Discussion

• ACD :

  Just another reason why I'm agains the "Progressive" label. (See economic populism thread). A "progressive" obviously believes the draft / idea of "national service" is a positive thing. Whereas a true LIBERAL, would, as far as I'm concerned, NOT be for a damn draft or mandatory national service. Liberals are supposed to believe in personal freedom and personal choice. Apparently, that's not part of "progessive" thought. You "progressives" can keep your little word.

  Sorry David, I agree with you 95+ percent of the time, but not this.

  Posted on August 15, 2007 1:02 PM

• butte :

  Rangel is a Republi-lite, not a progressive. The Republi-lites will support the draft, because K-street tells them to.
  In the meantime, the Republicans and Republi-lite sell-outs, who tout the "Stay the course" mantra have already figured out the exit strategies on the draft for the themselves and their kids.
  As for limousine "liberals" believing in personal freedom, not. They are the air-head elite who keep trying to tell the rest of us that they know better than the rest of us so we should go along with their dumb ideas.
  They are the ones who set up the single-issue-voter issues which created the working people's backlash against the Democrats and got us into this mess in the first place.
  Republi-lites may try to wrap themselves in the "Progressive" label, but it is as phony as the Republicans wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming "patriotism".
  Republi-lites are actually as regressive as Republicans.
  Liberals haven't even found the ball park.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 8:01 AM

• Phil from New York :

  David,

  I'm 58, and I remember the night I sat in front of the radio listening to the first draft lottery in 1969. My number was 82, which meant that it was a certainty that I'd be drafted within about three months of graduating from college. I was in ROTC and already had signed up to go in the military, so the draft lottery didn't affect me other than to confirm that my decision to join ROTC was a sound one because I'd have to serve in the military anyway. I eventually went on to serve three years as an Air Force officer. (I also knew guys in ROTC whose lottery numbers came up in the 300s; they were trying to figure how to get out of ROTC because they knew they would never be drafted.)

  The lottery sort of created two classes of young American male citizens: those who knew they would have to go into the military and those who knew they never would have to.

  My view of the lottery, unlike the study you cited, is that it helped take the life out of the anti-war movement because so many young men knew for a certainty that they would never have to serve in the military. Before that, there was always that doubt. So I don't think the lottery ramped up the antiwar movement. I think that had more to do with Nixon and what was going on with the war.

  The only other thing I'll say is that if we had had the draft in 2002 and 2003, there never would have been an Iraq War.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 8:51 AM

• davidsirota :

  Phil:

  That's an interesting take that I haven't heard before - and you may very well be right. Thanks for your service, and for your contribution here.

  I think your last sentence is the thrust of my argument that we ought to first think about the potential positives and negatives of a draft or national service mandate, rather than just dismissing it outright. One of our country's biggest problems is that we don't feel directly connected to our government's decisions anymore - and a stronger connection would, I think, create a wave of popular involvement in our political process that would never allow wars like Iraq to happen again.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 8:57 AM

• waltc :

  It doesn't matter at this point in time. The Democrats screwed themselves royally when they took impeachment(more specifically impeaching Cheney) off the table.

  The Dems now have no leverage over Bush. Bush's cronies laugh at the toothless subponeas issued by the Senate. They can't even take down Gonzo. Bush co knows the Senate Dems have no belly for a fight and that Reid is owned by the same people that own Bush.

  The Dems are showing the world what a bunch of weak sisters they are, unworthy of ruling anything but a florist shop.
  

  Posted on August 16, 2007 10:19 AM

• Nebraska Nathan :

  My wife and I had relatives who served in Vietnam and digging through it all, I can tell you that military draft or none, it's not going to matter. The wealthy elite such as Bush, Cheney, Delay, etc ... are always able to dodge the wars their party people caused in the first place and yet so damn clever to start more of them. I'd say forget the draft and focus on pulling the US out of OCCUPATION in Iraq which is what it is right now. Remember, we're in an OCCUPATION in Iraq, not war.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 1:14 PM

• ACD :

  Sirota wrote "In a country where kids are lauded for simply going corporate, making a decision to work in the trenches of politics - aka. public/citizen engagement - is an honorable and societally valuable decision". On that, I agree.

  But is he saying that since he has worked in politics that means he's "served" and therefor should tell others to serve? By the way, if Sirota does belief that serving in politics is "service", I'd say yeah, I love to "serve" if given the opportunity.

  "if you believe we need a military to defend this country, and if you believe we need police and firefighters and community service workers, why do you think its moral that OTHER people should do that FOR society, rather than EVERYONE having to contribute to those efforts? "

  When in David Sirota's life did he serve as a police officer, firefighter or the military? When did he "contribute" to those efforts?

  That's one of the reasons I'm so against this whole idea of mandatory national service. No, I haven't done any of those things. Nor have I personally asked someone else to do them. Am I glad there are people willing to be police, firefighters, soldiers? Of course I am. It was their CHOICE though. Because they WANTED to do it. They had what it takes to do it. FORCING people into those positions will fill the positions for people who don't want to be there, and are not qualified.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 3:01 PM

• waltc :

  Hindsight would say if we had a draft at the time of the vote for the Iraq war, the vote would have been no.

  The draft despite all its warts and inequalities would have reached out to enough to folks to make any decision to go to war very difficult.

  In fact it would have made the war on Serbia
  impossible and Desert Storm a non-event as well. Both of these were wars that should have never have happened.

  A professional military makes wars easy since these men don't come from the Democratic blogosphere or anyone that most Democratic or Republican activists would associate with.

  To both political parties our soldiers are merely props to score political points with. Prior to Iraq the military was just a nice toy to apply social engineering experiments on.

  That said, the real problem lies with Congress which has abidicated its authority and function in our gov't. If Congress did its job instead weaseling and waffling and going to the American and explaining why Iraq is a no-go.

  Rank and file Democrats also shoulder the blame and have blood on their hands. Like the GOP ditto-heads who put party loyalty over loyalty to the country and people. They repeatedly voted back into office the fuckwads who voted for the war.

  If we want to stop future elective wars, we need to bring back the draft and get our entertainment addled public interested in the gov't.

  Posted on August 16, 2007 5:33 PM

• JBS :

  Depends on what kind of draft you're talking about.

  Does it mean every 18 year old, irregardless who their parents are, has to serve?

  Or does it mean the smart rich white kids will get deferments while the rest of the working class and poor kids bear the burden?

  And do you trust the government to implement the former and not the latter?

  Posted on August 17, 2007 8:21 AM