Citizenship: A Call to Service?
In 1910, Harvard philosopher William James tried to justify his pacifism with an essay called “The Moral Equivalent of War.� Horrified by the destructiveness of war, James nonetheless recognized that there were strengths to be found in a military environment. Dedication, strength of purpose, the feeling of being bound together into a common effort greater than one’s individual needs . . . all of these have very tangible benefits, which unfortunately are often overwhelmed by the death and destruction of actual war. James argued that while he firmly believed in pacifism, a peaceful society would not be built easily, and would probably not be built at all if those virtues could not be harnessed in a non-violent way. Thus, he said:
If now . . . there were, instead of military conscription a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice [that some struggle in life while others have lives of leisure] would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would follow. The military ideals of hardihood and discipline would be wrought into the growing fibre of the people; no one would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man’s relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life.
America has recognized the value of community service for years, and has tried to encourage it through a number of government initiatives such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, which President George W. Bush recently consolidated under the umbrella of the USA Freedom Corps. Retired General Wesley Clark, now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has proposed the creation of a Civilian Reserve which would seek to emulate the structure of the military reserves, in which volunteers with special skills could be called upon to utilize those skills in emergency situations in exchange for a stipend, health benefits, and a guarantee that they could return to their former jobs when their service was complete. In his speech to introduce the proposal, Clark explicitly placed his own military service in the broader context of the service performed by police, fire and emergency workers and by community activists and volunteers:
We see patriotic service all around our country every day. We see it in our soldiers serving in harm’s way in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and the Korean Peninsula. But we also see it in people who work every day to strengthen the fabric of America – the police and firefighters who serve and protect us here at home … the nurses who care for our sick and elderly … the workers who make our government run … and the teachers with whom we trust our future, our children.
While Clark’s proposal is an ambitious one, it does not go nearly to the same lengths as James’ proposal. More and more, though, I wonder if we shouldn’t give it some serious consideration. Our cities and infrastructure need improvement; one need only recall the Northeast blackout from earlier this year for an example of that need. In Philadelphia, the city government has just gotten a major project called the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative underway; its goal is in large part to clear out blighted areas by demolishing abandoned structures and cleaning up decrepit lots in hopes of spurring greater development. Many rural areas are plagued by poverty and a lack of vital resources. What if we built a force of several million Americans, putting their brains and muscle power to work shoring up the basic foundations of our society? What if we made national service mandatory?
I realize the notion of the government requiring its citizens to serve goes against the very basics of what most of us consider our freedoms as American citizens and human beings, although it’s not nearly as unheard of as I assumed it was when I started writing this piece. Senators John McCain and Evan Bayh have proposed significant expansion of existing service programs, and several pundits have begun discussing the idea of making such service mandatory. Senator John Kerry, another candidate for the Democratic nomination, has proposed an extensive service plan that includes making some form of community service a requirement for high school graduation. I particularly like that element of the plan, since I believe it would help knit young students into a more cohesive society along the lines that John Dewey always envisioned.
That said, those of a more libertarian bent would no doubt call me a loon for even thinking any of this. Libertarians find the notion of even a voluntary national service program loathsome; in criticizing Clinton’s AmeriCorps proposal, Doug Bandow wrote:
Service is obviously a good thing, which is why so many people feel warm and fuzzy when politicians propose “national service.” The question, however, is service to whom? Government programs ultimately assume that citizens are responsible not to each other, but to the state. The proposals suggest that as a price for being born in the United States one “owes” a year or two of one’s life to Washington. Mandatory universal schemes put private lives at the disposal of the government, but most of the voluntary programs, too, imply a unity of society and state, with work for the latter being equated with service to the former.
There is a sense in which I can’t really argue with Bandow, except that I think he pushes his point to an extreme. Yes, national service plans do give the government the responsibility of organizing – and therefore controlling – the service that its citizens provide. But in a democracy, the state is not an entity in its own right. It is supposed to be the means through which society organizes itself and works together for the benefit of the society and its individual members.
I doubt I will ever be able convince someone like Bandow of the merits of a service plan; our fundamental beliefs about individuals and societies are too diametrically opposed. But Deweyan progressives like myself, who believe that the individual is empowered rather than constrained by strong collective ties and action, need to start considering exactly what those ties should be. Citizenship is not simply a set of privileges. It is a responsibility as well. This is the ethical basis from which society draws its power to set laws for its citizens to follow, and to lay claim on the citizen’s individual resources. Right now our society has needs that are not being met. Not only are vital services not being performed, but many of us live in such isolation from each other that we have no idea what the people around us experience, or how they see the world. We have an obligation as citizens to find a way to overcome that, and I think we’re at the stage where drastic measures are called for.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.