Some years ago, a gifted education specialist told me she thought that teaching gifted students to connect with the needs of wider society through community service was a crucial, important missing piece in GT education. That may be true, but what I thought at the time was that there’s little to connect any person to wider society.
The last several decades have fostered a more fractured America. People move frequently these days; neighbors often don’t know one another; technological advances are enabling social vacuums. We’re moving farther and farther from our roots, and the sense of “belonging” somewhere is ever more tenuous.
Thus, Obama’s call to greater national service resonates for me.
As a parent, for instance, I like this:
Obama called for greater integration with schools, so that young Americans are better prepared to be active citizens. He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students.
And he laid out a higher commitment (and reward) for college students.
In a world where kids spend their idle time in front of tv’s or computers, there’s much to be said for this proposal.
And then there’s this:
He promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
I’m sorry to say that prior to just a moment ago, I’ve never looked into AmeriCorps at all. I had no idea, for instance, that they offer educational awards for service… which makes me wonder about this:
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and repeated his pledge to create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service.
Since the current award is $4,725 for a year’s service, I see a potential disconnect here. But that’s a detail devil.
CNN summarizes the plan:
Expanding AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and doubling the size of the Peace Corps; Integrating service-learning programs into schools and universities Providing new service opportunities for working Americans and retirees; Expanding service initiatives that “engage disadvantaged young people and advance their education”; Expanding the capacity of nonprofit groups to innovate and expand successful programs across the country; and Enabling more Americans to serve in the armed forces. Read Obama’s full plan (PDF)
On the whole, I like this a lot. For families who cannot afford to send someone to college, this offers an alternative avenue. For kids growing up in this era of entitlement, it offers a lesson in giving back. And for all of us living in today’s fragmented society, it provides possibilities for getting back in touch with our sense of community. Of belonging to something bigger than ourselves.
Our country.
This is some scary stuff.
50 hours a year mandatory service? Is there no place the left/democrats wont go to be the ultimate nanny state magicians?
50 hours community service. 100 hours community service for college students.
Trying to pull the church organizations under the umbrella of the federal government.
This is some scary stuff here. This is beyond far left Polimom. This is bordering on communism.
“Trying to pull the church organizations under the umbrella of the federal government.”
Neocon, what on earth are you talking about? The faith-based initiatives? That’s somehow evoking Communism for you?????
Haven’t you been following his faith based initiatives proposals of the past day or so? You know. The ones where he wants to give religious organizations money and then make them adhere to federal hiring and firing guidelines.. etc.
Or mabey as an avid Obama supporter who is quite obviously very intelligent perhaps you could explain this to me in the midst of his pdf file on national service.
Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: A major stress on our troops comes from insufficient ground
forces. Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by
27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments
and decrease the strain on military families.
Why does he want to increase the military when in fact he is going to pull them out of Iraq and bring them home? Notice his position says that BETWEEN DEPLOYMENTS.
What deployments? Hes bringing the troops home. Isn’t he? Why would he want to do that? Perhaps as a moderate he has no intentions of pulling out of Iraq like he has promised. I don’t know. I’m just saying.
Neocon, I have indeed been following the faith based initiatives. Rather than try to start from scratch, mentally, on the subject, I recommend Steve Benen’s description, writing at Salon.
Link.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s hard to know where to start. Hmmm…. how about Afghanistan?
First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.
Quite simply state sponsored religion. Just repackaged and resold. The left was livid over Bush’s faith Based iniatives that gave money to do works without strings. Now attach some nanny state strings to it, pull them under the federal umbrella and the liberal left is busy scrambling trying to justify this cornball notion. Scary stuff here.
On the military issue. Fair enough. I’m actually being unfair to you. I’m sure that Barak Obama has thrown everyone so many curve balls the last few days that every one of the Barak Faithful are scrambling to keep up with the spin.
Is Obama going to initiate voter registration, and then eliminate the right to vote, like he did in Chicago? Is Obama going to use his faith based plan to funnel another 15 million to his Trinity Church, plus 10 million to Jeremiah Wright … and the other black liberation churches he’s committed to? Obama will say and do anything to get elected. Just look at his actual record where he did nothing. Don’t be fooled by all the fancy speeches and platitudes … vote for McCain in November ’08.
I can’t imagine why anyone would be surprised about expanding the military. He’s been saying it since day one.
Meanwhile — as it happens, I am a huge HUGE believer in the separation of church and state. But the reason I referred you to Steve Benen’s piece was I agree with his assessment. In that same article, btw, he pointed out what was different about Bush’s approach w/ these initiatives.
Yes, I gather that there are many on the left (and perhaps elsewhere) who don’t like Obama’s version of this any better than they liked Bush’s. But while I feel some discomfort over the faith based initiatives overall, I can also see a reason to leverage these community connections. They do not, btw, replace secular. They’re merely one more conduit.
Polimom,
Hmmm . . . . . of all the ideas and policies being put out by Obama, I would have thought that this one was pretty inoffensive. Obviously, Neocon disagrees, though I’m not sure why. Democratic presidents seem to be drawn to the idea of non-military national service, JFK (the Peace Corps), Clinton (AmeriCorps), and maybe soon, Obama (Jimmy Carter didn’t launch a new initiative, he just expanded the Peace Corps). As long as the service is voluntary (i.e. no draft!) I don’t see a problem with it. However, without a draft, only the already motivated sign up, which makes it useless for a shared national experience. (By the way, have you read Starship Troopers?)
Neocon seems disturbed by the idea of any strings attached to the granting of tax money to faith based organizations, but any organization that receives federal money must deal with strings that come with it. No charity can take federal money and then choose to dispense it only to members of that organization, or conversely to blackball disfavored groups. (If you want to do that, raise private money and spend it on whomever you want to, in the process cutting out everyone that you don’t spend it on.) As for hiring only within the in-group, or refusing to hire members of a group you disapprove of is, by and large, already prohibited by law. If you are hiring someone to teach a specific religion’s religious instruction, you already have the right to insist he/she be a member of that religion. If you are hiring a janitor to clean the church, by and large, you can’t specify his/her religion.
As for expanding the military, this is one place where Obama and McCain are in agreement–and both disagree with Bush. In retrospect, we downsized too much in the 90’s (two divisions under Bush I; two divisions under Clinton). One of Bush II’s greatest failures was his failure to recognize that we were in for a long commitment in Iraq and expend the military on his watch. Blame Donald Rumsfeld, who was committed to a smaller, more agile military–whatever the current war called for. Obama does not have to plan to leave 140,000 troops in Iraq to know that we need more troops in the force if any deployments are to be sustained. For example, if you want to put 100,000 troops on the ground anywhere for several years, you need 300,000+ troops in the force. This allows for 1/3 to be deployed, 1/3 to be recovering from a deployment, and 1/3 to be training for a deployment. Dunno if Obama thinks Afghanistan will need that many, but there’s always Iran . . . . and you never know what the next president may decide to do. Obama will want to have all the options.
Yes I know that he has been saying from day one about increasing the military.
I have been saying from DAY ONE.
WHY? No one can give a reason. No one can justify this notion that by pulling out of Iraq and freeing up 200k of troops and support personel that there is any justifiable need to increase the military by nearly 100k men/women.
So while Barak Obama might have been saying it from day one, he still has not answered a fundamental question as to WHY?
Neocon, check the comment above yours.
TM — thank you for the thoughtful (and timely) response.
The disturbing trend I see in the left/democrats this time around is that while vehemently opposed to being in Iraq they seem to have no problem hanging out in Afghanistan for years and years.
If Barak Obama’s plan is to continue the occupation of Afghanistan for years and years then I think we should know that. Proposing to increase the military by 100k with coyly worded language “Between Deployments” is more scary stuff for me and I have been seeking clarification as to where he plans to take us in the future but all I get is read my lips……..”Change Buddy”
Master while much of what you say is thoughtful and eloquent it is totally off base to my point.
I am not opposed to faith based religions taking money from the government with strings attached. I am opposed to them taking money from the government PERIOD.
Public service is a great idea. The left loves it. Their are 150million of them. Surely they can fill a few thousand slots. NO? Right they are trampling their far right counterparts at the exits.
Military. Bush did indeed fail with Iraq in that our military was too lean for the mission. However That is not a problem IF Obama is going to pull 200k of them out of Iraq. Unless the left is want to continue the war on terror with troops when all I have heard for years is that you dont fight terrorism with troops. Now the left seems willing to reconcile being in Afghanistan for an indefinite period.
Which is it? End the war and increase the military makes no sense to me in a time when this nation needs to balance the budget not increase the size of our already huge military force.
Neocon, this feels pretty circular. But I’ll take one more shot at all this before I retire for the night.
Since I’m neither a Democrat nor on the left, I can’t speak for anyone but myself — but I don’t know of anyone advocating to stay in Afghanistan “for years and years”. Myself, I’ve been pretty bugged by the lack of attention on Afghanistan. IMO, we took our eyes off the ball, and now — seven years after 9/11 — we’ve still not fully committed to the original confrontation.
Re: Iraq. Myself, I was LOUDLY against going in in the first place. But I ticked off (and lost) quite a few readers when I supported the surge. The last year+ have brought some results there. Finally. I expect Obama (who has not been nearly as hard and fast on this issue as you seem to think) to start preparing the left for the realities of a less than immediate exit. He’s been nuanced, but like you, the left hasn’t heard him.
Obama is not the hard left “progressive” the netroots wanted. (They actually wanted Edwards, anyway) But neither is he the bogeyman you portray him to be.
I’m sorry if that’s a disappointment.
In 2003 we failed to ask hard questions about Iraq. We hem hawed around and what followed was monday morning quarterbacking by everyone in America.
I’m now asking hard questions of those supporting Barak Obama to ask hard questions themselves. What I am getting from them is that they are just angry that anyone is daring to question their man.
Here we go again. Thats the same response the Bush supporters gave us.
I expect Obama (who has not been nearly as hard and fast on this issue as you seem to think) to start preparing the left for the realities of a less than immediate exit.
Have mercy. Where are you getting this notion from?
This is from Barak Obama’s own website.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
HAD Barak Obama had his way we would have removed ALL our troops by March of this year. No your flat wrong when you assert that he has not been telling us over and over that his judgement is to end the war. Im sure all those voting for Barak Obama for this one main reason will be happy to know that Barak Obama now does not plan to fulfill his 16 month pledge.
Obama says he will bring the troops home. As I have said many times…Afghanistan or Pakistan is NOT HOME!
Why would more rah, rah, government entitys surprise anyone?
The ideas of a black racist, Marksist/Communist would sound a lot like OBAMA!
ScaryStuff. Can you imagine what the Supreme Court will look like with nominees and approvals from a Democrat Congress AND a Marksist President?
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, Thank a Veteran.
ScaryStuff indeed, SS. “Marksist”? Phonetics won’t help you when you go to research this word, but I strongly recommend the effort.
Neocon — Throughout the campaign, candidates have made bold statements about what they’d do. And all along, that’s been BS, regardless of source. Because not only are none of them currently president, but these statements have been made in a temporal vacuum. I’ve maintained all along that as the situation in Iraq changed, it rendered everyone’s promises ever-more irrelevant.
I shocked someone in the comments the other day, for instance, by suggesting that McCain is also likely to begin moving troops out — sooner rather than later, and long before the overhyped “100 years”.
Even as I write this, the situation continues to evolve, as Bush is now talking about moving troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan before the end of the year.
I understand what your saying Polimom.
I now understand where you are coming from.
The problem that Barak Obama has and will continue to have is that he is being CLAIMED by several groups. Far left. Antiwar. Moderates. Crossover Republicans. They all want him to be what they want him to be.
From Barak Obama supporters I hear different versions of what will be rather then what he has said. He has them or mabey they have themselves convinced that he will do what they personally wish for him to do once president.
I agree with you that he is not likely to bring the troops home in 16 months. HOWEVER. That is NOT what he has claimed. And the Antiwar/far left have latched on to Barak Obama because of his adamant stance about ending the war and bringing the troops home. Period.
I have opined in other places that Barak Obama is not only double crossing his initial base but that he is now in danger of losing his base of support among super delegates and they could very well get enough defections from this to lock up the convention and hand this to Hillary afterall. Remember she has not released her delegates.
This is scary stuff coming from the Senator. He is going to branded a flip flopper and you can make any case you want to but this case for NOT bringing the troops home as promised will see him ravaged by the far left smear machine of the antiwar to the detriment of the democratic party.
As for me. I am a libertarian. I was for Hillary but with very little enthuasim. I cannot vote for McCain because of fundamental differences. So I do not have a dog in the fight but I believe that Barak Obama is on dangerous ground right now. He is only the presumptive nominee. I can see this changing rather dramatically if he continues on this bizarre course of not only moving to the center but RUSHING pell mell towards the center and abandoning a large chunk of his primary supporters in the process.