Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:45:51 -0400
Rita wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:54:25 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Rita wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:37:56 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Rita wrote:
( previous post snipped-follow thread )
Absolutely! At that age they think they know everything, are often disdainful of their parents experience and advice. It is the perfect age to let them grow a bit independent, to accomplish something they can be proud of, and to bridge the time from high school and youthful dependency, to independent adulthood and college. I have seen so many youth exchange students, usually high school seniors, who have benefitted enormously from a year abroad on their own, that it makes me really believe a national service of some kind right after high school would help a lot of kids really grow up to be better adults.
While I like the idea of government service for teens, my reason is
not that those years are "horrid" as Olly continually describes them.
They are years when kids begin to find their way apart from the
cocoon of their parent's ideas and to engage with their peers in
sometimes an exciting and sometimes a scary larger world. The fact
some go off the track does not mean the majority do.
My many children and now grandchildren never lost their way -- if
they did indeed goof up in minor matters they were treated gently by
their parents and thus were able to put the incidents behind them
with their confidence not destroyed.
I've thought about this alot and every child who becomes a teen has
to be given a certain license to make his or her own mistakes. How
else does one learn from experience. But if they are beaten down
with parental recriminations chances are the metaphorsis one has to
undergo in reaching adulthood will be longer and ever so more rocky.
Nature, I believe, has created the teen years for a purpose. It would
be more comfortable indeed for parents if kids retained every idea and
outlook of their own values and way of seeing the world.
But I believe there is an idealism and desire in teens to not be
replicas of their parents and that is how the world moves on.
Service to others as part of these years could certainly capture this
teen desire to make a difference in a very creative and wholesome way.
The opportunities for this service should be varied enough to interest
a wide range of teen personalities. Let them choose what plays to
their aspirations and their strengths. Something of their own wanting
and not the same imposed on all.
All both you and Evelyn write has much merit, but the issue is not whether there is merit in the outcome, but should such be mandated? Recall the Peace Corps, established as a deferrable alternative to the military draft( it still exists, BTW ). In fact, a domestic Peace Corps was contemplated, and a limited program actually established, but I believe, after the draft had ended.
IMHO, I do not believe that requiring such a program is desirable. People have a right to do with their lives as they wish, absent extreme circumstances, such as war or other national emergency, and should not have any years taken from them, because someone else deems that the experience they may get is both desirable for them personally, or financially and socially beneficial to the nation.
There exist, at present, opportunities for those who feel that giving service is personally fulfilling, and they can take advantage of those things right now. Mandating such service is undesirable, because it infringes on the right of self-determination of the individual.
Many high schools now require so many hours of community service of
some kind as a requirement for graduation. My grandkids have
benefited from this -- they chose diverse groups to volunteer with.
And all of them have enjoyed their experiences.
I know. But there's a big difference between a sum of hours when the kids have to go through school anyway, as opposed to taking a year or more out of their lives. You know, Rita, I find myself in the curious position of making an argument that I would expect a reactionary to make, as they would like call such a move 'collectivization, or 'socialist.'
Obama is not proposing that. He has linked requiring government
service to receiving a $4,000 yearly grant for higher education
costs. So many hours volunteered each year.
I think that is a more realistic plan and a worthy one.
Oh, I wasn't referring to Obama's plan; just the concept of mandated National Service in and of itself as a requirement without offsetting benefit. I should have been a bit more specific before intruding in a thread.
Obviously, if you want something, you have to comply with the strings which which that thing comes attached. I have absolutely no problem with that.
.
- References:
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: Olly Mensch
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: Evelyn
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- Prev by Date: Re: So much for Negro loyalty and allegiance
- Next by Date: Re: Obama Rally In St. Louis Draws 100,000
- Previous by thread: Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- Next by thread: Re: Obama's Mandatory National Service Plan is Socialist
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading