[Politics] In Defense of Rangel's Draft

It seems to me that Congressman Charles Rangel (D – NY, 15^th District, i.e. Harlem) tends to get a bad rap in public circles, often portrayed as a kook, as if he is elected in a district where the constituents aren’t smart enough to know better. And at no time is this characterization used more than when Rangel expresses his desire to reinstate the draft. His critics, and even his own party, seem to simply let his idea air out comically like the dirty laundry of some nut.

I’m here to say Rangel is as far from crazy as anybody else in politics. He is a hard-working public servant with a brilliant story of perseverance and success. He represents a district that, I’m sure, gets as little respect in the Capitol as you can imagine, and he is true to his constituents and his beliefs there. But because those beliefs, particularly that of the draft, are unpopular, he is often made the whipping boy of political pundits.

I am not in the military, nor do I live in Rangel’s district, but I, unlike many others it seems, do not think Rangel is crazy for his views on the draft. In fact, there are many reasons to defend it, reasons we would certainly like to ignore, particularly in the midst of an unpopular war in Iraq.

As far as our current military situation, it is understandable that Rangel’s position is considered political suicide, but prior to or after this war, the arguments against it dwindle away exponentially. And since apparently few else have, I would like to take this opportunity to play devil's advocate and defend Rangel’s call for the reinstitution of the draft.

To reiterate Rangel’s points: The draft would make the nation’s leaders less likely to engage in war so long as their families would be equally at risk. Additionally, a draft would create a military more representative of the American populace. These are both fine reasons, but truly only the tip of the iceberg in what could be a very intriguing proposal.

Rangel grew up on the heals of what Tom Brokaw deemed “The Greatest Generation.” To make things clear, those born between 1911 and 1924 are no greater than you or I, but I think they feel greatness within themselves far more than those born afterwards. The Greatest Generation persevered through a depression, fought a noble war in Europe and Japan and returned home to build America into the international power it is today. Is it any wonder they feel greatness?

In a recent article in New York magazine Rangel describes being motivated into politics after returning from the war in Korea, noting of course the enormous racial divide that still existed when he was just a humble employee in the garment district: “I was unloading a truck, and these boxes fell out, spread all over the street. This cop came over and said, ‘You better clean that up, boy.’ I started picking up the boxes and I’m thinking, I’m pretty sick of this crap. I thought I’d reenlist, go back into the Army. Then I thought to myself, ‘No. I’m Sergeant Charles Fucking Rangel. Who are these people to treat me like this?”

Even in that time of strict oppression, Rangel felt greatness, and in no way was it in spite of his service (Consequently, the last time that I thought to myself 'Who are these people…,' I probably deserved to be treated exactly as I had been).

In subsequent generations, that “greatness” feeling has slowly passed. The Baby Boomers were great for speaking their minds, fighting the values of the status quo and helping to bring about equality. I guess Generation X is proud for bringing about the information age and the wave of technological advances we currently enjoy. My generation seems content simply to be apathetic. Yes, it is a sad state, and maybe someone does need to light a fire under our asses, and forced conscription is certainly more than anyone else has suggested. (Hey, if nothing else, it would give this generation something to rebel against other than just the suburban malaise that seems to foster a teenage obsession with violence).

So let’s consider the idea for a moment, and let’s do so creatively.

For one, if that many more people entered into conscripted service, the term of that service could be drastically reduced from the current standard of four years for volunteer recruits, to two years, which is the norm in places like Israel where service is compulsory. Second, Rangel himself suggested in a recent interview on Face the Nation that a draft need not limit itself to the armed forces, and could include services such as port and airline security. Let’s take it another step further and include the National Guard, border security or even service in the Peace Corps. In other words, draftees could be placed into any of the many programs that are meant to provide security, relief and aid to citizens of this country and the world. Instead of being exclusive to the military, a draft could also give the option of compulsory community service among the hundreds of programs already in place that many conservatives say waste taxpayer dollars through coddling. This would actually reduce some of the financial burden of those programs, as those draftees would not be paid to the extent of a full time employee in such a program. And surely giving draftees a choice abut the type of service they could perform on behalf of the United States would lessen the resistance and criticism from both sides of the aisle, right? The face of war has changed so why should the draft system be what we remember from the 1960s?

There are other benefits as well. A draft could actually alleviate two areas where the US is currently lagging far behind much of the developed world: healthcare and education (two institutions I know liberals would very much like to improve the quality of). The military currently provides volunteers with both money for college, and health benefits for life. With the financial relief provided through compulsory participation in either military or humanitarian programs, a draft could provide the same benefits for draftees, and imagine the result: everyone in this country in better health and with a better education for the small price of serving the United States for two years. There are certainly worse, not to mention more bureacratic, leading to ultimately more corrupt, ways to fight these problems.

Finally, perhaps a draft could combat the greed, numbness and insignificant minutia that dominate our current state of concerns. I don’t want to get on a soapbox and pretend that I haven’t succumb to much of the self aggrandizement of the daily working and consuming world, but at least I am taking responsibility for it here. If every up-and-coming generation had at some point, for some time, sacrificed their time in the name of this country, and for the benefit of others, would our six o’clock evening news really feature stories about dog shows, celebrity gossip, frivolous lawsuits and athlete arrests? It may be wishful, but I’d like to think that the public would demand more substance from their surroundings had they too been more directly effected by worldly, and not simply personal, matters.

A draft may not be the answer to these problems, and, again, during an unpopular war, I think you’d be hard-pressed to get support for such a method of solving them. But one thing I am certain of is that if we are able to make even the slightest dent in issues of homeland security, humanitarian aid, domestic healthcare and education, through a draft or any other means, surely this generation could stake its own claim to “greatness.”