...but his head...well, I'm not so sure.
In his most recent "Crystal Ball" article, he outlines his idea of "Universal National Service" for all citizens between 18 and 26. This is one of his 23 ideas for a more perfect constitution, which goes along with his proposed "Bill of Responsibilities" to go with the Bill of Rights.
Sabato's "UNS" is drawn mostly from the energy that comes from youth, and born out of John F. Kennedy's famous phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
While that is a great phrase to live by, and certainly an inspiring quote, Sabato takes this one step further. Basically, it makes 2 years of service (which can be done at any time) mandatory. This service is not just military, though. Sabato proposes that service can include time with the Peace Corps, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and suggest we create new programs. His examples include a revived Civilian Conservation Corps and a "National Disaster Strike Force" to accompany FEMA to assist with recovery after incidents such as Hurricane Katrina.
I can really see the positive aspects of this, but...
Despite Sabato's claims that this idea is "less about governmental authority, and more about a renewal of personal citizenship through sustained individual commitment to improving the nation", the problem is that you do create an incredible amount of governmental authority in an area that should not have any governmental authority at all.
Nobody should be "forced" to volunteer their time and services to help others unless absolutely necessary. It should be recommended, encouraged, but not made mandatory as a requirement of citizenship. First of all, it takes away the genuine feeling of "I'm doing some good" and replaces it with the feeling of "Uncle Sam is making me do this".
I feel that if you're going to do public service such as this, one should make a choice in the matter. That's part of what makes our nation so great, the freedom to choose. Another thing that makes our nation so great is the voluntary goodwill of it's citizens to help those around them. How can something be considered to be " done out of your own goodwill towards others" if it is mandatory?
We eliminated the military draft so people had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to serve their country. Now, we're essentially removing that right to choose. When you start making such mandates, you run into very dangerous territory in terms of how the government chooses to use (or abuse) this service.
I understand that Sabato is trying to capture the energy of our college-aged citizens and turn it into positive actions. I also understand that he endorses such a program because it is good for everyone to do something for the greater good of their fellow citizens. However, despite how good it is...I'm not sure if that's something that needs to be government mandated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is the section that sends me around the bend:
"Many young people are bursting with energy, a sense of adventure, and an idealistic determination to make the world a better place. Not yet careworn, rarely cynical, and infused with a belief (sometimes naïve, sometimes accurate) that they can find a better way, the young seek out opportunities to strut their stuff and make a difference." (Ugh, could this be an more patronizing? Many young people are parents. Many young people are taking care of their own parents. Many young people are brilliant computer programmers who shouldn't be working for minimum wage. ALL YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT YOU SANCTIMONIOUS OLD FOOL.)
"The expectation of national service, once the mandate is reestablished, can again become part of the rhythm of life for the young. The adjustment will be far easier than critics imagine, because of both the adaptability and idealism of youthful Americans."
(Oh, sure kids are adaptable and idealistic, lets just enslave them cause they'll get over it.)
I think Dr. Sabato has been hanging around the sons and daughters of some of those elite, suburban Dems a bit too much in his career.
I know he generally leans left a slight bit, but I used to find that he would at least try to keep an even keel in his analysis of current politics.
I hope these viewpoints continue to stay separate from his analysis. From the couple of times I've met and spoken with him, he didn't seem to have this kind of a bent to his opinions. This is a bit radical for him, in my opinion.
I did find his description of college students as "rarely cynical" to be a big laugh. Most college students I know (and used to go to school with) are WAY too cynical for their own good.
Post a Comment