National service is all the rage today in D.C. Even Democratic politicians who are ostensibly opposed to war-making have begun to occassionally call for a draft to make sure that as many Americans have a stake in our country's military future as possible. Obama and McCain have also called for massive service programs to get the young out to volunteer. Joe Biden even called the prospect of paying more and more taxes a patriotic duty of those who can do so.
What all of these programs have in common is that they expect the young to carry the burdens of the future, at a time when those in power and getting ready to retire are not in the least bit acting as though the future matters to them. No one seems to know precisely how much the federal debt is, but the one thing we do know is that if one counts the potential Social Security and Medicare liabilities into it, America's young people will be "serving their country" for the better part of their adult lives to make up for the decisions being made today.
Calls for national service ring cheap in the ears of a generation that knows that its prospects for a middle class lifestyle are being taken away by Baby Boomer and World War II generation politicians who seem to have an innate inability to act with even a pretense of responsibility in their own affairs. If anything, these generations owe Generation X and its descendants their leisure and best years of their lives because there is an entitlement storm looming over the horizon that is sufficient to make hurricanes Katrina, Ike, Andrew, Hugo and several others combined seem like April showers for our economy.
At a time when America, like most of the industrialized world, is facing a demographic crisis caused by low birth rates and entitlements for everyone who happens to survive to the ripe, not-so-old age of retirement, nothing is being asked of the elderly. Why drag young people out of the workforce, or force them to delay college, when the allegedly older, wiser generations could be volunteering in schools. Surely, if our elders are as worthy of respect for their years and wisdom as is often claimed, they would excel well beyond America's younger generations in these capacities.
With each expansion of the federal debt, which almost always comes to shore up this government program, or bailout that well-connected business interest, the options of future generations are being limited. Instead of expecting young Americans to give up their time, time that could be spent on a host of valuable economic and educational activities, why not instead ask them to contribute to the economy, especially by starting businesses? Leave the national service up to those who are living off of the nation, but that would not poll well among the elderly; many of whom are completely unwilling to even consider the morality of the burden that their tax payer-subsidized existence will put on younger generations of Americans.
I ask you, which is more selfish, a young person who would rather work in the economy and be productive in a "time of need," or a senior citizen who treats their entitlements from Social Security and Medicare as immutable, unquestionable right? Why is the call to sacrifice being asked of those most capable of contributing to, and supporting the economy, and not those who will live off the federal treasury? The simple answer is that for many years, it's been socially acceptable for the elderly to check out of society, and pass the buck onto younger generations.
There is no doubt that everyone needs to contribute to the greater good of this country. However, there needs to be a greater understanding of precisely what national service is. A young, married couple that is raising a family of well-adjusted children is contributing every bit as much to society's future as the active volunteer or serviceman. While the latter's contributions will most likely only be felt in the here and now, the former's will be felt for many years to come. Even someone who just gets up and goes to work is serving their country in their own way because they support the economy which, in turn, supports the vaunted volunteer and uniformed hero. Those who denegrate these forms of service as inferior are guilty of the same myopia as the elitist; they forget that their service is predicated on the mundane, economic work done by others.
It's possible that the calls to national service are just a smokescreen. No one should put it past this generation of politicians, a group that is only slightly more popular in America than the Warsaw Pact leaders were during the McCarthy Era. Perhaps it is just a passing tribute to some vague notion of morality and virtue. One thing is clear, a combination of coercing young people into national service, while refusing to fundamentally address the debt issues foisted upon them is not really service. It's slavery. That the bonds will be bureaucratic red tape and not chains does not change the nature of the beast.
It's all about numbers. The Baby Boomers and WWII generation outnumber the rest of us. And in a democracy, that's all you need. They will continue forcing us to to do their bidding until a sufficient number have died off. So perhaps by the time we're old men we'll have some control over our own lives.
That's true, until they're too old to use a gun effectively. Then, it'll be time to go back to the negotiating table.
"A young, married couple that is raising a family of well-adjusted children is contributing every bit as much to society's future as the active volunteer or serviceman."
Mike, I daresay that the young married couple that spouts out a family of well adjusted, moral children is actually doing more service to society than a volunteer or armed forces member is doing.
The volunteer could be undermining capitalism, or working to enslave us all, you never know. And the armed forces member is compensated for his service, so while noble, being in the military isn't exactly charity work. It's a bit more mercenary than that. Moreover, in some cases his efforts serve to curtail liberty.
The married couple who stays married and raises children who themselves will marry, stay married, and have more than 2.1 children do far more to carry on society than the other two.