With the 2020 Democratic Primary drawing to a mundane close, it seems fitting to look back at the exciting race that was. In a crowded field where many once-promising candidates and touted “front-runners” failed to catch a footing, others made their impact known. Some candidates garnered headlines as champions of a specific cause. Andrew Yang, for instance, managed to outlast many more seasoned aspirants in his promotion of a Universal Basic Income. Now, this once far-fetched policy proposal may very well become a national reality in light of COVID-19, and Yang may be to thank. Others, such as Pete Buttigieg, rose to stardom not as the torch-bearer for a specific movement, but for their story. In the end, the 38-year-old Mayor of South Bend would pose a more legitimate threat than anyone, even his dogs Buddy and Truman, would have predicted.
So far, the 2020 Democratic Primary has been defined most profoundly by the stark dichotomy between the progressive and centrist wings of the party. At the more nuanced policy level, much attention has been given to this profound polarization: Medicare-for-All or the current system with a public option? Free college or increased subsidies? A reformist wealth tax or tax hikes? The list goes on. For each ambitious proposal proffered by Warren or Sanders, the likes of Klobuchar, Biden, and Buttigieg have parried with a more moderate counter.
But there’s one policy point where a centrist stands alone as the sole progressive, and that’s Pete Buttigieg’s proposed national service program. This eye-catching proposal is so ambitious in nature, and sweeping in effect, that it has the potential to truly alter American life for the better in a nearly unprecedented fashion. It’s the sort of proposal one might have expected a similar race to fixate on, but nonetheless, it’s largely gone untouched – a reality partially due to the fact that Buttigieg didn’t separate himself as a front-runner until quite late in the contest. If Biden or Sanders, for instance, had issued such an edict from the outset, it may very well have served as a focal point.
Here’s How It Would Work
Under his new initiative, titled “A New Call to Service”, Buttigieg would aim to create a network of one million service opportunities for recent high school graduates by 2026 – the 250th anniversary of American independence – the reasoning behind which is well-founded. As it stands, there is a stark disparity between the demand for national service opportunities and the jobs available. The PeaceCorps, for instance, has an acceptance rate of 25%. The AmeriCorps rate is even lower at 13%. The military’s at 20%. Clearly, the demand for such service is there, the supply not so much.
The idea itself is not without precedence. In fact, “national service proposals have been a mainstay of Democratic political candidacies for years,” writes Catherine Kim for Vox. “Barack Obama called for a similar expansion of AmeriCorps in 2008, as did Hillary Clinton in 2016. President Trump’s budget, meanwhile, has called for eliminating funding for Americorps and other national service programs,” adds Kim. Nonetheless, this election cycle, Buttigieg stood alone as the only frontrunner in support of such a proposal.
Here’s Why It’s A Good Idea
A reinvigorated National Service Program could benefit millions of Americans both directly and indirectly. For starters, it should come as no surprise that having one million change makers could help address some of America’s most pernicious and pertinent problems – problems that may otherwise go unaddressed for years to come thanks to Congressional gridlock and various economic and political restraints. Buttigieg mentions tackling climate change through the creation of a Climate Corps, mental health and substance abuse through a Community Health Corps, and senior care, through the creation of an Intergenerational Service Corps. But the increase in ranks would only real show its fruit in times of crisis. Imagine how beneficial it would be to have an greatly expanded National Service Program during the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance.
One concern many have is that a national service program would swiftly skew towards particular ideological ends. But many of the issues mentioned above simply aren’t ideological driven problems. Everyone believes in addressing mental health, substance abuse, and senior care, for instance. And those that still believe climate change is a partisan issue have larger things to worry about.
A reinvigorated National Service Program could also help combat rampant political polarization by fostering a culture of unity, patriotism, civil-mindedness and civil-service when America needs it most. As a former Navy Reserve Officer deployed to Afghanistan, Buttigieg is no stranger to serving his country. On the Campaign Trail, he often mentioned how his tenure in the Navy and active deployment had been a “life-changing experience” that had granted him the opportunity to work alongside a truly diverse group of people. “In many ways, we had nothing in common except the fact that we were all American,” remarks Buttigieg, “but the men and women who got in my vehicle didn’t care if I was a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent. They just wanted to get home safe, like I did.” In a recent article published by UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Magazine titled What are the Solutions to Political Polarization? three Cambridge University academics concur that the “intergroup contact” Buttigieg suggests undoubtedly works: “The ‘contact hypothesis’ suggests that getting to know each other can reduce prejudice between groups,” they write. Of course, “social contact can be done well and done badly.” What if we could extend this experience by the hundreds of thousands? In a recent report, the Brookings Institute reiterates this point: “One powerful idea to rebuild our civic bridges is universal national service—an expectation and opportunity that young people as they come of age perform a year or more of military or civilian national service. Such service would bring young people from different backgrounds, income levels, races, ethnicities, and areas of the country together in shared experiences to solve public challenges as they form their attitudes and habits early in life. Many would discover that they are leaders—the kind of leaders who could work across differences to get things done. There would be other positive effects.”
Lastly, a reinvigorated National Service Program could repair the U.S’s tattered image on the global stage. For generations, America led by example internationally, supporting human rights, freedom, and peace wherever, whenever. Unfortunately, many of these values have been upended and eroded by President Trump. In the last few years alone, the U.S. has skirted environmental protection measures like the Paris Agreement and diplomatic negotiations years in the making like the Iran Nuclear Deal. As a result, the global perception of America as a world leader has never been lower. “A year after global opinion of the United States dropped precipitously, favourable views of the U.S. remain at historic lows in many countries polled,” writes Pew Research. “In addition, more say bilateral relations with the U.S. have worsened, rather than improved, over the past year. Among possible sources of resentment is the widespread perception that the U.S. does not consider the interests of other countries when making foreign policy decisions. More generally, relatively few see the U.S. stepping up more to solve international problems.” The damage may be done, but an improved National Service Program would be a great first step in attempting to repair America’s aching global image.
Pete Buttigieg may be gone from the race, but this proposal should certainly not be forgotten. Biden recently elected to adopt two policies originally put forth by Warren and Sanders in an effort to further grow his coalition. He would be wise to now adopt Buttigieg’s service plan, too. America and the world would be better for it.