The largest presidential election turnout in over 100 years is indeed something to celebrate, no matter who emerged victorious. But we also have to work like hell to assure that this high level of citizen participation continues to remain strong in our constitutional republic. Such involvement is the absolute surest way for our democracy to remain vibrant, healthy and strong.
Nonetheless, with that hope stated, history informs us that the next presidential election probably won’t have the same level of voter participation we’ve experienced in 2020. However, there is something concrete we can do as Americans to ensure future citizen participation.
Historically, the U.S. has lagged far behind all of the other industrialized nations of the world in terms of citizens voting. We usually vote at a pathetic 56% here in the good ’ol U.S. of A, while citizens of many other nations around the globe are consistently voting at 75-89% of their populations. In Australia, Luxemburg, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Belgium, voting is the law of the land; it’s compulsory, an idea that has some merit and one that I wish some astute and brave politicians have the courage to explore in Congress.
But there’s an idea that has been floating around national politics and debated for years, but now it’s time for action on it: Two (or three) year terms of MANDATORY national service for all young adults. Meaning that every young citizen at age 18 is compelled by law to give something back to the country that has given them so much, even if they are too inexperienced at the time to realize and appreciate the gift of a free, stable and well-run democracy.
A national program with no — or very few — exemptions, except for very good, documented and provable instances where such an exemption is clearly warranted, should be initiated. The program has to be so legally inclusive that even the children of the wealthy won’t be able to buy their way out of national service.
The benefits of such service to the nation are multitudinous as I will seek to demonstrate. But I’ll start off with one huge benefit: An increase in the level of love for country and also an increase in the amount of participation in our democratic processes by our youth.
By way of example: Take two groups of a thousand 18-year-olds, each drawn from every demographic; have one of the groups do a two-year stint by giving something back to the country via national service. The other thousand do not perform any national service. Members of which group, do you think, will be more likely to vote and take an active part in our democracy — five, ten, or twenty years down the road?
Of course the individuals in the group who have completed their mandatory service to their country would be far more likely to become — and stay — engaged citizens. The group that serves their country will feel (and rightly so) they finally have some skin in the game; service to the nation will allow them to take rightful pride and ownership of the country they’ve served, and they are bound to know so much more about their nation after their two years of service to it.
Apron strings would be cut; the kid from East Cleveland might end up completing his service working on a cattle ranch Wyoming, while the young woman raised on the cattle ranch perhaps would end up working in an inner-city hospital. Barriers to understanding other lifestyles and people would in most cases be lowered, and there no doubt would be a lowering of tensions between young Americans from different backgrounds, sections of the country and skin colorations. Such a service program would, over a period of time, lower the level of racial animus we’re currently witnessing.
Of course there exists right-wing, libertarian-type naysayers to such a plan for national service. They raise questions such as if a mandatory program would violate the Constitution by in effect constituting “involuntary servitude,” or that we don’t need to make it mandatory since so many Americans already volunteer, and that such a program will be manipulated by the rich to the determent of other classes. Needless to say, many overly protective parents would also balk at their little Johnny or Susie being forced into the program, but again, no exceptions without just cause.
However, none of the arguments against national service outweigh the benefits that would accrue to our nation’s young people (especially those from our nation’s inner cities where we would eventually see a dramatic decrease in gun violence) and the country itself.
Straw-man arguments such as those cited above serve as smokescreens for the real reason those on the right don’t want to see such programs embarked upon — because such service will expand the democratic base in a country that, when it was founded, only allowed white male landowners the right to vote. And we of course still have a large cohort of Americans who would be against this idea simply because they would love to turn the clock back to a time when a smaller group of white citizens determined what was right for the nation. These right-wingers are deadly afraid of any program that will cause an increase in the number of folks exercising the franchise.
Time was, years ago, juvenile court judges would give a wayward-acting youth the choice between going to a juvenile prison or joining the military, and in the vast majority of cases, this tactic worked. Those that took the military option virtually always emerged two years later as better-prepared individuals and citizens. However, the military wants the best crop of recruits it can get these days, and for the most part no longer allows these ill-raised youth to wear a uniform.
Not too long ago someone came up with the bright-sounding idea of “boot camps” for wayward youth. These wannabe tough guys go through a hell-like period (programs varied from six weeks to six months or more) of tough regimen run by military-like drill instructors. The idea was to whip them into shape. The glaring problem with boot camps is that when already acting-out youth are massed together with other acting-out youth the outcome often isn’t what is desired or expected. The group reinforces negative attitudes among themselves as soon as the drill instructor is out of sight. What has to happen is that a young person should be enmeshed within a larger, stable, cultural environment, one that is far more likely to cause them to adopt the positive mores of said group.
Part of the young people’s service pay would be held back and used to pay for community college or trade school (or some personal venture) after the young person has successfully completed their duty to country. At some point down the road every young person would be a veteran of community (or military) service to their country, and society would change inasmuch we would have to learn how to prepare every young adult (no matter how ill-raised or disadvantaged their upbringing) so they too can successfully perform their tour of duty.
Nothing we can do would be more egalitarian, or improve our society over all as well as a national service program has the potential to accomplish.
We would be creating stronger, more resilient young people, many of whom have zero sense of direction and purpose at age 18. After two or three years (perhaps longer if the young person elected to continue) of compulsory service, the vast majority of young people would be more grounded and might even have a sense of what they want to do with the rest of their lives.
If we want additional young Americans participating in this experiment in democracy going forward, we simply have to devise a way to engage them via public service and mold them into the better citizens we want them to become, and this is our best shot. Sure, the devil is, as always, in the details, but the rewards would be worth the effort. This is an idea whose time has come and the new congress should add creating the framework for such a public service program to its “to-do” list. But for all of the aforementioned reasons, creating a means of this type of giving back should be at or near the top of the progressive agenda. Nothing else we can do will pay greater dividends.
Of course it will take years of advocating for a national service program before something this culturally dramatic comes into being. But if enough Americans demand it eventually our leaders will enact our will — even if it takes over a decade or more.
But remember: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
