's article.
23
Every liberal should support a draft, with no deferments. One of the reasons the post-WWII years were the high water mark of American wages and benefits was the sense of solidarity engendered by so many men from different walks of life having served together. As that solidarity vanished, our nation drifted to its current state of grotesque inequality, poisonous political division, and narcissism.
And if that's not enough for you, fellow liberals, consider just how dangerous it is that our armed forces are now overwhelmingly made up of poorly educated, rural, conservative men.
38
@Kaleberg
Actually, the men didn't all serve together in World War II. It wasn't until the man from Missouri and proud descendant of a Confederate veteran, President Truman, took the risk of integrating the armed forces (enacted in the teeth of a risky election year in 1948) that could be said to have happened. We forget. But the segregation of the armed forces in both World Wars was keenly problematic for Americans and America.
18
@Kaleberg
And would you - as an implied conservative - agree that women should also be obligated to do one year of mandatory service? What about those who identify as transgender?
I note that your comment specified "men". I think that liberals would be more supportive of mandatory service if there was no gender discrimination.
13
@Kaleberg Even with "bone spurs" there is a way to serve in the military. Plenty of desk jobs
1
Yes. I'm in my mid 60s and freely admit some type of mandatory service after HS graduation would have been ideal. Instead I was coerced into college and wasted my parents money for 2 semesters until I was suspended for no attendance. I didn't want to go and was completely unprepared.
3
A year of mandatory public service is a brilliant idea.
9
YES! Most of my students left high school without a clue. “I’m thinking about Psychology, but I’ll find myself in college”. At $20k per semester? A 19 or 20 year old is not an 18 year old. PLUS, everybody owes their country something. A bit more respect and pride in ownership comes from having skin the game and paying your dues. My country tis of thee, is more meaningful when it’s my country tis of ME. I have never seen a veteran yelling at his friend 2 sections over during the playing of the song. Believe me, there’s a deeply personal reason for that. The country could use a remodel and a year of service for all, no deferments, might just be the program we’re looking for...
9
@JRB
Aren't most of the commenters on here embracing the idea of other people, not themselves, having more respect and pride in ownership. How about every person under 65 has to do a year of national service? Since its not military necessarily, everybody could pitch in. And everybody would be in the game. Everybody would have more respect and pride in ownership. Just about everybody I know of any age doesn't have that respect in ownership. If anything, people get much worse as they get older.
14
We have lost the idea of service to the nation, of working for the common good. This would be a way of getting it back. It must of course be open to all. It also must have the option of non-military service. I am thinking that a year right after high school would bring bring the benefit of maturity to those going to college and the same for those who elect to go into the workforce rather than college.
The cynical side of me is certain this would balloon into a huge bureaucracy, but if we are spending money on national civilian service, then it would not be available for petty wars and I would be very OK with that.
5