Old Essay Advocating for National Service

Recently, I read an essay by American psychologist and philosopher William James titled "The Moral Equivalent of War." The essay was published in 1910, but based on a speech James gave in 1906 at Stanford University. In it, James argues against overt militarism and war in general, and for a national service similar to AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. That's why it is relevant to us.

Before presenting some of James's views, let me be clear: I am not non-military nor am I naive enough to think that our citizens and values can be defended without sometimes threatening to use force or actually using force. War is most definitely as option for defense, but it should not be the first option, nor should we be eager to engage in war. Diplomacy should be the foundation of any foreign policy. Okay, enough political talk, back to James's essay.

He says:
"Patriotic pride and ambition in their military form, are, after all, only specifications of a more general competitive passion. They are its first form, but that is no reason for supposing them to be its last form. Men now are proud of belonging to a conquering nation, and without a murmur they lay down their persons and their wealth, if by so doing they may fend off subjection. But who can be sure that other aspects of one's country may not, with time and education and suggestion enough, come to be regarded with similarly effective feelings of pride and shame."

He continues here to make his case for national service for all Americans:
"If now-and this is my idea-there were, instead of military conscription a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would follow. The military ideals of hardihood and discipline would be wrought into the growing fibre of the people; no one would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man's real relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life."

In this final excerpt, James explains to his readers the benefits of national service programs, such as AmeriCorps:
"Such a conscription, with the state of public opinion that would have required it, and the many moral fruits it would bear, would preserve in the midst of a pacific civilization the manyly virtues which the military party is so afraid of seeing disappear in peace. We should get toughness without callousness, authority with as little criminal cruelty as possible, and painful work done cheerily because the duty is temporary, and threatens not, as now, to degrade the whole remainder of one's life. I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skillful propagandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

All of this is true for us, especially that last sentence. When James says "opinion-making men," he means Presidents and members of Congress for us now. We've seen this proved several times, most recently with the Serve America Act. When American leaders ask Americans to serve, both in military and civilian service, we've responded.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I think James's essay if fascinating because we're both attracted to national service. I hope you all enjoy this essay and these thoughts. Please offer your comments. Have a good week!