Obama's Service Plans

Barack Obama's set to deliver a big speech on national service later today. I'm not a huge fan of the "national service" concept, but whereas on many issues the devil is in the details on service I think it tends to be the reverse. Because the underlying idea is bad and illiberal, the people proposing national service schemes tend to avoid proposing specific policies that really match the rhetoric. Consequently, the details tend to be some good-to-harmless policy proposals yoked together with some fuzzy talk. The Obama campaign emailed around the following bullet points:

• 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 by showing the world the best of our nation.
• Expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps.
• Integrate service-learning into our 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 nonprofits to innovate and expand successful programs across the country.
• Enable more Americans to serve in the armed forces.

That's very vague, but as I say seems harmless enough and we're not really in "Service Guarantees Citizenship" mode:

It seems worth noting that the best "service" initiatives around, like the PeaceCorps and Teach For America, aren't so much "service" as they are public sector jobs that are simply structured as to operate outside the normal contours of recruitment and employment. There's nothing wrong with that, but the relevant test should be effectiveness of outcomes (does TFA help kids learn, does the PeaceCorps help build the American brand) not whether or not it's creating an awesome servicey spirit.

Comments

It seems worth noting that the best "service" initiatives around, like the PeaceCorps and Teach For America, aren't so much "service" as they are public sector jobs that are simply structured as to operate outside the normal contours of recruitment and employment.

Couldn't the same be said about military service, particularly non-combat military service? I certainly view any role one takes in the military as national service.

Posted by LFC | July 2, 2008 10:41 AM

Matt seems to have a real blind spot on these nationalism-related issues in Obama's campaign. This is all a crucial part of Obama's political appeal, and Matt is basically trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

And by the way, if you take a public sector job that pays under market rates in part because you want to do something good for the public, that is public service. And I for one think it is a fine idea to encourage such a notion. If you want to be pragmatic about it, if nothing else it saves the taxpayers money.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 10:54 AM

Couldn't the same be said about military service, particularly non-combat military service? I certainly view any role one takes in the military as national service.

Posted by LFC | July 2, 2008 10:41 AM

Exactly. The issue isn't whether or not you're getting paid, it's what you're getting paid to do. If it's to teach reading to impoverished kids, then it's national service. It's for the greater good.

Posted by Kurzleg | July 2, 2008 11:01 AM

the relevant test should be effectiveness of outcomes (does TFA help kids learn, does the PeaceCorps help build the American brand) not whether or not it's creating an awesome servicey spirit.

Or, the test could be: how well are they filling a need for work that would either less likely be done or not done at all?

I'd say "effectiveness of outcomes" is a great way to test whether the programs are operating efficiently (as compared to previous years, or something), not a test to see whether programs like these are efficient on the whole. Their continued viability and expansion shouldn't depend on how well they're emulating the private sector.

Yeah, these are duplicating private sector jobs, but those jobs aren't i-bankers or Celtics basketball players. That's why there's the government incentives and servicey spirit.

Posted by Chris_ | July 2, 2008 11:07 AM

Matt,

You really need to explain yourself here. A core liberal belief (liberal in the sense of social democratic, not libertarian) is that we are responsible for our fellow citizens welfare; that we are not singletons just concerned with our own well being. At yet here you are rejecting the very notion that we have such obligations.

DTM is right: a core part of Obama's message is that we are all Americans (no red America, no blue America) and that we are all in this together. Do you just not get that???

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 2, 2008 11:10 AM

I am a complete sucker for what I call benign nationalism, but then again I am far more romantic than Matt when it comes to certain progressive mythologies (e.g. the New Deal and JFK). But Obama proposing more national service is just another thing that makes me weak in the knees, like better transit infrastructure and better foreign language instruction.

Posted by infirm | July 2, 2008 11:10 AM

you think voluntary "national service" is "bad and illiberal"? and you think it's a small step on the slippery slope to comic-book fascism? Hmmmm. That's kind of an odd position. How did you arrive at it?

Posted by along | July 2, 2008 11:20 AM

This is one area where I strongly disagree with Obama.

At the risk of sounding totally obvious and banal, here is why. The problem with national service, whether of the benign sort discussed above or the military service, is the lack of competition. In private enterprise, competition tends to weed out ineffective organizations. In the public domain, any weeding out has to be done by the government. However, there are no strong incentives to do so.

This is why we should keep the public sector as small as we can, and focus our efforts on making the necessary public sector organizations operate as effectively as possible. I would rather we redouble our efforts to make sure the EPA and FDA, for example, work effectively, rather than putting resources into things like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corp, that do not perform vital functions. I have heard anecdotally that the Peace Corp has become a bloated, ineffective, beaurocracy. I don't know if anyone else has any info on that.

I also favor greatly reducing the size of the military, by the way.

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2008 11:20 AM

A core liberal belief (liberal in the sense of social democratic, not libertarian) is that we are responsible for our fellow citizens welfare; that we are not singletons just concerned with our own well being. At yet here you are rejecting the very notion that we have such obligations.

I read it somewhat differently: if you care about the welfare of your fellow citizens, "national service" isn't necessarily the most liberal (nor the most effective) way to get there.

Posted by Mike | July 2, 2008 11:21 AM

I think Barack is saying a lot of really disappointing things lately. The Peace Corps is a good thing in the abstract in a few ways, but I feel like conservatives like it because it takes liberal young people out of the country (who would otherwise be advocating for liberal politics here in America). It basically decreases our ranks to win political victories and take things away from the Republicans.

Think about the '60s and all the important social movements and legislation that were going on then, or have their origins in 1960s liberal activism. How much of that really would have taken off if tens of thousands of people who had the guts and compassion it takes to go suffer in a dangerous foreign country for several years in the Peace Corps had been doing that instead, rather than having been student activists on college campuses? How many second-stringers as far as personality and intelligence would have made the student organizations and activism in general as successful as the most talented student leaders did?

Right now what we most need is to decisively win at politics in America, to defend against the Republicans. We no more need liberal college-age and graduate-school aged people who are brave, motivated and dynamic joining the Peace Corps than we need them going over to fight in Iraq.

Let Europe-- or some other First World nation that isn't strugglying with the Bushies, who currently command the world's strongest military and greatest economy-- do it. What Barack is suggesting runs counter to what should be basic Democratic strategy right now. You know young Karl Roves, Frank Luntzes and Sean Hannitys aren't going to join the Peace Corps, or at least not in anything like the relative numbers to the whole number of their activists that young liberals will.

Posted by Swan | July 2, 2008 11:21 AM

Swan,

The Peace Corps was started in 1961, and yet somehow the rest of the 1960s managed to happen anyway.

Jim W,

You write: "This is why we should keep the public sector as small as we can, and focus our efforts on making the necessary public sector organizations operate as effectively as possible."

First, I think "necessary" is a somewhat slippery concept in this context. I would suggest that government should provide services where it can do so the most efficiently, despite some of the inefficiencies that tend to attend government services (in part, as you suggest, due to the lack of competition).

Second, even as stated, putting those principles into effect is the tricky part. For example, again encouraging the notion of "national service" as an intrinsic good can be an efficiency-enhancing effort if for no other reason that it can help the government save on labor costs.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 11:35 AM

Swan,
You're right the the Peace Corps takes a lot of liberals out of the country, but to think this is a bad thing for liberals is absurd. I'm a returned volunteer who served in Tanzania and while I was out of the country for a couple years, I came back much more motivated and sure about my liberal beliefs and with a clearer understanding of how American policies affect other parts of the world. I also gained a better appreciation for different cultures and a greater compassion for people in poverty here and overseas. As for student activists, you have to finish college before joining the Peace Corps so that's not affected. Besides, look at the numbers. Right now there are only about 7000 PCVs serving from all over the country, not exactly enough to change the electorate. Also the Peace Corps is very good about making sure volunteers have access to absentee ballots.

Matt, I also take issue with calling PC just a "public sector job." The reason we were called "volunteers" was that we weren't really paid. We were just given $200 a month for expenses.

Posted by Andrew | July 2, 2008 11:37 AM

One of my kids is finishing as a Peace Corps volunteer now. Some of the comments here seem a bit off base.

For one thing, if it were like a job you'd be paid more than enough to live moderately well by the standards of the 4th poorest country in the world.

The Peace Corps is changing from the send an idealistic kid off to the boonies and have them do good to send someone with some skills to where they are needed. Not perfect, of course, but they know that the traditional model has to change as the world does.

Western Europe does send out volunteers too. They tend to stay in the air-conditioned ex-pat bubble. The locals notice the difference.

Potential activists are out of the country for a couple of years, but then they come back. Ex-Peace Corps is like ex-Marine - it's for life.

Posted by snoey | July 2, 2008 11:38 AM

As with MY's embrace of gun ownership and his lukewarm environmentalism, I interpret his dismissal of national service as evidence of his immature, libertarian side.

Posted by Bragan | July 2, 2008 11:46 AM

As a former PC vol, I could go on and on about the many things that are wrong with the agency, many of them indeed bureaucratic and personnel-based and symptomatic of Beltway nonsense (which can trickle down through country offices). But the thing is, when a volunteer is out there in his or her village, the effects tends to be pretty positive, albeit abstract and fuzzy. Yes, many libraries become derelict, wells run dry, schools fail, social programs dissolve, and other projects are left to rust after the enthusiasm and/or the volunteer have left. And some volunteers have very bad experiences (rape, death, abusive boyfriends, sickness), just as some volunteers create bad experiences for the locals. But in general, there is value in the interactions between well-intentioned Americans and the people who live and work with them. The PC is essentially an enormous gesture of good will, and that gesture means a great deal, even if it's not as effective as we all wish it were.

After the clusterfuck that has been the Bush Era and its effects on other peoples' attitudes toward America, this is probably an excellent time to send thousands of people out into the world to reshape our image, even if it's primarily through simple gestures like learning a new language and respecting a different culture and making banana bread for your neighbors. I can say with great certainty that the official "work" I did as a PCV meant nothing to anyone and left no lasting impact, but being a decent guy, a good neighbor, an earnest student of the language and culture... it meant a lot.

And as far as inefficiency and cost, the PC costs as much in a year as a few days in Iraq.

Posted by tinisoli | July 2, 2008 11:50 AM

In that public education video, they fail to clearly the Republicans as the bugs.

Posted by El Cid | July 2, 2008 11:54 AM

DTM wrote: The Peace Corps was started in 1961, and yet somehow the rest of the 1960s managed to happen anyway.

But look at the results it got. We're in peril today of losing a lot of ground and never acheiving a lot of goals we thought we were going to then. Maybe if there had been no Peace Corps, the additional personnel would have helped us to get more done. Or maybe not.

The point is, now the Peace Corps may be taking away personnel we need for waging politics against the Republicans.

There may be some types of war in which soldiers are more important than leaders. For example, in an intelligence war, individual covert agents are huge assets who have huge cover-stories that take millions of dollars and plenty of time and thought to design, set up, and to practice to the point of getting just right. The result is a person who is in a unique and sensitive position to accomplish the goals of the intelligence agency. But what if a head of covert operations has a heart attack and dies? There are plenty of people who can take his or her place, who can read the reports and do it. Even if they had to start elevating unqualified people to command, it's not going to stop them from pursuing their operations, because they are sworn to keep their mission going and probably uniformly fanatically motivated to do so. But turn or capture one of their intelligence agents? That's real damage.

Not so with a political war. Political war is more like regular war, in which we need our people who are most naturally gifted for leadership. When those rankes are diminished, our total effort is inevitably correspondingly diminished.

Posted by Swan | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM

Andrew wrote:

As for student activists, you have to finish college before joining the Peace Corps so that's not affected.

Even so, the alternative may be graduate school and leadership of college campus political clubs.

Posted by Swan | July 2, 2008 12:06 PM

I know this is off-topic, but just continuing my muse about intel (I've been considering writing a John Le Carre style novel) one might argue that if you get field agents elevated to command, those personnel are being taken off the field. Not necessarily so- they may be able to simply diminish their covert ops and take on command at the same time.

Also, what if you like the status quo? Having a less-stable or less-careful subordinate of a secret police elevated may lead to the implementation of very harsh policies you don't by any means want to see happen. Since the value of picking off soldiers is so relatively high and the benefits of going after leaders so ephemeral and unknowable, intelligence agencies content themselves with trying to turn or liquidate the other side's soldiers, not setting up elaborate, risky operations to try to get the other agency's leaders.

It just goes to show that every war is different, and that one shouldn't assume that our personnel are doing the right thing in the Peace Corps just because they're doing something that is nice from a liberal point of view.

Posted by Swan | July 2, 2008 12:16 PM

Well, Swan, I'm starting grad school in the fall, so that was just deferred. Many volunteers go to grad school after serving, some serve after grad school, some even serve after retiring. Actually, had I not done the Peace Corps I would have worked, not gone on to grad school. And because of that experience I had, I'm much better equipped to be a more effective leader. I am more confident and self-reliant than I was before. I think we want our leaders to have had diverse experiences. One of the reasons I like Obama so much is the fact that he has his community activist background that brings the kind of experience few politicians have. Being in the Peace Corps didn't hurt Senator Dodd's political career.

Posted by Andrew | July 2, 2008 12:18 PM

Posted by Swan | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM

But look at the results it got. We're in peril today of losing a lot of ground and never acheiving a lot of goals we thought we were going to then. Maybe if there had been no Peace Corps, the additional personnel would have helped us to get more done. Or maybe not.

If its about results, why in the world would it be about results in terms of political organizing in the United States?

You can test for economic development benefits based on whether a local area has participated in Peace Corps programs and based on whether a local area has received USAID funding. The first shows up positive development effects, the second does not.

Based on that we should shut down USAID and channel all of that funding to the Peace Corps ... but on the other hand, it may be that the Peace Corps is able to have positive development impacts because it is seen as harmless window dressing, and if there was more money flowing through, the yellow bellied surplus suckers descending would bring those positive impacts to a halt.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 2, 2008 12:28 PM

BHO's speechwriter writes: Encourage national service to address the great challenges of our time, including combating climate change

OMG! BHO stole my idea!

Posted by TLB | July 2, 2008 12:37 PM

Hear, hear, tinisoli! What was Sec'y Rice was saying about the importance of citizen diplomacy earlier this year (and Karen Hghes during her stint in the WH)? And isn't PC under the aegis of USAID? It seems that MY isn't a fan of national service as a concept because of a lack of quantifiable outcomes, then I have to think he's missing the whole point of development, diplomacy, and assistance. The fact that we have thousands of people in this country and around the world engaged in work and living on subsistence that not only helps to solve demonstrable problems resulting in improved perception of America The Brand, but is an important balance to the uneasy state of international affairs created by two wars.
We no longer function in a world shaped by 1950s ideas about The Other, as much as some want to have us believe: people have an innate desire to help their fellow (or non-fellow) citizens and no amount of fear-mongering is ever going to change that. While the author seems to think service is not a "necessary" function of government, I challenge him to make the same argument to the thousands upon thousands of young people (starting in the '30s) who have contributed to the continued success of their schools, neighborhoods, and communities through the various national service programs. I further challenge him to make the same arguments to the thousands of young people who, despite political affiliation, would have attended a U.S. Public Service Academy had it existed as an undergraduate option for them. Thanks to bipartisan support in Congress, their younger peers may well have that option.

Posted by Duff | July 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Matt is so far off base here, even the Nationals would be able to pick him off.

National service isn't just valuable because of the impact of the service workers' efforts, but because of the impact service makes on those workers. Returned peace corps workers, former TFA teachers, and, yes, military veterans are much more likely than the rest of us to volunteer in community soup kitchens, stream clean-ups etc etc etc. And, while I've seen no research on this point, I'd bet they are more likely than the population at large to support public policies that ask us to make sacrifices for the benefit of the community, as well.

I can't think of a more fundamentally liberal project than building an ethic of service, an expectation that part of what you do with your life is help make the world a better place, instead of just being an income maximizer of pleasure-seeking hedonist. Personally, I've long been in favor of making two years of either civilian or military national service mandatory for everyone before they turn 25.

Oh, and Swan . . . that's just nuts.

Posted by Potomac Guy | July 2, 2008 1:07 PM

1. Most people in the world are really poor doing anything to help them is a good thing.

2. If you want to help the desperately poor people it's a tricky thing to do outside of government. Sure you can donate money to some worthwhile charities but even if you are willing to take a big huge hit on income to help people it is difficult to make pursue that option.

3. The market will always under provide for people that don't have any money. There aren't so many great inventions that make subsistence farming easier because there aren't great incentives to produce them.

4. I don't like the idea of compulsory public service, I do think that there are too few opportunities for those who want to pursue public service positions. Teach for America is very selective, that is part of why it is so good of course but I know people who wanted to do teach for America were refused and went on to very successful careers as lawyers or financial analysts.

Relative to the need for public service and for the amount of people who would kind of like to do public service I think it is obvious that we are not at equilibrium. Basically I feel that there is a utilitarian optimal wage hit that people would be willing to take to help others who need it most. I would guess it would be something like 30%. If you are capable of trade labor in America to the tune of 40,000 a year you ought be able to pursue an altruistic career for 25,000 dollars doing international irrigation projects. If you are capable of being an engineer who makes 90,000 you ought to be able to make international infrastructure projects for 60,000 etc. We are nowhere near that equilibrium (that I just guessed at) now.

Posted by Michael Foody | July 2, 2008 1:10 PM

Enable more Americans to serve in the armed forces.

I can't really see what this is driving at since we have now relaxed standards for anyone with a criminal record, mental health issues, and no GED.

All I can think of that's left is this must be codespeak for teh ghey? Or maybe Arabic translators.

Posted by melior | July 2, 2008 1:16 PM

Kudos to Duff for bringing up the idea to build a U.S. Public Service Academy. The Academy would be a civilian West Point -- students would get a free college education in return for a five year commitment to serve in public sector positions in areas of critical need. This idea was launched by two Teach For America alums two years ago, and it has gathered tremendous momentum on Capitol Hill (20 senators & 98 representatives have co-sponsored a bill to create the Academy). Sen. Clinton is a champion of the Academy and she talked about it on the campaign trail.

Now that she is out of the race, the Academy can (and should) be picked up by Sen. Obama. It could be for President Obama what the Peace Corps was for JFK -- a highly-visible national institution that attracts a new generation into public service.

Does anyone know why he doesn't support it? You can learn more here:
http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org

Posted by C.M.A. | July 2, 2008 1:19 PM

Kudos to Duff for bringing up the idea to build a U.S. Public Service Academy. The Academy would be a civilian West Point -- students would get a free college education in return for a five year commitment to serve in public sector positions in areas of critical need. This idea was launched by two Teach For America alums two years ago, and it has gathered tremendous momentum on Capitol Hill (20 senators & 98 representatives have co-sponsored a bill to create the Academy). Sen. Clinton is a champion of the Academy and she talked about it on the campaign trail.

Now that she is out of the race, the Academy can (and should) be picked up by Sen. Obama. It could be for President Obama what the Peace Corps was for JFK -- a highly-visible national institution that attracts a new generation into public service.

Does anyone know why he doesn't support it? You can learn more here:
http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org

Posted by C.M.A. | July 2, 2008 1:22 PM

Kudos to Duff for bringing up the idea to build a U.S. Public Service Academy. The Academy would be a civilian West Point -- students would get a free college education in return for a five year commitment to serve in public sector positions in areas of critical need. This idea was launched by two Teach For America alums two years ago, and it has gathered tremendous momentum on Capitol Hill (20 senators & 98 representatives have co-sponsored a bill to create the Academy). Sen. Clinton is a champion of the Academy and she talked about it on the campaign trail.

Now that she is out of the race, the Academy can (and should) be picked up by Sen. Obama. It could be for President Obama what the Peace Corps was for JFK -- a highly-visible national institution that attracts a new generation into public service.

Does anyone know why he doesn't support it? You can learn more here:
http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org

Posted by C.M.A. | July 2, 2008 1:24 PM

National service should rightfully be a key issue among both candidates for the upcoming election. Senator Obama's speech certainly makes valid points that would hopefully bolster more support for and encourage more participation in public service. His points are well taken. However, it is severely disappointing that a such a progressive and inspiring man who will hopefully challenge the American public to truly answer their call to service in whatever form they feel most appropriate (public or military service) would miss the mark on creating new service platforms and introducing new service initiatives. AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps are both undeniably wonderful opportunities for American citizens. However, they are the legacies of former administrations that introduced these inspiring and innovative ideas decades ago. Where is the 'change', the 'hope' for something new? One would think that such strong and powerful slogans would inspire Senator Obama himself to create a new legacy of his own answering the call to service. Instead, he is relying on the work of other great leaders who so drastically influenced the notion of national service to the American public. If Senator Obama truly believes in change and a hope for the future why would he not include the United States Public Service Academy as one of his platforms? What better way to raise the visibility of service and bring prestige and respect to its efforts than starting America's first 'civilian West Point'. A free, four year education in exchange for five years of service in the public sector. This progressive and innovative idea could be what the Peace Corps was for JFK's legacy but Senator Obama is choosing to ignore this idea that has strong support in both the House and the Senate as well as support from students, universities, former military leaders and dozens of other prominent individuals around the country. Where is the
'change' in Senator Obama's platforms? Where is the progressive idealism and 'hope'? This is a generation of young people ready to serve and ready for the challenges Senator Obama has to offer. Yet they are not being challenged in new ways. I'm not sure that's change I can believe in.

Posted by Elizabeth | July 2, 2008 1:24 PM

National service should rightfully be a key issue among both candidates for the upcoming election. Senator Obama's speech certainly makes valid points that would hopefully bolster more support for and encourage more participation in public service. His points are well taken. However, it is severely disappointing that a such a progressive and inspiring man who will hopefully challenge the American public to truly answer their call to service in whatever form they feel most appropriate (public or military service) would miss the mark on creating new service platforms and introducing new service initiatives. AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps are both undeniably wonderful opportunities for American citizens. However, they are the legacies of former administrations that introduced these inspiring and innovative ideas decades ago. Where is the 'change', the 'hope' for something new? One would think that such strong and powerful slogans would inspire Senator Obama himself to create a new legacy of his own answering the call to service. Instead, he is relying on the work of other great leaders who so drastically influenced the notion of national service to the American public. If Senator Obama truly believes in change and a hope for the future why would he not include the United States Public Service Academy as one of his platforms? What better way to raise the visibility of service and bring prestige and respect to its efforts than starting America's first 'civilian West Point'. A free, four year education in exchange for five years of service in the public sector. This progressive and innovative idea could be what the Peace Corps was for JFK's legacy but Senator Obama is choosing to ignore this idea that has strong support in both the House and the Senate as well as support from students, universities, former military leaders and dozens of other prominent individuals around the country. Where is the
'change' in Senator Obama's platforms? Where is the progressive idealism and 'hope'? This is a generation of young people ready to serve and ready for the challenges Senator Obama has to offer. Yet they are not being challenged in new ways. I'm not sure that's change I can believe in.

Posted by Elizabeth | July 2, 2008 1:26 PM

Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain should include the U.S. Public Service Academy as part of their national service plans. This will be a new generation's Peace Corps. As a bold idea, the Academy will capture the attention of young, smart, energetic youth who want to give back to their country. Perhaps that is why so many people from across the political spectrum see this as perfect vehicle for making public service cool again. You should visit the website: www.uspublicserviceacademy.org.

Posted by Shawn | July 2, 2008 1:40 PM

A National Academy focused on public service is a great idea! The US Public Service Academy would truly reemphasize the importance of public service in the United States.

Senator Obama speaks about the importance of public service but has yet to support the Academy. His endorsement would show his true dedication to creating real change: a change that would create more efficient government, a change that would help create opportunities for the young, just-engaged generation, a change that would create leaders who would truly support the public sector.

Posted by Olson | July 2, 2008 1:42 PM

I'm a returned PCV and I think the idea that it is not a form of national service is just nuts. More than just nuts--I think it betrays a weakness in pampered Matt's worldview. He finds it undesirable to devote two years of one's life to try (and usually fail, I must add) to make a meaningful difference in the lives of someone you'll never see at Alinea or at a trendy club in the Meatpacking District, therefore he must denigrate it as a "public sector job."

You don't need to be Good to join the Peace Corps (I am not Good, and while I was in country I drank like a fish). But you have to have guts to take a flying leap into a very unknown situation. There can be some real dangers, as well--when I served during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations, PCVs had to be evacuated from Liberian as it descended into a bloody awful civil war.

There's nothing magical about being in the Peace Corps--George Packer served in Togo and wrote one of the whiniest books I've ever read about his experience--but it is national service in a way that young, sheltered Matt will never understand.

Posted by jlw | July 2, 2008 1:59 PM

I hope that when President Obama sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, he will sign into law the U.S. Public Service Academy Act that so many people have posted on above. He wants to make service the central cause of his presidency and the Academy could be the flagship institution that his commitment is missing.

Posted by Ripple of Hope | July 2, 2008 2:38 PM

Potomac Guy writes: Returned peace corps workers, former TFA teachers, and, yes, military veterans are much more likely than the rest of us to volunteer in community soup kitchens

I'm sure everyone else can spot the LogicalFallacy PG is engaging in.

I can't think of a more fundamentally liberal project than building an ethic of service

PG meant to say, "...in this way." How about prez McCain just encouraging people to contribute rather than building up a bureaucratic infrastructure?

Posted by TLB | July 2, 2008 3:14 PM

Doing community service to get a voucher for a publicly funded college: yawn.

Signing up to kill giant bugs across the galaxy in order to get the right to vote: change we can believe in.

I have yet to hear a plausible plan from John McCain to deal with the arachnid menace.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | July 2, 2008 3:36 PM

There are definitely troubling aspects to the idea of encouraging more "service". When combined with Obama's talk the other day about expanding Bush's taxpayer subsidy of religious organizations through faith based initiatives I wonder if private religious groups will be a part of encouraging more service.

Something about encouraging lightly trained volunteers to engage in professions like teaching has struck me as wrong and designed perhaps in part to deflect attempts to provide more funding to education for instance.

Volunteering is all well and good but it is no substitute for professionally delivered social services. I would like to see Obama and his supporters encourage people to pay their taxes and even call for a tax increase to fund those services.
Showing support for your fellow citizens should not be something done because you feel the whim to volunteer, instead it is a part of being a member of society and the polity. That is what taxes are for. I think that if "national service", especially through private organizations, becomes more common that people would be less inclined to pay the higher taxes required to adequately address problems thinking that their service was enough.

Even if people would do shitwork like levy building why not pay someone a decent wage to do the work rather than allowing someone to volunteer.

Posted by bbk | July 2, 2008 3:47 PM

TLB sez: "PG meant to say, "...in this way." How about prez McCain just encouraging people to contribute rather than building up a bureaucratic infrastructure?"

Yes, of course, I am endorsing this particular approach. But if "just encouraging people to contribute" was likely to result in a shift in our national outlook, I'd be all for that, too. The goal of making service an expectation is a liberal one. I happen to think that the best ways to get there are to either make it an explicit obligation, or offer a sufficient financial reward that it becomes possible and desirable for as many people as possible.

I think there's a disconnect around the word "service" which some people automatically equate with "volunteerism." But many forms of public service are compensated. Soldiers draw a salary. Garbage collectors, too. Heck, the President draws down $400K a year, which ain't chump change to most of us. So if Matt says that what people in AmeriCorps are doing is just being public sector employees, I've got no problem with that. The nomenclature change, though, doesn't make the experience of doing the work any more valuable -- to the worker, or the country.

Posted by Potomac Guy | July 2, 2008 4:46 PM

bbk:

I couldn't agree more. The one exception I would cite is the military. There actually IS a huge advantage to encouraging widespread citizen participation in the military. We don't need lessons about the Fall of Rome to see the downsides of an unaccountable mercenary army with divided loyalties: we're getting a firsthand example currently in Iraq.

The problem with these liberal calls for "service" is they recognize the above issue, but attempt to wed it with the liberal notion of "peace is more productive than war." Surely if encouraging citizen volunteers for military service is a good idea, then a "peaceful" way to serve your country is an even better idea! Encouraging all 18-20 year old males to do a 2 year stint in the army: probably a good idea (it'd even discourage foolish wars since a larger percentage of the population with children in the army would be more cautious with advocating military force). Encouraging all 18-20 year olds to teach inner city school to qualify for college scholarships: likely a waste of time, possibly a terrible idea.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | July 2, 2008 4:57 PM

Matt apparently didn't notice that last one:

"Enable more Americans to serve in the armed forces."

Expecting more wars, are we, Senator?

Like in Iran, maybe? Or Pakistan?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 2, 2008 5:32 PM

Teach for America is not national service.
More benefits are derived by the participants
than by the students they teach.

"National service" would need to be mandatory. Anything else is just expanded volunteer opportunities.

Posted by conscript Yglesias | July 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Michael T Sweeney,

President Truman agreed with you. He proposed Universal Military Training just after World War II. A damn good idea, but Congress rejected it. As Col. Hackworth wrote 9 years ago:

In 1947, at President Harry Truman's behest, a commission studying Universal Military Training (UMT) unanimously recommended that every young man serve in our armed forces. But Congress, weary from WWII, said no. They were into cutting the ranks, not building them up.

The man from Missouri saw UMT as a program that would give our youth "a background in the disciplinary approach of getting along with one another, informing them of their physical makeup, and what it means to take care of this temple which God gave us. If we get that instilled into them, and then instill into them a responsibility which begins in the township, in the city ward, the first thing you know we will have sold our Republic to the coming generations as Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson sold it in the first place..."
http://www.hackworth.com/8sep99.html

Posted by beowulf | July 3, 2008 4:59 AM

Oh, just found a 1948 Time magazine article on Truman's UMT proposal (Time's free archive is fairly awesome)... look who's on the other side, the presciently wrong Air Force. Who cares about strengthening civic involvement when there are jets to buy?

The airmen contended that the money, time and effort could much better be spent on combat aircraft and in the training of regulars for the Air Force and the Navy's air arm.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,855972,00.html

Posted by beowulf | July 3, 2008 5:23 AM

As a recently returned PCV, who specialized in Monitoring and Evaluation, I get Matt's point. But of course I have a few caveats.

1. PC is a bureaucracy, and yet it is the LEAST bureaucratic arm of the USG. (I cry at the thought too);

2. We ABSOLUTELY should measure the effect of PCVs more. I pushed for this, but there is not nearly enough manpower in the field;

3. If we want to start actually measuring our impact abroad, we must start with AID. We should measure positive and negative impacts. I DARE any liberal blogger to be brave enough to question AID, especially against photos of poor, swollen bellied AIDS orphans;

4. PCVs tend to emerge excellent community facilitators who understand how to communicate across cultures better than most. This is not a skill to be underestimated. Barack made a good point long ago that living outside the states (or the rich world) gives you an understanding of American culture vital to understanding others. Skills needed in Iraq, no?

Posted by Dominique | July 4, 2008 3:14 AM