Doug Bandow: "Mandatory National Service: A Bad Idea That Won't Die"

link

Some kind of national service program would seem to have benefits. Many have noted that drafting people for the military had the salutary effect of throwing together people from different regions and different walks of life. That's something that might be especially beneficial now that we seem to be so balkanized; I, anyway, rarely interact in any extended or meaningful way with people outside my--whatever it is--class? Cohort? What? Most of my extended, meaningful interactions are with university faculty and students and similar types. 

   Mandatory national service is a terrible idea. And, as Bandow notes, it just won't die. It's characteristic of the contemporary left to move fairly rapidly from We like the idea of x to X should be mandatory/not-x should be illegal. That was a kind of move that was, in my youth, more characteristic of the right. But not anymore. 

   This general inclination toward totalitarianism is what I find most alarming about the contemporary left. The leading edge of progressivism is all about it; the trailing edge seems unwilling to criticize it--which isn't far from: unwilling to reject it. 

   Though e.g. Buttigieg isn't easily regarded as being on the radical edge of the left--though I'm not sure how to sort that all out. If he's not on the leading edge, then the left loses one of its main defenses against accusations of extremism: he's not on the edge, but he's advocating radical ideas, ergo the extremism penetrates further into the center of the left than its defenders like to admit. If he is on the radical edge, then the radical edge is so powerful that it's represented by plausible presidential candidates--and Buttigieg isn't nearly the most leftist of the lot. 

   Another defense is: it's the primaries. This craziness will be tamped down in time for the general. I hope it's true. But, first, there's too much crazy in play for it all to go away. And it's unlikely that most of it will--the Dems aren't going to transform themselves by half in the next six months. Just as important, to my current mind, is the fact (?) that what we're seeing is something like the disclosure of something like the ideals of the current incarnation of Democratic party. One friend of mine dismisses every radical idea of the Dems as "aspirational"--e.g. the Green New Deal. But having bad/crazy aspirations is bad/crazy. I'm not sure how strong a defense it is to say, roughly: They won't do any of these crazy things they say they're going to do--they merely have crazy aspirations. Well, that's something, I reckon...but how much? I fell hard for Obama largely on the basis of his aspirations; I don't think that was an atypical reason for supporting him. That's a kind of admission that aspirations matter. How is it that they don't matter anymore?

   Perhaps the more popular candidates will quash this; that's what I'd expect. It's one more unpopular, progressive, anti-liberal program. They're already so burdened with the like that they can't take on too many more--one would think. But they may hop on the bandwagon, especially if the idea catches on on Twitter, that fever swamp of progressive madness. Guess we'll see.

   Damn we are in trouble.