At the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2012, General Stanley McChrystal debuted the Franklin Project’s idea for a national service year. This year of service to the nation would be “voluntary, but socially expected” for all citizens of ages 18-28. National service would not be limited to the military, but would also include AmeriCorp, Teach for America and other such civic organizations. Naturally, this bold idea stirred discussion and garnered advocates and critics alike. Since first introducing this proposition in 2012 , the idea of compulsory national service has resurfaced several times, and is likely to do so again with the pending presidential election in 2016. In 2014, McChrystal penned an op-ed for the Washington Post calling on “voters donors and [future] candidates” to make a national service year a central discussion for the 2016 election.
McChrystal’s goal is to address what he sees as a “gap of shared experience” and a generally weak sense of national identity that he believes is currently plaguing America. His solution: give Americans the common experience of serving their country.
Despite the difficulty of implementing such a program, I believe the Franklin Project makes a strong case for the benefits of expanding national service. The core issue the Franklin Project brings to attention is the uncomfortable thought that perhaps the expectations for service on the average American citizen are far too low. Perhaps it is right to remind us that the obligations and duties of citizenship extend beyond just paying your taxes. In a separate Washington Post op-ed, opinion writer Eugene Dionne Jr. cites the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence as evidence of the demands of citizenship: “And for the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.” In ancient Athens, the right to vote could be attained through military service or by being prepared to serve in a time of war. While advocates for a national service year rightfully expand the idea of service to include the civilian sector, they still underscore the idea that the privileges of citizenship do not come without cost. A national service year would be a small step in alleviating the currently disproportionate burden-sharing of the cost of citizenship and give those who participate a greater sense of ownership and appreciation for the privileges of that citizenship.
More unsettling than the low expectations of citizenship is the cited lack of opportunity for willing Americans to actually serve. The Franklin Project points to the fact that AmeriCorp receives five applications for each available position. Similarly, programs such as Teach for America have competitive acceptance rates with more applicants eagerly willing to serve than available positions. Even for citizens willing to serve in the military, a recent Pentagon study found that only one in four Americans is capable of military service. Perhaps the issue is not one of lazy citizenship but rather a lack of opportunity to exercise it. Regardless of whether the Franklin’s project envisioned service year becomes a societal norm, these statistics point to a strong need for the expansion of these programs. While this would require additional funding, the needs that would be met would range from trail conservation in national parks to increasing access to tutors or mentors in classrooms and perhaps even a Works Progress Administration-style solution to America’s current infrastructure problem and could certainly justify the spending.
Detractors of the Franklin Project’s idea tend to level their criticism at the feasibility of implementing such a program. In yet another op-ed on this topic, Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argues such a program couldn’t possibly take into consideration the needs of minority groups like professional athletes whose prime years to compete would be squandered on compulsory service or religious groups like Mormons who already have religious obligations during this time period that any additional duties may infringe upon. This is definitely constructive criticism that policy-makers would be wise to take into consideration if this were to ever become a national policy. However, this specific criticism does nothing to address the apparent surplus of demand for national service opportunities.
National service can be an effective means of strengthening national identity and providing common ground for America’s diverse population. These programs provide a platform for teaching common national values and ideals, perhaps most importantly, placing the good of the greater national community above personal interests. While it is hard to imagine a one-size-fits-all program that mindfully considers the wide-ranging circumstances of the United States’ diverse population, McChrystal and the Franklin Project are right to call for increased civic participation and to ask the government to make more opportunities to do so. It is certainly no panacea, but expanding opportunities for national service to as many individuals as possible would certainly be transformative for America’s future generation of citizen leaders.
Jake Olson is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 12 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | YesterdayMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
