Draft Bad – Military Service Good
By Howard Levine
December 28,2002
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) called for a universal draft as a way of making sure that people from all socio-economic backgrounds serve the country equally. He feels that this would make Americans less hawkish because the children of the rich and powerful - not just the poor - would be at risk in a war. This is a typical Democratic diversion tactic! He is trying to oppose war on Iraq based on the composition of our armed forces rather than on the fundamental issues of the situation. His draft proposal, though not relevant concerning war against Iraq, does bring up some interesting issues.
It is telling that a Democrat would be in favor of universal conscription rather than a voluntary solution based on civic rewards for service rather than criminalization of people who do not wish to serve in the military or other parts of the government that would use conscripts. Conscription is the ultimate form of taxation; Democrats have already been trying to conscript all productive people by taxing and regulating them. A draft is simply an extension of Democrat policy to control the lives of Americans and have them do what Democrats think is right regardless of what the individuals think. Charles Rangel says he wants to “… give everyone the opportunity to serve the country and protect liberty …” when he is actually talking about forcing everyone to serve the country in a way that he, in conjunction with the rest of Congress, specifies.
If the real issue is making sure that politicians and policy makers have an understanding of the risks of military operations for the people who will be fighting the wars, there are other approaches that can be taken. For example, we could have a constitutional amendment restricting the right to vote and hold public office to people honorably discharged after at least 2 years of active duty or 6 years of reserve or National Guard military service. This restriction could also apply to appointed positions including any positions requiring confirmation by the Senate. We would then have voters and government officials who would understand military risks and would be able to empathize with the military personnel currently engaged in the defense of the country. They would understand the risks of both action and inaction. This would solve the problem raised by Rep. Rangel concerning any possible disconnect between voters, civilian government leadership, and the military.
This solution allows voluntary participation. For those who don’t participate or qualify, they will simply not be able to play a role in the government either as a voter or public official. There is something to be said for having the government run by people who have made and fulfilled a serious commitment to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. It is one thing to take an oath; it is more important to prove that you are both willing and able to fulfill it. Since high school graduation and minimum performance on standardized tests is required for military enlistment, we would have the added advantage of voters meeting some minimum education requirements which might make elections revolve more around issues than slogans and prejudices. For any who think that this is unfair to minorities, it is important to point out that minorities are over-represented in the military with these standards currently in place. This is not an issue of race or national origin; it is an issue of having competent, responsible people who have demonstrated their commitment to the Constitution running the country.
There is justice and equity in this approach. After all, why should people who are able and willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country not have more say in how the country is run than those who can’t or won’t take on those obligations? This is real sweat equity investment in the political process.
Requiring voluntary military service in order to vote or hold public office is about as likely to become law as Rep. Rangel’s idea of universal conscription. However, a comparison of the two approaches does reveal the difference between those who truly value freedom as opposed to those who believe freedom means telling other people how they must live their lives.
By Howard Levine
December 28,2002
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) called for a universal draft as a way of making sure that people from all socio-economic backgrounds serve the country equally. He feels that this would make Americans less hawkish because the children of the rich and powerful - not just the poor - would be at risk in a war. This is a typical Democratic diversion tactic! He is trying to oppose war on Iraq based on the composition of our armed forces rather than on the fundamental issues of the situation. His draft proposal, though not relevant concerning war against Iraq, does bring up some interesting issues.
It is telling that a Democrat would be in favor of universal conscription rather than a voluntary solution based on civic rewards for service rather than criminalization of people who do not wish to serve in the military or other parts of the government that would use conscripts. Conscription is the ultimate form of taxation; Democrats have already been trying to conscript all productive people by taxing and regulating them. A draft is simply an extension of Democrat policy to control the lives of Americans and have them do what Democrats think is right regardless of what the individuals think. Charles Rangel says he wants to “… give everyone the opportunity to serve the country and protect liberty …” when he is actually talking about forcing everyone to serve the country in a way that he, in conjunction with the rest of Congress, specifies.
If the real issue is making sure that politicians and policy makers have an understanding of the risks of military operations for the people who will be fighting the wars, there are other approaches that can be taken. For example, we could have a constitutional amendment restricting the right to vote and hold public office to people honorably discharged after at least 2 years of active duty or 6 years of reserve or National Guard military service. This restriction could also apply to appointed positions including any positions requiring confirmation by the Senate. We would then have voters and government officials who would understand military risks and would be able to empathize with the military personnel currently engaged in the defense of the country. They would understand the risks of both action and inaction. This would solve the problem raised by Rep. Rangel concerning any possible disconnect between voters, civilian government leadership, and the military.
This solution allows voluntary participation. For those who don’t participate or qualify, they will simply not be able to play a role in the government either as a voter or public official. There is something to be said for having the government run by people who have made and fulfilled a serious commitment to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. It is one thing to take an oath; it is more important to prove that you are both willing and able to fulfill it. Since high school graduation and minimum performance on standardized tests is required for military enlistment, we would have the added advantage of voters meeting some minimum education requirements which might make elections revolve more around issues than slogans and prejudices. For any who think that this is unfair to minorities, it is important to point out that minorities are over-represented in the military with these standards currently in place. This is not an issue of race or national origin; it is an issue of having competent, responsible people who have demonstrated their commitment to the Constitution running the country.
There is justice and equity in this approach. After all, why should people who are able and willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country not have more say in how the country is run than those who can’t or won’t take on those obligations? This is real sweat equity investment in the political process.
Requiring voluntary military service in order to vote or hold public office is about as likely to become law as Rep. Rangel’s idea of universal conscription. However, a comparison of the two approaches does reveal the difference between those who truly value freedom as opposed to those who believe freedom means telling other people how they must live their lives.
Comments