I don't understand why moderates of both parties don't push a program of national service for everyone.
I know it would be protested by the military and law-enforcement that want the field to themselves, government workers, labor unions, and the Bush administration which wants exclusive control by as small a number as possible, but still ...
But it would give welfare and underemployed the methods and the means for creating jobs and improving the nations services and infrastructures, at least cost, with least disincentives for gainful employment and education.
It would combine all demographics into a common experience, of a couple weeks per year at a minimum.
It would be the platform for developing the most comprehensive sort of Homeland Defense, involving the citizens, who are better at defending the homeland than DOD and the rest of the gov't put together, as we saw on Flight 93, and I'm sure will see in our own neighborhoods before too long.
Citizens learning to defend their homeland and neighborhood aren't likely to whine about not getting high enough pay or promotions, if they see it as truly in the national interest. Labor unions are less likely to oppose if they see work as increasing safety and work that is added, not subtracted.
As much a fan of minimal gov't as I am, this seems like something that combines civic duty with social progressiveness, and it's cheap, with more bang for the buck than fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or ordinary welfare.
I also see it as participatory defense, not welcome to an all-powerful central form of government. But perhaps I'm being cynical. |
