September 06, 2007

Why do [some] Democrats want to FORCE you to serve?

Or, engage in politically correct "service"? You know the old adage: Democrats want to spend YOUR money ... or they know how to spend it BETTER than you. Hence they like higher taxes, etc. because they don't trust you to handle your own money "properly." Now, according to Time magazine, some of the Democrat presidential candidates also want to mandate national service:

  • John Edwards "favors a mandatory community service requirement for high school graduation."
  • Chris Dodd "would require public high school students to do 100 hours of service."
  • Barack Obama "proposes a national-service program that would engage disadvantaged youth in energy-efficiency and environmental work in their communities."

In contrast, none of the GOP contenders have anything similar in mind.

Edwards' and Dodd's ideas are not unlike the military draft. What good is public service/volunteerism when one is forced to do it? (In Edwards' case this is becoming a disturbing trend as he has said he wants everyone to ditch their SUVs, and that everyone must go to the doctor under his health care plan.)

Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have better ideas -- they want to offer subsidized loans in exchange for service (Biden) and loan forgiveness for work in public sector fields (Richardson). Unfortunately, these two guys are dark horses for the nomination.

Why do front-runners Edwards and Obama desire such a mandate? Perhaps it's because of the fact that the states that rank at the very top of total REAL volunteerism are red states. Check it out:

  • #1: Utah (reddest state in the Union)
  • #2: Nebraska
  • #4: Alaska
  • #5: Kansas
  • #6: Iowa
  • #7: Montana
  • #8: Wyoming
  • #9 (tie): South Dakota

The only blue state exceptions in the top ten are Minnesota (#3) and Vermont (tied for #9). So, you see, the GOP candidates don't need to pander for compulsory national service. Their constituents already do it. Despite the [Democrat/liberal] notion that Republicans and conservatives are "heartless," "mean" and "overly individualistic," the facts just don't bear that out. Left to their own devices, right-leaning voters are already quite generous with their volunteer time and charity.

Posted by Hube at September 6, 2007 04:31 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

This is in keeping with their vision of "charity" in which the government takes what money it thinks is appropriate and gives it to poor people. Likewise, they're taking your time and giving where they want. Force giving is not giving at all.

Posted by: Duffy at September 6, 2007 07:15 PM

I roughly agree with Duffy. Such statists cannot concede of private action being a positive thing -- much like the mafia, it can only be acceptable if they get control of the enterprise.

After all -- people might volunteer for the wrong things, just like people might not spend their money in the (government defined) best way.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 6, 2007 10:45 PM

well, the red states also have a mondo lead over the blue states in rates of divorce, violent crime, and having kids out of wedlock (and ergo, hypocrisy).............so at least they're spending some of their free time wisely!!

Posted by: colleague at September 7, 2007 10:50 AM

I don't know if I really support mandatory community service, per se, but let's be honest. You can't really compare this to the draft. It's mandatory, but that's the only similarity. There is no violence/risk of death, there is a definite benefit to the community (whereas many wars have little to no benefit to be noted). If I had to pick one of the two, I'd go with the community service (a la French surrender monkies).

Posted by: Mat Marshall at September 7, 2007 12:11 PM

Yeah, Mat -- forcing people to engage in a government mandated service program for low pay against their will could never be seen as comparable to forcing people to engage in a mandated service program for low pay against their will.

How could we possibly have seen them as equivalent in any way? We must be blind and stupid!

Thank you, Mat, for setting us straight with your incredible liberal wisdom showing us that, in fact, forcing people to engage in a government mandated service program for low pay is in fact not at all the same thing as forcing people to engage in a mandated service program for low pay against their will.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 7, 2007 06:02 PM

Jesus, somebody missed their coffee this morning. You took food for thought and made it into an irreverent, redundant remark. Kudos.

If you want to look at it entirely financially, then yes, the two are simple for the person doing the work (except wars cost money and community service saves it). However, that wasn't at all what I was talking about. Did you even read the post? I just said that, of the two, community service was preferable because it's productive and safe. Funny how money's not all that matters, isn't it?

I do find it pretty amusing that you made it a question of pay though. Is that your incredible conservative wisdom talking, or are you actually that blind to the bigger picture?

Posted by: Mat Marshall at September 9, 2007 12:16 PM

Apparently I've missed my coffee as well. That should say "similar", not "simple".

Posted by: Mat Marshall at September 9, 2007 12:17 PM