Obama on Service

I'm not sure how much of a difference it would really make in the end, but I do think it'd be neat to have a president and a team who can write and deliver great speeches with this one wending together a tribute to Ted Kennedy with a call to service for young people:

Each of you will have the chance to make your own discovery in the years to come. And I say “chance” because you won’t have to take it. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.

But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt. It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story.

As with many of Obama's speeches, I think it would be possible to sniff at this one and proclaim it banal. But I think part of the brilliance of Obama's rhetoric is an ability to elevate important but somewhat banal sentiments, like how cleaning the facade of an old building you've passed dozens of times can make you appreciate the architecture in a way you rarely have before.

Comments

like how cleaning the facade of an old building you've passed dozens of times can make you appreciate the architecture in a way you rarely have before.

Yes. In fact, when passing an old building that I haven't noticed before, I often stop, erect a scaffold, and take a pressure hose to the facade. It usually makes me late to wherever I happen to be going, but I always appreciate the architecture.

Posted by James Gary | May 25, 2008 5:42 PM

Barack's banal inspiration is refreshing after suffering 8 years of Bush's banal incompetence.

Posted by dckev | May 25, 2008 5:51 PM

It's not banal at all, but that same passage appears almost identically in his Knox College commencement speech from 2005, and I believe also in his Southern New Hampshire University speech from 2007. It's one of his greatest hits.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 25, 2008 5:56 PM

Salvation? From what?

Posted by Jesse | May 25, 2008 6:10 PM

History indicates that the rabble usually have to hang a couple of assholes before the plutocrats suddenly discover the merits of real patriotism --as opposed to two-faced lipservice.

Some would argue that the cost of gas, food and housing have not yet risen high enough to trigger social unrest.

But what I fear is the current shortage of hops for the beer-making industry. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080525/ts_alt_afp/uscommoditiesfooddrinkbeer

Something tells me the natives are going to get restless.

As well as a certain multimillionaire heiress with icy blue eyes who's supporting her husband's campaign.

Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2008 6:14 PM

One could also consider 'ask not what your country can do for you' and 'I have a dream' to be pretty banal sentiments.

It's the conviction and the delivery that make the difference.

Posted by flory | May 25, 2008 6:33 PM

I was there today, it was great all around.

Posted by Freddie | May 25, 2008 6:35 PM

I can't tell whether I love Obama or hate Ayn Rand, but I agree!

Posted by Adam | May 25, 2008 6:43 PM

Sure, sure. "Young people", under the heel of crushing student debt and a poor economy (and really; even in a good economy the young people aren't exactly making a lot relative to, well, old people), are called to do service for the community. While 50-somethings who've already "made it", what- wring their hands about the dearth of community service happening.

I like community service; it's gratifying and necessary: but hearing the message from a bunch of comfortable millionaires talking to educated kids whose economic situation is a little precarious makes me ill.

Posted by P | May 25, 2008 6:49 PM

"Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

No, no it doesn't. Whatever "salvation" means, it certainly doesn't depend on anything collective.

Posted by Brad | May 25, 2008 6:54 PM

Yes, yes, Brad. You're the master of your fate and captain of your soul. You depend on nobody and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps. Certainly you owe nothing to the fact that you were born into a rich society and given all manner of opportunities and advantages by that fact; you can honestly take full credit for everything you've achieved.

Also, homo sapiens is not a fundamentally social animal, and so the idea that there is a collective anything that we might be meaningfully a part of it ridiculous.

*pets Brad* There, there. We won't let the nasty scary Kantians get you.

Posted by NBarnes | May 25, 2008 7:03 PM

I'm a liberal and a supporter of Obama's campaign. However, I balk at the suggestion that one's personal pursuit of well-being is necessarily a "story separate from America's." Public service is not, and should not be, the only way to be a part of the "American story."

Posted by Trieu | May 25, 2008 7:18 PM

As a young person, this strikes a chord with me. everyone I know does some community service, has a part of that desire to solve the world's problems.

Call it idealistic, but it's there, and hearing these words from a president really will make us think about how we can do service in our lives- to make decisions with an eye to improving the world, even to make career choices at least slightly more altruistically-minded.

This is the process that gets us from idealism to real improvement in the world.

Posted by Dakkon | May 25, 2008 7:24 PM

Isn't this pretty much what every commencement speaker says at every Ivy/selective college graduation? I've heard some version of it at least a half dozen times.

Posted by CParis | May 25, 2008 7:33 PM

Do you want to know how effective Obama's call to service is for young people?

I'm 20 years old at Berkeley, and I plan on going to law school.

But now I'm going to take a little detour and do something like "Teach for America." I found it compelling when he has previously said in his speeches "you invest in us, and we'll invest in you."

Ditto my three roommates. And a few of my previously greedy classmates have decided to join the Peace Corp.

Posted by Natascha | May 25, 2008 7:37 PM

"But what I fear is the current shortage of hops for the beer-making industry."

Fortunately, this will only effect "elites" who enjoy drinking good beer. The "real 'mericans" who quaff the rice- and corn-infused macrobrews won't miss a beat.

"Whatever "salvation" means, it certainly doesn't depend on anything collective."

I think Pastor Hagee would disagree with you.

However, I balk at the suggestion that one's personal pursuit of well-being is necessarily a "story separate from America's." Public service is not, and should not be, the only way to be a part of the "American story."

And Gordon Gecko would agree with you.

Posted by ben | May 25, 2008 7:37 PM

Didn't somebody once say, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Sounds like Senator Obama his cribbing from John F. Kennedy.

Posted by SLC | May 25, 2008 7:51 PM

"Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

Actually, no - quite the opposite is true.

"Charity - and salvation - begins at home."

You don't have a successful society unless you have successful individuals. Now, the society can put forth an effort to have successful individuals or not.

This country does not. It's a criminal enterprise with a crappy educational system run by robber barons and corrupt politicians whose only goal is to keep everybody down lower than themselves.

"Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition."

He has no idea about MY ambition.

"Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential"

I've hitched myself to Transhumanism, which is considerably bigger than Obama and his monkey species.

"and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story."

Hopefully, the "next great chapter in America's history", for the sake of the rest of the world and the human species, is how it crashes and burns.

"As with many of Obama's speeches, I think it would be possible to sniff at this one and proclaim it banal."

I sniff and proclaim it banal.

To paraphrase Goering, whenever I hear anybody talk about "public service", I release the safety on my pistol.

Because the only "service" they're interested in is service to them. And Obama is no different than Clinton or McCain or Bush in that regard. And if he is, he's a fool - which is even worse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 25, 2008 7:59 PM

"Young people", under the heel of crushing student debt and a poor economy (and really; even in a good economy the young people aren't exactly making a lot relative to, well, old people), are called to do service for the community.

It's a good point: the people expected to make up the professional class leave graduate school with a mortgage's worth of debt, and not all of them are heading into lucrative careers.

But you're sort of off target here. One of Obama's policy pledges is loan forgiveness in exchange for community service. And as he's said in his stump, he and Michelle only cleared their law school debt a few years ago, when the money came in from his book deals.

It would be nice to have a way of making college affordable that doesn't involve a trip to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 25, 2008 8:08 PM

This is all just wasted air according to Hillary.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | May 25, 2008 8:38 PM

It would be nice to have a way of making college affordable that doesn't involve a trip to Iraq or Afghanistan.

McCain's trying to get rid of that particular loophole. No sense trying to attract freeloaders looking for a subsidized college education after only 2 tours of duty in Iraq.

Posted by ben | May 25, 2008 8:39 PM

Such cynicism on here. The fact is that doing something positive for one's fellow man is one of the most satisfying actions one can take. It doesn't have to be your life's mission, it doesn't have to be your sole focus. But committing acts of service for others has a proportional benefit for the self--it offers perspective, fosters connections, brings karma, and, yes, even pleasure.

In our highly individualized, competitive society, this is something we forget about too often. And whether Obama has said this before and Kennedy before him or anyone who has ever given a commencement address--sometimes it's good to be reminded. I'm glad to hear Obama say this. We've become a too-selfish, too-greedy, too-materialistic society.

Posted by Juranamo | May 25, 2008 8:57 PM

Such cynicism on here. The fact is that doing something positive for one's fellow man is one of the most satisfying actions one can take. It doesn't have to be your life's mission, it doesn't have to be your sole focus. But committing acts of service for others has a proportional benefit for the self--it offers perspective, fosters connections, brings karma, and, yes, even pleasure.

In our highly individualized, competitive society, this is something we forget about too often. And whether Obama has said this before and Kennedy before him or anyone who has ever given a commencement address--sometimes it's good to be reminded. I'm glad to hear Obama say this. We've become a too-selfish, too-greedy, too-materialistic society.

Posted by Juranamo | May 25, 2008 8:58 PM

Such cynicism on here. The fact is that doing something positive for one's fellow man is one of the most satisfying actions one can take. It doesn't have to be your life's mission, it doesn't have to be your sole focus. But committing acts of service for others has a proportional benefit for the self--it offers perspective, fosters connections, brings karma, and, yes, even pleasure.

In our highly individualized, competitive society, this is something we forget about too often. And whether Obama has said this before and Kennedy before him or anyone who has ever given a commencement address--sometimes it's good to be reminded. I'm glad to hear Obama say this. We've become a too-selfish, too-greedy, too-materialistic society.

Posted by Juranamo | May 25, 2008 8:58 PM

However, I balk at the suggestion that one's personal pursuit of well-being is necessarily a "story separate from America's." Public service is not, and should not be, the only way to be a part of the "American story."

From what I've read of his writing, it's not only public service that is a way to "hitch yourself to something larger". Whether it is family, faith, community and/or country, his case as I understand it is not a for a specific way of caring about those around you, but that I care at all.

Caveat: That may not apply in the context of this speech, since I haven't read it in full.

Posted by J K | May 25, 2008 8:58 PM

Obama is not just talking about "public service". He is talking about any kind of commitment to a project or end that is larger than oneself, that extends beyond oneself.

Human beings are social and political animals. They were made for sociality and for commitments that extend beyond themselves. They are disposed to recognize sources of value that lie outside themselves, and to respond to those values. They cannot achieve their own happiness simply by pursuing their own happiness.

Unlike some other traditional Kennedyesque "calls to duty", Obama makes it clear that he is not talking chiefly about one's duty or responsibility to one's country specifically, or to others in general. While acknowledging we have those responsibilities, he is asking the students to reflect on there own deeper natures, and that on which their own happiness will ultimately depend. How will they answer their instinctive interior calling to fulfill their highest capacities for excellence? What will they need to do to save themselves from falling into a hellish mirror-world of self-absorption? His claim is that they need to attach themselves to something that will go on even after they, themselves, are gone.

Obama uses the world "salvation". But then he also uses the word "fulfillment". These are just two different ways of approaching the same idea, one from a religiously tinted perspective, and one from a more secularly tinted perspective. You can think of it as salvation from a sinful immersion in the self-seeking and self regarding ego, or simply a failure to fulfill one's highest human capacities.

Everything in this world is finite and impermanent. But some things are somewhat less finite and less impermanent than others. An individual human life is a very small thing indeed. To be guided by commitments that extend no further than a single life is indeed to show a poverty of ambition, because it is an ambition with an end that is not commensurate with the capaciousness of one's own deepest ideals and powers of conception.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 25, 2008 9:03 PM

Matt, I'm thinking of buying a copy of HITS each for myself and a friend, and they're selling it at the Chapters (big Canadian bookstore) near where I live. Is there any difference in how much they pay you based on books bought at stores or on Amazon, or some other way?

Posted by Stephen Bank | May 25, 2008 9:25 PM

"part of the brilliance of Obama's rhetoric is an ability to elevate important but somewhat banal sentiments"

...does the name Ronald Reagan come to mind here?

How ironic is it to watch Reagan worshipers like Limbaugh, et al, bash Obama for his rhetoric?

Plus, I think Obama might have a fair amount of Reagan's teflon.

Posted by Steve Dwight | May 25, 2008 9:47 PM

Kervick, that's the best comment on Obama's speech that I've read so far.

Posted by Tyro | May 25, 2008 9:47 PM

. However, I balk at the suggestion that one's personal pursuit of well-being is necessarily a "story separate from America's."

Then you and Obama are on the same page-- he says specifically that this is the wrong way to think. The whole point of the speech is that public service is inseparable from your day to day life, and from service to oneself.

Posted by Freddie | May 25, 2008 10:28 PM

The fact that he (Obama) is even talking about this shit at all that elevates him above the rest of the pols. Is "Barry" (as sexually jealous neurotic ziocon racists refer to him him) Obama - um, the *Second Coming of Christ? No, he is not. But, the *Salvation he speaks of...is Salvation from materialistic emptiness, from the spiritual damage "Deal Or No deal" culture has diminished our better angels lo these many motherf years. Banality, cliche - good writers avoid them, well, ...like the cock******* plague. An irrelevant fact in picking a POTUS. There, we need someone unafraid to speak of, yea implement a better America. After the last 8 years of ziocon Hell - we badly need President #44 to be somewhat of a *healer, a moral force for good, a competent, benevolent Leader.

McCain's will apoint Joe Lieberman SecDef. Hillary will bomb Iran. And, Obama will say "No" to Joe, and try his damndest to avoid WWV. I'll take Obama as my President in a (cliche) heartbeet.

p.s. now, if indeed obama wins in november - here's a possible scenario:

1 President Obama Day 1: N.Y. Moneymen start putting the squeeze on - tellin him to (despite their policy differences)- name Lieberman as the new SecDef. "In 72 hrs. or else!, Mr. President!" Initially, Obama would resist. But chafing a bit under the ziocon heat at the dread 3 a.m. - he might grab a secure phone and dial up Ol' Rev Wright for some advice. and, the conversation might go something like this:

President Obama: "What do I tell them, Rev?"

Reverend Wright: "Son, it's been too long, far too long. But, you tell them moneymen this: Hell, No! I won't make Lieberman my Secretary of Defense! Hell, No!! And, if you sick, lying richer than Midas, cheap-ass zionist jew motherfuckers keep pressuring me - I will call you out at my motherfuckin' State of The Union Address!! Call you out, motherfuckers!"

Posted by Trevor | May 25, 2008 10:49 PM

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair that evil gets to be banal but good doesn't.

Posted by matt | May 25, 2008 11:10 PM

pseudonymous in nc-

"One of Obama's policy pledges is loan forgiveness in exchange for community service."

Hehe. Outsourcing citizenship, in other words. Basically, you have the wealthier tax payer subsidize someone younger to do service for him/her, buying their way out of giving a rat's ass about their community, and the younger doing the "service" as a business transaction with no actual non-pecuniary tie to the community...Hell: why don't we just bring in some guest workers to clean up our lakes and highways, build some new parks? It will cost less than paying Ivy Leaguers...

This type of "outsourced community service" makes our associations only between the government and the individual, which is a detriment to the existence of "community" and "service"; the very thing we're lacking here. Think about it; the less government is involvement, the more you have to lock arms with your friends, family and neighbors to get anything accomplished- community! If it just becomes a rootless army of young people paid by the federal gov't, there is no "community" in the "service".

"Community service" means giving some of your free time to help your locale. I know it's hard work, and it'd be easier to just pay someone else to build ties in your community (by paying your taxes), but...if "community service" is worth having, it's worth the tough work of actual civic participation instead of simply outsourcing it to the young while everyone else works more, makes more money, and buys more crap.

Posted by P | May 25, 2008 11:14 PM

I hope he gets to offer a similar invocation to service at his inauguration this January.

Posted by Rich | May 25, 2008 11:15 PM

"I sniff and proclaim it banal."

Man, I sniff your post and proclaim it banal. "He has no idea about MY ambition," wow, what an insight, and captializing "my" like you're writing a comic book really adds depth and meaning.

Go back you living off daddy's money Hack, you're a tool.

Posted by RG | May 25, 2008 11:32 PM

Uh, "wending together . . ."? What?

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 25, 2008 11:33 PM

Part of why this speech seems so great is the comparison between Obama's tone and delivery with Bush 43's speeches. We're talking an entirely different animal--the election's on another orbital. A quantum leap beyond. An order of magnitude difference...you get the picture!

Posted by Beth in VA | May 26, 2008 12:07 AM

FWIW, the diary below has pictures from the ceremony (including that of Patrick Kennedy's emotional reaction to the tribute), and it seems to echo Matt's sentiments:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/171029/926/85/522655

Posted by Kristi | May 26, 2008 12:32 AM

Gee, it'd be hard to live off my dad's money, since I don't even know if he's still alive. Even if he was, he barely had enough cash per month to pay his $100/month mortgage on his house in Florida twenty five years ago.

Guess you guessed wrong.

"To be guided by commitments that extend no further than a single life is indeed to show a poverty of ambition."

Ah, but this is where Transhumanism comes in. Once your goal is to go beyond a "single life", your commitments are considerably more valuable to yourself and to your species. Indeed, the commitment to achieve a Transhuman state is the only commitment worth pursuing.

Although my expectation that once humans become Transhuman, any "social animal" traits will be quickly dropped. While exchange of information is likely to still be valued, since Transhumans don't need anything but a source of energy, a source of matter, nanomass, computing power and knowledge bases, pretty much anything "social" is no longer relevant.

But even before that happy event, the goal of Transhumans would be indeed to work together to achieve that goal. Only Transhumans understand how to go about that process - humans are too locked up in social and political games of the sort Obama is wedded to. Transhumans do not believe in "self sacrifice" or "duty" but in "correctness". You do what must be done.

"simply a failure to fulfill one's highest human capacities."

Only Transhumanism can allow you to do that because only by transcending "human capacities" can you fulfill your nature as a sentient entity.

The Gnostics (some of them) understood this two thousand years ago. They understood that there was a drive in human nature to transcend human nature, and that this drive, and satisfying this drive, was more important than society, religion, family, work, love, or anything else. It was more important to BE God than to worship God.

Transhumanism was derived from that attitude.

You want a big goal to strive for? What's wrong with the goal of being immortal and no longer subject to any human frailties?

Or is that too big for chimpanzee brains to grasp?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 12:57 AM

I don't find it banal. And what Kervick said.

Posted by scruncher | May 26, 2008 1:35 AM

Ah, but this is where Transhumanism comes in. Once your goal is to go beyond a "single life", your commitments are considerably more valuable to yourself and to your species. Indeed, the commitment to achieve a Transhuman state is the only commitment worth pursuing.

In other words, you've got a pipe dream of your own to use as a shield to dealing today with today's problems that everyone else faces. Or am I supposed to consider your immortality to be a worthwhile improvement of the human condtion?

Well, you've got yours, and that's what matters.

Posted by Transhumanism? Please. | May 26, 2008 3:13 AM

I like how Obama is able to be both communitarian and individualist in his rhetoric and vision here. He isn't trying to force us all to join some sort of national service, but create financial incentives to make this a more attractive option for young people who usually would have to make a decent amount of money right away to pay off student loans. McCain, meanwhile, attacks Romney for individualistically pursuing profit and thinks the rest of us who don't serve in the military are evil pussies. The GOP has completely forgotten about whatever small-government individualism they claim to believe in (yet rarely ever followed).

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 4:09 AM

Obama is substituting participation for achievement. It is not important that we achieve social justice just that you young people get involved in something. (like maybe the presidential campaign of this great guy I happen to know) He explicitly plays down the notion of obligation to society or community to stress that students should undertake these endeavors because it will lead to their happiness and reaching their potential. Service as self-help.

PS - 61% of Wesleyan students will graduate with no debt and only 19% are from families making under 60K. These are kids from affluent families.

Posted by obligation to yourself | May 26, 2008 4:22 AM

Uh, "wending together . . ."? What?

I'm hoping that Matt's voice-recognition software is on the fritz again.

Either that or he's making a fiendishly esoteric allusion to the origins of the word in the "Old English wendan, akin to Old High German wenten to turn, Old English windan to twist".

No doubt inspired by Robert Plant's use of "wind" for something like "wend" in Stairway to Heaven.

Posted by Lex | May 26, 2008 6:31 AM

like how cleaning the facade of an old building you've passed dozens of times . . .

Nice turn of phrase.

Obama is going to need some major rhetorical skills to defeat efforts to unleash America's id in this campaign.

Posted by ferd | May 26, 2008 8:04 AM

There is nothing banal about leaders calling upon us to serve our country. I am a Peace Corps volunteer in Mali, West Africa in part because of Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention when she said, “To me, one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer. That face symbolizes this country: young, curious, brimming with idealism and hope -- and a real, honest compassion.”

This fall I will be attending the University of Washington to pursue a Masters in Public Administration and it would be a lie to deny the fact that Obama has been a huge source of inspiration as I come into adulthood and realize the role I want to play in my community once I return home from the Peace Corps.

Truly great leaders realize that all the resources they need to address the problems of today are within the constituents they serve. Their ability to mobilize those resources constructively determines their success as leaders.

Posted by Adam Sherman | May 26, 2008 8:47 AM

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by..."

Is this really a problem? If so, who does this? They ought to be easy to identify. Are we talking about people who become stock brokers? Plumbers? People who really focus in on building any kind of career, with an eye towards some kind of success? Would the world really be a better place if each and every software engineer stopped working 100 hours a week and dedicated 40 percent of those hours to working at a soup kitchen? What about the young software engineer whose ideas lead to a company that employs 150 other software engineers, 25 janitors, 20 food-service employees, and three bar/restaurants in a neighborhood?

Seriously. If this analysis is valid, there must be a ton of really selfish pricks out there. Why not identify a few so we can see what what the problem really is?

I mean, to what extent does MY live up to this credo? How many hours does he work every week? How about when he was working on his book? WOuld the world be better--and would he be a better person--if instead of doing that, he made PBJs for homeless people? And to what extent can we identify his ambition and his work as a crass, selfish pursuit of profits? To what extent do we view his ambition as a desire for something more socially acceptable? And why can't we apply that same standard, be just as generous, in assessing other people's work habits?

Posted by Sam M | May 26, 2008 9:04 AM

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by..."

Is this really a problem? If so, who does this? They ought to be easy to identify. Are we talking about people who become stock brokers? Plumbers? People who really focus in on building any kind of career, with an eye towards some kind of success? Would the world really be a better place if each and every software engineer stopped working 100 hours a week and dedicated 40 percent of those hours to working at a soup kitchen? What about the young software engineer whose ideas lead to a company that employs 150 other software engineers, 25 janitors, 20 food-service employees, and three bar/restaurants in a neighborhood?

Seriously. If this analysis is valid, there must be a ton of really selfish pricks out there. Why not identify a few so we can see what what the problem really is?

I mean, to what extent does MY live up to this credo? How many hours does he work every week? How about when he was working on his book? WOuld the world be better--and would he be a better person--if instead of doing that, he made PBJs for homeless people? And to what extent can we identify his ambition and his work as a crass, selfish pursuit of profits? To what extent do we view his ambition as a desire for something more socially acceptable? And why can't we apply that same standard, be just as generous, in assessing other people's work habits?

Posted by Sam M | May 26, 2008 9:04 AM

Hey Obligation to Yourself -

So, you can tell people they should serve we are social creatures who crave community and actually want to do right be each other. Or, you can tell them that they're selfish pricks. Hope that one works out for you.

Posted by lt | May 26, 2008 9:14 AM

hey lt

Hope your reading comprehension and writing skills improve before you graduate.

Posted by O t Y | May 26, 2008 9:43 AM

"P" - what, exactly, is the big problem with "outsourced community service," as you describe it? Say you have a 45-year-old man who has "made it," has a big corporate job with a comfortable salary, and also a wife and three kids at home. To keep up with the requirements of his rather demanding job he works overtime, evenings, weekends. He has perhaps 50 spare hours over the course of the year that he could hypothetically have spent doing work in the community, but he given that he's already busy and exhausted from work, he prefers to spend a little more time at home with his wife and kids. Out of his corporate salary, he instead makes a donation to a charitable organization that is worth the dollar value of 500 hours of basic labor, and the organization uses it to buy food for the homeless, or clothes, or to help keep a shelter running. Who is hurt by this arrangement? Not the charity, which can surely find a good use for the cash. Certainly not the recipients of the food bought by our anonymous businessman's cash. I suppose you might argue that the businessman himself is heart by not learning to appreciate firsthand the value of community in his life, but frankly I don't see why that's anyone's concern except his own. If some people find service gratifying and enjoy the sense of community it provides, I think that's wonderful, more power to them. In fact let's, by all means (as Obama's proposal described above would do) make it easier for such people to act on their idealism without being crushed by debt. However, there are always going to be others who personally place much greater value on their immediate circle of friends/family or their career, and therefore would rather spend their time on these and their money elsewhere. It's not our busy as a society to stick our noses in and hit these people over the head until they start acting more warm and fuzzy. It IS our business to ensure that there is sound and well-funded social support network for the less fortunate, however such a network can best be created.

Posted by A Selfish American, no doubt | May 26, 2008 11:17 AM

Neocon Francis Fukuyama thinks Richard should be put to sleep:

"Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea?"
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34867.html

Posted by Don Williams | May 26, 2008 12:12 PM

Voluntary service to others is a wonderful thing, but have no doubt; the contribution that Sam Walton has made to improving the condition of his fellow citizens dwarfed anything that Ted Kennedy has done.

Posted by Will Allen | May 26, 2008 12:23 PM

Natascha said "And a few of my previously greedy classmates have decided to join the Peace Corp."

I know people who have joined the Peace Corp. One was a family member, the others are friends. Your classmates need to be prepared for disillusionment. The Peace Corp is a government bureaucracy, and many of its workers are incompetent. The people I know who participated became very cynical, because eventually they were part of a self-perpetuating system that didn't really do much for the people they were supposed to be helping.

Maybe Obama will cure this, as he heals all of the nation's ills by his divine touch.

Posted by warning | May 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Someone who wants to work a lot and spend the remainder of his time with his family is good people by me, but I find this part confusing:

"It IS our business to ensure that there is sound and well-funded social support network for the less fortunate, however such a network can best be created."

Why? If it is because we somehow have an obligation to other people, than this is rich people buying their way out of civic participation- and that is bad citizenship. If not, then why do we have any responsibility to fund a social support network?

I don't think debt relief allows idealistic people to do anything idealistic: it pays them money to do what they want to do, just like someone who works for private industry is paid money. No idealism, that- it's civic-participation-as-business. If there is no non-pecuniary component, again, why don't we hire some guest workers cheaply to do all of this work instead of relying on some of our brightest young people?

Posted by P | May 26, 2008 1:42 PM

P, let me guess: You have spent your entire life in an academic and/or artistic enclave, and have never had a real job. Hence your perspective.

Posted by response to P | May 26, 2008 1:50 PM

response to P-

You probably hit your wife and molest your children, hence your perspective.

Posted by P | May 26, 2008 2:07 PM

No, but I do have a family (wife and kids), whom I love very much. Do you?

Most people who think the way you do are single, and don't know much about life yet. They like to talk about sacrifice, but they've never changed a child's diaper or stayed up all night cleaning up vomit.

I also have a real job. I don't need anyone to tell me "it's not about you, it's about society, we're all intertwined," yadda yadda yadda. But artistic types and academic types like to think that they are superior to people who live and work in the real world. That is why I assumed you were one of them. I suppose your immaturity could be because of something else.

How old are you, anyway?

Posted by response to P | May 26, 2008 2:12 PM

"Voluntary service to others is a wonderful thing, but have no doubt; the contribution that Sam Walton has made to improving the condition of his fellow citizens dwarfed anything that Ted Kennedy has done.

Posted by Will Allen | May 26, 2008 12:23 PM"

Classy.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 2:17 PM

Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me

This and more on…

http://sensico.wordpress.com/

Posted by Brittanypatroit | May 26, 2008 2:49 PM

To keep up with the requirements of his rather demanding job he works overtime, evenings, weekends. He has perhaps 50 spare hours over the course of the year that he could hypothetically have spent doing work in the community, but he given that he's already busy and exhausted from work, he prefers to spend a little more time at home with his wife and kids.

I would tend to see the problem that his job has created a set of work requirements that cause him to be isolated from participation in his community. The problem is that mindset that caused his employer to demand those requirements of him and his mindset that resulted in his deciding that sacrificing a connection with his community was worthwhile. In part, Obama's message is about how to change the mindset that makes such a scenario possible.

Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 3:23 PM

To say that they're "buying their way out of civic participation" only makes sense if you assume that their money appears magically out of thin air and deposits itself in their pockets. This may be true for a certain segment of rich folk ... lottery winners, ketchup heiresses and the like ... but if you are talking about someone who has a large bank account due to working his butt off to obtain and keep a high-paying job, that's not at all the case. If a person uses his time and energy to get a big salary, and then gives away a portion of that salary to benefit the community, that is functionally equivalent to giving away some of aforementioned time and energy to benefit the community. To put it a bit more clearly: the money is his compensation for his work. He gives the money to benefit the community. Ergo, some portion of the time and energy he was putting into his work went not to buying himself a larger big screen TV, but to helping others in need. That is not bad citizenship, it's an individual putting his particular talents to their best use and ultimately contributing more back to society than he would have been able to do had he spent his time otherwise. A wealthy entrepreneur/businessman can make a vastly greater contribution to decreasing poverty, keeping the parks clean, you name it, than a single individual who spends all of his or her time doing basic "community work." He doesn't do this by snapping his fingers and saying hey, I think I'll become wealthy tomorrow so I can get out of this citizenship thing, he does it by working and working some more until he is in a position to be of greater help to society, in utility terms, than in all likelihood he would have been if he'd taken a little less time making his company work in order to join a mentoring program. (As a clarifier, I absolutely respect people who choose a less demanding job and take a pay hit so that they can join such a program or any other organization that they feel passionate about, too. I just think we should understand that different individuals can give back to society in different ways, based on their particular talents and inclinations. In some cases that may mean putting an exceptional effort into one's career and then sharing the fruits of one's labor with the community, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that.)

As to debt relief, upon reflection I think you have a point (although it seems to me that in this case we should look into hiring less educated American citizens who have trouble finding a job, not guest workers), but it really depends on the program. If we're forgiving the debt of college graduates so they can spend a few years washing dishes in soup kitchens, then of course it's a silly idea - we're obviously not using the talents of our young people to their best effect, nor even probably getting back our investment in said young people. And I do indeed think that when we're talking public money, the government should restrain itself to spending on the programs proven to yield the best substantive result in terms of reducing poverty, cleaning the parks etc., and not on the basis of any "non-pecuniary component" (which might exist but is a personal thing and shouldn't be an issue for public policy). On the other hand, there ARE sectors (education leaps to mind) where an influx of motivated and talented young people could meet a dire need, and which are currently, financially, a really bad option for such people. Basically I'd support a program that helped get young people into public service sectors that actually need their talents, not one that was intended solely to inspire some abstract quality of civic-mindedness (which is in itself lovely but NOT a proper use for tax dollars when we still have problems with poverty, millions of uninsured, an ongoing war, a huge national debt, etc.).

Posted by Selfish | May 26, 2008 3:25 PM

"The problem is that mindset that caused his employer to demand those requirements of him and his mindset that resulted in his deciding that sacrificing a connection with his community was worthwhile."

Who says that, by definition, working isolates you from the community? Is this true of people who own a restaurant? Of people who work as social workers? Of people who work as software engineers in Palo Alto?

Isn't it true that many people find community AMONG THEIR COWORKERS? Ever been to a steel mill? Ever been to a bar next to a steel mill?

Why are you so quick to separate "life" from "economic life"? I am not ready to accept homo economicus. But come on. I have spent a lot of time waiting tables, tending bar and all the rest. My coworkers WERE my friends. And vice versa.

You act as if people go to work and turn off their social selves.

Nope.

Posted by Sam M | May 26, 2008 4:04 PM

Sam M, the exceptions should not serve as a means of invalidating the general rule. Just because I know my share of 80hr/week-working restauranteurs doesn't mean that I'm willing to somehow this is what we're thinking about when we're discussing the corporate-exec or lawyer working in an office 40 miles from home. We have sympathy for such people in that they're less able to be involved in their community, but the problem is that he exists in such a situation in the first place.

Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 4:23 PM

And re: Tyro - I would only call that a problem if putting in all those extra hours and sacrificing other possible pursuits to the job was the only way for the individual in question to get by. Obviously it's nice if one has the option of getting a decent job and still have time for other activities that one values, and rather troubling if a large number of people can't. However, it's a very different matter if we're talking about someone who goes the extra mile in order to get to and stay at a leadership position. That's not the product of some warped "mindset," it's natural - the individuals who are going to be getting the big bonuses and making big decisions that affect the success of the company, and thereby hundreds or even thousands of other people's paychecks, SHOULD damned well be the ones who are exceptionally dedicated to their work, and willing to stick around for a few hours when others go home; I'd even go so far as to say it's more of a problem when this ISN'T the case.

And to get back to what seems to be my main point here; I'm sure there are plenty of truly selfish, unethical, corporate jerks, but I would maintain our hypothetical Businessman X is not a monster simply by virtue of living in the manner described above. Let's say he does his work with an attitude of absolute integrity, is honest with his superiors and fair with his employees. Let's say he is faithful to his wife, whom he loves dearly, and wonderfully attentive to his children, for whom he does all he can to provide the best. Let's say, further, that he is mindful that good fortune as well as hard work enabled him to get to where he is, and in light of this realization he consistently gives to charity, which has over the course of the years probably made a difference in the lives of many people.

Let's also say that he happens to be a pretty reserved individual. Doesn't particularly get much out of crowds, or popular culture, or random interactions with strangers. Prefers a good history book to a neighborhood barbecue any day of the week. Is universally polite, but very particular about his friends. This is not because he's some freakish ice man incapable of loving, he just likes peace and quiet. Well, perhaps a "connection with the community" was never high up on his list of priorities. Perhaps, in fact, pursuing a closer acquiantance with the city's more socially minded residents in his copious spare time sounds approximately as attractive to him as cleaning the gutters. So he does things his own way, focusing on his work, which benefits his family, benefits society (see above), and benefits him.

So... what's the problem here? I am not at all saying that a sense of attachment to one's community can't be great and meaningful. I don't see why it's a Great Human Tragedy, however, if not everyone feels this way. Some people love the sense of family that they get from community work, others aren't all that interested. One could say the same of most human connections. Some people have kids, and for them raising a family is a central and extraordinarily valuable part of life. Others don't want children, and it isn't taking anything away from those who are loving parents to say that some people just don't want the (noble, loving, self-sacrificing, insert most other adjectives that could also be applied to community service) work of raising kids in their life, so they're probably better off not trying. Ditto, it isn't taking away anything from people who love the sense of belonging to a community to say that this feeling might just not mean a lot to others. As long as these others are still in some way chipping in, for instance by sharing the money that have as a result of their chosen way of life, there's no earthly reason to get upset about this. Promoting the particular activities that you find rewarding, especially when they benefit others, is great, but assuming that everyone who doesn't engage in said activities must be living a deficient existence is just plain silly. What ever happened to different strokes for different folks?

Posted by Still selfish ;-) | May 26, 2008 4:28 PM

selfish, that's a lot of words to simply claim that connection/contribution to one's community is not a important moral value. Your first example above of the hypothetical worker is only a demonstration of how a employer is trying to supplant the employee's community with the employer's. A "call to service" is calling upon us to realize what our communities are.

Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 4:57 PM

And what if the employee prefers the employer's community?

Look, I would also say that connection/contribution to one's family is an important moral value, but not everyone is cut out to be a family man or woman, and you know what? That's fine! Point is, there are a lot of important moral values. The fundamentals, which a person truly can't live without (love, honor, honesty, courage, for instance) can be expressed in many different ways and circumstances, some obvious, others less so - a husband who loves and cares for his wife or a single man who loves and cares for his friends, a soldier who shows honor on the field of combat or a plain civilian who risks his interests to stop some injustice at his job or in his neighborhood. Things like "family" and "community" are shorthand for particular applications of these more basic values - the idea that one should demonstrate love, concern and generosity (among others) towards a particular group of people. Insofar as they reflect genuine love & generosity, they are good things. I am simply suspicious of the idea that any such particular application, and even more any particular method of fulfilling one's obligations in light of such an application, represents an absolutely necessary component of living a good life.

Posted by S | May 26, 2008 5:42 PM

And what if the employee prefers the employer's community?

Outside a few exceptions which represent a form of service in and of themselves, an employer is money-making enterprise. It can take care of itself. The people within the employer may serve as part of an individual's community, but you have to wonder why it is that such an environment requires uprooting so many individuals to form a community in the workplace and isolate those individuals from each other elsewhere.

It seems that what many people warn against when calling others to serve something larger than themselves is not only the risk of self-involvement but also the risk of serving something larger than themselves which just turns out to be a self-serving, self-sustaining enterprise in the form of, say, an employing institution that the employee doesn't even own. The precise example of the person whose workaday job isolates him from the community, requiring him to "outsource" service is probably the sort of trap we would want to warn against.

I am simply suspicious of the idea that any such particular application, and even more any particular method of fulfilling one's obligations in light of such an application, represents an absolutely necessary component of living a good life.

I agree. I also think that there's an aspect to having a connection to one's community and/or something greater than oneself which is itself a moral good which overcomes this suspicion. Most importantly, charity and service work to maximum effect when the individual has a personal connection and knowledge about what he's contributing to. One can certainly do good by outsourcing this sort of service, but more good is done and it is more beneficial to the contributor when he is personally involved and "owns" the act of service by serving something larger than himself.

Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 6:14 PM

Some numbnuts who can't post under his own name said:

"In other words, you've got a pipe dream of your own to use as a shield to dealing today with today's problems that everyone else faces."

And your pipe dream is that going in the Peace Corps or some other crap is actually going to change the world.

"Or am I supposed to consider your immortality to be a worthwhile improvement of the human condtion?"

Mine would be. Yours - not so much.

Of course, you're ignoring what I'm advocating - that there be an effort made by the species to "cure death". Funny, though, when you advance such a concept, everybody jumps out of the woodwork to say how important death is, how the Earth can't sustain the population that would result, and a variety of other non-sequiturs that basically represent an attachment to death that is really amazing.

"Well, you've got yours, and that's what matters."

Actually, yes, that is what matters.

Because human life has no more intrinsic value in the universe than dust. One's own life has infinite value by definition. Everyone else's has as much value as they provide to one self and no more.

That chimpanzees run around telling each other how valuable they all are - while at the same time conducting wars and the politics that leads to wars, and spend all their time condemning each other for the slightest variance between them - is rich.

Don: "Neocon Francis Fukuyama thinks Richard should be put to sleep:

'Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea?'
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34867.html"

He's right. It is the most dangerous idea.

As for who's going to be put to sleep, well, we'll see. I'd like to see the chimps try. It's not going to work out like Star Trek, where Kirk always wins by acting like an idiot.

From the Reason article, quoting some other idiots:

"The normals, on the other hand, may see the posthumans as a threat and if they can, may engage in a preemptive strike by killing the posthumans before they themselves are killed or enslaved by them."

I have to laugh. They're saying that Transhumans, who might be capable of thinking a million times faster than humans (twice as fast would be sufficient, of course - especially since we've already figured this out - not to mention that we can read), are going to be "pre-empted". Trust me - Transhumans are going to be doing the "pre-empting" for precisely the reason described.

Not to mention that Transhumans would have utterly no interest in "enslaving humans". The human psychological projection here would be laughable if it weren't so predictable and so pathetic.

To paraphrase Bailey's last sentence, substituting "humanity" for "humility":

I have my own nomination for an "idea [that], if embraced, would pose the greatest threat to the welfare of humanity": Banning technological progress in the name of "humanity."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 6:59 PM

Let me clear, in case I'm being misunderstood here (a virtual certainty).

I have no objection to someone doing things like joining the Peace Corps or some other "public service" if they do it because they feel it will benefit them as well as others. And there's nothing objectively "wrong" (I don't think in terms of "right" and "wrong" anyway) in trying to help someone else, for whatever reason, on a personal or even a social level.

I'm simply objecting to the notion that "public service" is either going to "change the world" as long as the state and religion dominate this world, or that it's the only way to "change the world", or that it requires being "selfless" to do so.

The people who are changing the world are the scientists and technologists who are devising the solutions to the world's problems. Some of those solutions will need to be very radical to make any "real" change in the human condition and that is where Transhumanism comes in.

But the politicians and corporations who are sucking money out of the taxpayer for their own benefit are not "changing the world" for the better at all.

And that includes Obama.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 7:07 PM

Well, MORE good is done in my book depending on how many people are helped by the act, and how much help they are given - that certainly requires being smart about where one's money goes, but it doesn't rule out contributing money rather than one's physical presence.

In terms of providing a sense of meaning to the provider, sure, personal involvement works better; but there are plenty of other potential sources of meaning that also allow the individual to reach outside himself/herself (including but not limited to care for family, strong friendships in which he/she makes it a point to be there for others, and some types of employment that do good, expand human knowledge, or otherwise improve the world even while allowing employees to pay the bills).

All of which is to say that the "give something back to help out people in a rough spot" portion of service can pretty justifiably be seen as a general obligation on those of us who have been lucky in life. The "build a vague sense of personal connection to random people who live in the same city as you" portion is simply one potential method of deriving meaning. It's a nice one, but there are others, and focusing on those does not inherently make one a lousy human being. That's all.

Posted by S | May 26, 2008 7:13 PM

I am completely and utterly perplexed by this comment thread.

Posted by Stephen Bank | May 28, 2008 4:29 AM