An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Clay Felker

Gallup: Hispanic Voters Overwhelmingly Support Obama »

Obama & Giving Something Back To The U.S.

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in At TMV.
Jul 2nd, 2008 | Comments

The concept of national service is for me a no-brainer because it is a great way to give something back to the U.S. and even our erstwhile friends overseas while receiving valuable training and experience in return. I suppose the very fact that it makes such sense is why we haven’t heard much about it during a presidency that has made as its centerpiece a war that has bankrupted the national treasury and for which it has asked no one to sacrifice.

The first and subsequent times I heard Barack Obama on the stump this year he spoke at length about national service being a centerpiece of his presidency, and while he remains short on specifics, there is much to like in his plan, which he will roll out in a speech later today:

* Encourage national service to address the great challenges of our time, including combating climate change, extending health care, improving our schools and strengthening America overseas.

* Expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps.

* Integrate service learning into schools and universities to enable students to graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of service experience under their belts.

* Provide new service opportunities for working Americans and retirees.

* Expand service initiatives that engage disadvantaged young people and advance their education.

* Expand the capacity of nonprofit organizations to innovate and expand successful programs.

* Enable more Americans to serve in the armed forces.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, but Obama at least has some real-world experience as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side and stint heading Project Vote, which his campaign says helped register 150,000 new African American voters in Chicago.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

jwest

".............helped register 150,000 new African American voters in Chicago."

Being Chicago, one wonders how many of these new voters are actual living people.

superdestroyer

Define national service. Most of the programs I have seen describe let the children of the rich take the best, career building assignment and leave the trash pickup and grunt work to the children of the rest. The Teach for America program is so desired by Ivy leaguers looking to plus up their resume before they apply to law school, B-Schools, or grad school that is extremely hard for non-Ivy leaguers to get into the programs except in math and science.

In the coming one party states, volunteer work doing partisan, progressive work will probably become a necessary resume item for anyone who wants to enter politics. Just like attending elite, private prep school, attending Ivy league university, interning in NYC and DC, and traveling abroad.

Silhouette

Yes...the Obama Chicago problem...

Stay tuned for more on that and Reverand Wright around just after the Denver convention where pro-lifer "democrat" Governor Ritter will see to it that Obama seals the nomination...no matter what...

That's great for Obama. He had ideas! Good for him. His rival Hillary Clinton, whose overt "support" of him is lukewarm and forced at best, not only has the same good ideas and more, but served to enact those ideas during Bill Clinton's tenure in the Whitehouse...to bring our nation to the strongest economy in history..

Now, in these troubled times, do we want a youngster with good ideas or an experienced leader with the same good ideas and experience working with the people she knows how to already to get them to actually happen?

We're not going to run our country on failed promises this time. We want a candidate who has proven delivery especially with respect to the economy.. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. There is no other sane choice.

When I think of Obama's promises I think of a player in a club putting a line on a girl he wants to take home and ravage. If that girl thinks any of that smooth talk and "I'll call you tomorrow" BS is real, she needs a serious mental health examination; especially when she's heard this guy is a major player and has stomped on people before...

Visit the Chicago Tribune article ladies...before this guy takes you to Broken-heartsville..

Silhouette

And before you start to whine about Hillary having "given up"...just remember what critical and telling things she did not give up at the Unity speech to Obama.

Hint, she has thousands of them....gained from millions of others...

runasim

Good post, Shaun

I'm eager to hear the details, as well, but in a general way, I've always supported the idea.
I haven't heard anything lately, but about a year ago, there was quite a buzz about corporations encouraging and rewarding community service among their employeees. In addition to this being a help in geting a college degree, national service might also score points on a resume.

pacatrue

It also seems the devil is in the funding for this. But we will see....

ILEwashington

Obama's focus on drawing attention during the campaign to the concept of national service is well done. Any one of the myriad programs mentioned could find utility in supporting a young American's desire to give something back to the community. Particular attention should go to the last bullet "enalbe more Americans to serve in the armed forces." I will move past any potential political undertones to the term "enable more Americans" and highlight the service aspect.

Volunteer service in the armed forces is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, manifestation of national service. Since the days of the Revolutionary War and conflict with pirates off the Barbary Coast to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, national service in the armed forces has placed ordinary people in extraordinary situations to shape the U.S. and its role in history. Therefore, the future direction of the U.S, regardless of who wins the election, will be determined by the quality of Americans who volunteer and accept the sacrifices that service in the armed forces requires.

So, as we all roll into the 4th of July holiday, lets keep national service in whatever form on the agenda for all the politicians and pause to remember the boys and girls who have and continue to perform national service.

Major Charles D. Evans, Student, Command and General Staff School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

StockBoySF

Sil: "Now, in these troubled times, do we want a youngster with good ideas or an experienced leader with the same good ideas and experience working with the people she knows how to already to get them to actually happen?" Not to restart the whole "who's got the most experience" argument... but Obama does have way more legislative experience than Hillary and he did work his way up from the bottom in elected office while Hillary was practically handed her NY Senate position by the mere fact of who she was. I mean I wouldn't be able to move to NY and suddenly become the US Senator... Besides Hillary was First Lady in the WH and spent much of her time trading recipes or dodging sniper fire on tarmacs (ooops, sorry, didn't even do that!) Well, having said that I'm sure that Hillary does have good experience from her time as First Lady and would have made a fine president. But the fact is that she didn't sit in the cabinet meetings and make the decisions affecting the country. Bill did that. Furthermore Obama ran a really well organized campaign, something Hillary couldn't muster despite her experience. So I don't know why you think Obama would fail. He has experience and moreover has shown much better judgement than Hillary. Not that he's perfect because he's not.

I don't know where you got the comment about Hillary as having "given up". She didn't give up. She didn't give up on herself (she lost) and now she's fighting on Obama's side.

StockBoySF

Shaun, great post. I'd also like to point out that during the floods in Iowa last month Obama went to the flood zone and filled sandbags. He also asked Americans to volunteer in the effort. And he asked Americans to donate to the organizations to help the victims, which I thought was interesting... I don't think many politicians in the midst of a heated campaign to raise money actually ask people to give money to other places....

Certainly some folks will see Obama's volunteering in Iowa as a ploy to get votes, and they're right. But what isn't with any of the candidates these days? But he went beyond that and asked people to pitch in. In contrast McCain at the same time said two sentences about the flood. And I don't know why Bush wasn't out there sandbagging... he would have done more good for the country to get out of the WH, stop making his stupid decisions and going to Iowa to actually help. And both he and Obama have Secret Service protection (for those who think that Bush is somehow excused because he's the most heavily guarded person on the planet).

So, Obama's plans may lack specifics but he's already done more positive things for national service than Bush has done in all his years as prez.

Talk may be cheap, but when people hear and see a leader do good things then that itself goes a long way.

runasim

Re: funding concerns (pacatrue et al)

We fund our volunteer military, don't we?
We fund volunteer elected officials, don't we?

National SERVICE has the word 'service', meaning that the money will be earned by doing jobs that need to be done.

While the overall budget is a concern, of course, i don't see any reason to treat funding for national service as in any way different than other necessary funding.

DLS

Collectivist "mandatory volunteerism" -- is feeling good about it mandatory, too?

runasim

DLS,

Where in 'national service' do you see anything about service being nandatory?

Actually, I think that's a good idea, . Let's have EVERYONE show how patriotic they are by not screaming to high heavens:
"Not me, someone else, please. I'll love my country by denigrating everyone else, but I can't be expected to actually do anything."

Polimom

I agree, Shaun, from a number of perspectives. But runasim alludes to something I didn't address in my latest post.

Let's have EVERYONE show how patriotic they are by not screaming to high heavens:
"Not me, someone else, please. I'll love my country by denigrating everyone else, but I can't be expected to actually do anything."

For the most part, "national service" has translated into "military service" or politics -- neither of which are a good fit for many Americans, for various reasons. But because there's been very little attempt to emphasize any other service type, it's become fashionable to denigrate those who do not serve in the currently common fashion, or conversely to (sometimes) misunderstand those who do.

We need more avenues, and it needs to become integrated with our culture, in the same way military service is. We all reap benefits from being American, but there have been only narrow ways to give back.

superdestroyer

runasim,

Mandatory "service" would quickly turn into the same state that secondary or even college is today. The children of the elite would end up in NYC or DC intering for powerful people and the children of blue collar children would end up picking up trash along the road. This would last until someone realize that black children are not getting the choice "service" jobs. Then the government would instittute a quota system where 15% of teach for America or the Peace Corps would be required to be black. People would then realize that "service" in nothing more than a return to involuntary servitude.

Also, courts in the past have ruled that mandatory service is unconstitutional. The constitution gives the government the ability to raise an Army but not to raise teachers. I would say that Mandatory service would require a constitituional amendment but given the courts these days, it does not really matter what the constitution says.

runasim

SD,
Anything MIGHT happen.
The sky might fall.

I can guarrantee that the world will change, and you can either cower in fear, or you can deal with it.

No one is serioulsy talking about mandatory service yet. I merely made a statement of prnciple, not of policy.
And, yes. one day non-Latino whites will be a minority. You can't stop that by law or faith or fear.

casualobserver

Note how all the left fielders applaud the notion, but apparently will leave it to someone else to do the actual volunteering.

DLS

"Where in 'national service' do you see anything about service being nandatory?"

It's always there -- when leftists talk about "rights _and responsibilities_" (or "duties") and when the participation of all young people (typically) is mentioned.

* * *

"Mandatory service would require a constitituional amendment but given the courts these days, it does not really matter what the constitution says."

Nor has the Left (who have promoted judicial activism) stopped to consider what the Constitution says or means, for decades. They want what they want, period.

I'm just wondering if the same gooey drivel used during HillaryCare would be used when describing "national" (federal government) service -- that people would be "asked to contribute" or "asked to participate" in something compulsory.

DLS

"For the most part, 'national service' has translated into 'military service' or politics -- neither of which are a good fit for many Americans"

Just wait until soldiers are converted into social workers and the military goes "green" and engages in other forms of PC "progressive" "evolution" [sic].

Weightman

Reminds me of the CETA jobs of the mid-70s. CETA jobs offered a paycheck to low income workers and to the long term unemployed. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job.

In my neighborhood, these CETA jobs gave the local drug bums push brooms to lean on during the day and upgraded dope choices at night. When the CETA funding ran dry, the drug bums were back on the corner smoking stems again.

Polimom

Weightman (et al) -- you do realize that the programs Obama's talking about are, for the most part, already in place. Right? He's talking about making more of them available, since (according to AmeriCorps) they get something like 4 applications for every 1 opening.

StockBoySF

Weightman, that's a good observation (about the effects not being permanent). Obama realizes this and calls for changes within the community, such as asking fathers to take responsibility of their children. Throwing money at a problem won't make that problem go away long-term. There must be fundamental changes in people's attitudes and values. That's not something that can be accomplished overnight or even over a few years. But it is something that must be done if we don't want to lose a whole segment of the American population. Service is one aspect, money to fund programs is another aspect, expecting people to be responsible for their actions, etc. are just larger pieces of the puzzle that have to be done to solve the problem.

Weightman

That's more terrifying than the 401K statement I just opened.

pacatrue

Casual, what is your comment based upon? Were there comments here from some that they would never volunteer for this? Should everyone who supports the military say in every single comment of support that they will immediately volunteer for the military, and if not they should be condemned? Now certainly someone who does volunteer for the military is the strongest supporter of all, but that cannot be the only definition of legitimate support. If it is, we have to conclude that everyone who is not enlisted or a veteran is immediately not justified or somehow hypocritical in doing anything else in support, such as a contribution to the USO, support for a GI bill, or even posting a "I think this is an important function in our society" message on a blog. Or did I take your comment the wrong way? I read it as saying lefties are hypocrites for saying various types of national service are a good idea if they haven't also stated they will be enrolling in each type of service as soon as their fingers leave the keyboard.

Neocon

Pacatrue I would like to make an observation in which I would like to address your contention that just as many Far lefteners would most likely volunteer for service as would far righties.

AS I see it that is precisely the point. NEITHER left nor right have stepped in to fill these positions up to now. Once again the government is stepping in to fund programs that have failed because of the lack of volunteers. Now if the left is so thrilled about this notion of public service then why are there only 7600 Peace corpsmen when the quota is 16,000. Surely the left who are such big advocates of helping the needy, world peace and the like bound to fill these slots.

No?

The point is well taken that these programs fail because the people advocating them do NOT volunteer to serve in them. The left in this country accounts for about 150 million plus people. Surely out of that amount of people you can fill a few thousand volunteer jobs.

No? Of course not because as CO states. Those wanting these works projects are the first to find the exits as they trample their right counterparts at the exits.

Neocon

And my ultimate response to this entire subject is found in 3 words.

NANNY STATE KING.

pacatrue

By your logic, neocon, then I should also conclude that the right wingers are hypocritical since the army is having a hard time filling its spots. There are around 150 million people on the right. Surely, there are a few more thousand conservatives who could fill those spots...

Of course, the argument is largely specious. I fully think that you are capable of honestly supporting the military whether or not you served in it and one can honestly support teachers (that's a major part of this nanny state we are talking about -- teachers for the Mississippi delta) whether or not one has volunteered.

Finally, you are selectively grabbing your stats. You quote that the peace corps has not fulfilled all its slots and I believe it. But you also ignored another stat in the comments which is that AmericaCorps has 4 times as many volunteers as needed. Honestly, I don't see the harm in providing programs for people who wish to to serve their nation. The major harm as I said way above is in finding the funds for it.

pacatrue

Finally, neocon, is there any evidence that the left, whoever the heck that's supposed to be, volunteers less (running for the exits in your terms) than the right, whoever that's supposed to be? If you exclude religious charity (which might lean right, might lean left, i'm really not sure), the stupid stereotype of volunteers is birkenstock wearing, granola munching, greenpeace peace and love lefties. How can that be the cliche while at the same time the left is supposed to be running for the gates?

Neocon

Pacatrue Im pretty sure you missed my point.

read..............Those wanting these works projects are the first to find the exits as they trample their right counterparts at the exits.

My point was simply. Everyone wants it.........NO ONE volunteers as evidenced by my assertion that they are trampling the right who are also fleeing to the exits.

blog comments powered by Disqus