The Peace Corps & National Service
I diagree wholehaeartedly with your intrepretation of the Constitution. Of course, we disagree, we are Americans! The Founding Fathers not…
Polls suggest young Americans are less enchanted with their country than previous generations. Yet even those who want to serve their country, conducting some form of national service, are too often turned away by top programs. The opposite should be true: Volunteer organizations such as AmeriCorps, Teach for America, the Peace Corps and the newly formed American Climate Corps should be well-funded and encouraged. National service could become a pervasive post-graduation option that all young Americans consider.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak this year proposed a national service plan that would have granted young adults the option of enrolling in a year-long military training program or committing to civil service one weekend every month for the same amount of time. The proposal was highly unpopular, with Brits balking at what they saw as the effective conscription of their nation’s youths.
The idea has more support here in the States. A 2017 Gallup poll shows nearly half of Americans favor mandatory national service. Many teenagers themselves, it turns out, are interested — too many for the system to accommodate. Relevant programs are underfunded, and, as a result, can’t accept the millions of Americans who sign up, even if there’s plenty of useful work those applicants could do.
Expanding opportunities for national service is one of the few topics that transcend political affiliation, age and race here. People see the benefits of serving their country, whether it be through the military or helping out at their local soup kitchen. But the costs of doing so can be high — so it’s on the government to reduce them.
To be clear, Congress should not impose a mandate. Forcing a year or two of service from the nation’s next great tech innovators, or star athletes, or cohort of primary-care physicians, or skilled construction workers needed to build new infrastructure, would do more harm to society than good — though such people should obviously be welcome in these programs. Rather, as they and their peers approach their later teenage years, they should discuss with their friends who will go right to college, or directly to graduate school, or immediately into a trade, and who will take a year or two to make the U.S. more livable, more safe or more healthy, along with millions of others from around the country.
The Unity Through Service Act would make it easier for Americans to find their way into national service, building an interagency council that includes military, national and public service officials working together to inform young adults about existing service opportunities. Heads of agencies such as AmeriCorps and Peace Corps could engage in joint recruitment campaigns. The costs for the council itself, according to one legislative official, are “negligible” and would create the infrastructure needed to support the expansion of service programs while many wait for additional funding.
But passing this modest bill would be only a start. Participating in a program such as AmeriCorps or Peace Corps means sacrificing one or two years in the workforce, and the likely higher salary that would come with a job. Meanwhile, the stipends these programs offer usually do not cover the cost of living — largely because the programs have faced years of sharp funding cuts. National service might never pay as well as a Wall Street internship, but Congress should invest in increasing pay for young people so it’s at least a plausible option for Americans with little money to spare. National service initiatives should also provide flexibility to applicants, allowing them to focus on a particular skill set, say, or geographic location. Doing so would attract Gen Z participants who want to develop skills during their service that could further their career goals.
Yet, a revitalized national service program would help not only young Americans preparing to enter the workforce, or government agencies and organizations that benefit from young Americans’ labor. The most profound benefits might flow to society at large, from instilling in a diverse group of participants a shared sense of service and duty, alleviating political apathy and building unity. If newly minted adults are following President John F. Kennedy’s famous advice, asking what they can do for their country, the country should make sure it has an answer.
I agree. Young people, and older retired people, would be well served by an opportunity to serve in a National Service Corps as would our country and the world.
National service programs are critical if we value the importance of inculcating citizenship and its role in a healthy democracy–the absence of which can be seen in the growing number or Americans who view the primary purpose of the U.S. is to make them rich. We do not need everyone in the military, or the Peace Corps, but national service should be compulsory in some form, as it had been since our founding, by lottery or choice. There is something profoundly wrong about a society that sees its military protection as an obligation predominantly of the poor, or service in general as a boutique activity. We should restore the requirement and honor of national service and provide for special benefits for those who fulfill the obligation. I have heard the arguments about what this will cost, but what is missing in that argument is what it costs us NOT to invest in national service programs. What Peace Corps reinforced for me was not just the importance of serving others, but a stronger recognition of what it means to be an American. We need that ethic now more than ever.
You are making very good points, Matt. Well said.
I am totally opposed to the idea of a National Service program, particularly the idea of making such a program compulsory for young people. t is not the job of the government to inculcate values in its citizens. The Constitution gives the government the right to raise armies. That is it.
Whose values would a National Service Program be promoting? “America First, “America as a Christian Nation” or would it depend on who was in
the White House?
I have specific concerns with the reasoning in the editorial. The assertion is made people who want to serve in various government programs are being turned away because of a lack of funding. I thought that Peace Corps’s problem was not enough interest in applying. Does someone have facts?
The editorial makes no mention of all the important programs helping with weather disasters. We are absolutely dependent on First Responders, National Guard, Red Cross, Salvation Army and
Volunteer Firemen as well as other volunteer programs from churches and service organizations.
There are also thousands of opportunities to volunteer such as Habitat for Humanity, Doctors without Borders. Global Seed and all the many RPCV groups.
Government service programs are non-partisan and cannot be involved with politics. Yet, the success in righting injustices in our country comes directly from volunteer political action. Here is a short list, by no means complete
1,) Women’s suffrage
2) Labor unions
3) Civil rights legislation
4) The 26th Amendment giving 18 year olds the right to vote.
Thanks for remembering. I am trying to figure it out. Disgruntlement interrupts my thought.
Values are diffuse. I am recently remembering my time in Dallas TX in the Catholic Worker group and also the political actions I joined before I transferred to D.C. Dept HEW in its Office of State Merit Systems within the Office of the Secretary. Then I left what began to appear “a sausage machine” and followed my poetry making side (where I am today, 87).
Thanks for remembering. I am trying to figure it out. Disgruntlement interrupts my thought.
Values are diffuse. I am recently remembering my time in Dallas TX in the Catholic Worker group and also the political actions I joined before I transferred to D.C. Dept HEW in its Office of State Merit Systems within the Office of the Secretary. Then I left what began to appear “a sausage machine” and followed my poetry making side (where I am today, 87).
And your poetry is a gift to all of us. Thank you.
“It is not the job of the government to inculcate values in its citizens. The Constitution gives the government the right to raise armies. That is it.”
Joanne, I am not sure your interpretation of the Constitution is correct. The first sentence outlines the purpose of nationhood and the nation’s government:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
With that purpose, a government was formed, and that government also included programs that invest in inculcating and strengthening citizenship through a network of laws and government services. These include public schools with required civics curricula, jury duty, military service, the Peace Corps, Americorps and many others. New immigrants too are required to learn basic American history and English and must swear an oath to protect the United State against all enemies foreign and domestic, as we all did as PCVs.
If we leave an interpretation of citizenship entirely up to the local church, junior league, moose lodge, or the proud boys, we end up, as the Federalist Papers warn, with a lack of consensus on common citizenship values. I’ll take citizenship consensus over willful chaos any day. The inculcation of citizenship through compulsory service programs, even if by compulsory lottery , and an expectation for the rest of society to volunteer is essential for our Democracy to thrive.
I diagree wholehaeartedly with your intrepretation of the Constitution. Of course, we disagree, we are Americans! The Founding Fathers not only
realized that, but the Consitution is basted on that. There is not broad consenus on values.
The Preamable of the Constitution sets out purpose and broad outline. The rest of the Constitution dictates how power is to be divided between the federal government and the several states and establishes rules for resolving disputes.
We have a adversaial culture. in our legislatures. our courts, and our elections we have tremendous disagreements based on different values.
to settle, we vote. One side wins and the other side loses. The survival of our government depends on the losers. They accept the decision and
plan for the next time. In our government, there is always the next election, the next vote, the next court decision and the next appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision is final, but then citizens can always work to amend the Constitution.
You focus on the Preamable. I would direct you to the all important Bill of Rights which limits the power of the government. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to free speech and the right to free association, among others. That is central to my contention that the goovernment does NOT compel consenus of values and can NOT compel National Service.
I believe there is one value that all Americans have, from the Toddler to those of us ancients. Listen to American children in free play. I guarantee within ten minutes, one child will yell out, “Hey, that’s not fair!”
Fairness is the only American value. However, we, naturally, do not agree
on what is Fair. See the constitution on we resolve that.
I am an Army Brat a proud member of Nurnber America Highschool, Calss of 1959, My Dad was career military at the time of the active Selective Service. Men were drafted because the Constitution allowed the
government to conscript men. President Trumen had integrated the military in 1948. So men of all races, religions, ethnic background and different states all got along. My Dad said it was because they had a
comment enemy: The US Army!
Finaly, you want compulsory national service? I give you the Hitler Youth Corps. https://www.history.com/news/how-the-hitler-youth-turned-a-generation-of-kids-into-nazis