You’ve packed a lot of objections and misnomers into your response, so I’m going to address them in enumerated style:
1.) You’ve recognized one of my core points, perhaps without realizing it: Universities and the military already do a poor job at meeting the diverse needs of members of the disability community. Based on Cohen’s op-ed piece, he seems to have this same blind spot. I’m saying it needs to be considered, as it should with any existing programs that fall short.
2.) Although you’re right that basic needs (e.g. food and housing) would be covered during national service, it’s still a federally-mandated earn-and-save structure where the enrollee has minimal-to-zero say over the nature of those savings or the nature of the work they do. And before you try to make the comparison to Social Security & Medicare – remember that the Social Security Administration doesn’t randomly assign occupational tasks to its enrollees under the guise of a Samaritan complex.
3.) I’m not saying the idea is completely unsalvageable, due to my questions…just that my questions prove that Cohen has a rather idyllic vision for something that would be anything but.
4.) And what have been the value of those “thousands of programs” that we base on people’s ages? Not one-size-fits-all, right? As far as my own usage of the names for various generational cohorts: In this case, I’m simply doing it to identify them. Unlike other people, I’m not placing any inherent value-judgement in favor of, or against, any of these cohorts based on the common stereotypes and misconceptions floating around out there.
5.) AmeriCorps is 100% voluntary. Advocates of the $15 minimum wage would contend that AmeriCorps enrollees know what they are choosing to sign up for, beforehand. They also wouldn’t necessarily preclude the options that could expand the scope of AmeriCorps itself.
6.) No, of course the volunteerism shouldn’t be about telling people how great they are. It should be about the meaning people would get out of it. Again, I believe that’s Cohen’s sincere intent when envisioning a national service requirement. I’m challenging the supposition that it would necessarily work out that way, in practice.
7.) The examples you cite of potentially life-changing experiences people could derive from forced national service are powerful. They are also 100% hypothetical. For every transformative experience you imagine, there could be a handful of others that are pure hell for the participants.
8.) No, I’m not talking about a “quaint” summer camp for the wealthy. I’m referring to taking the current model of AmeriCorps and designing new iterations of it that are longer and perhaps more work-intensive. That can lead to post-service career opportunities, if that’s the track someone decides to explore. The whole point is that it isn’t compulsory; the financial incentives and career networking opportunities involved would make it extremely appealing to young people, and thus would increase the likelihood that there is robust participation from Americans so it wouldn’t need to be compulsory in the first place. It also wouldn’t have an age limit for legal adults; so you could have Americans in their forties, fifties, or sixties who choose to commit themselves to such service if they happen to be in an unproductive point in their older lives. What better way to increase the diversity and enlightenment that you seem to value so much amongst participants than to structure a program where younger people and older people are naturally working alongside one another!
