"The Coming Draft" by Philip Gold, 2006

Philip Gold's subheading to his book is "The Crisis in America and Why Selective Service Is Wrong for America." He obviously is a military supporter, he served himself. He obviously wants to see an increase in military enrollment and participation on the part of the American people. However, the crux of his work hinges on his absolute opposition, dare I say hatred, of the idea of conscription and the draft.

After laying out the history of the draft in the United States, as well as the history of the military itself, derived from the idea of citizen soldiers and the militia, Gold consistently espouses his support for the military while simultaneously supporting the notion of conscientious objection for all.

How does this literature connect to our discussion of service and the notion of universal service, whether it be through the military or otherwise? Mostly, the connection is made clear when Gold discusses the founding fathers of the U.S., their ideas derived from the Greeks and the Romans, and how the connection between citizenship and service is a founding principle of this country. And according to Gold, its maintenance and restoration is critically important, particularly right now.

Gold is not an optimist, at present, about the condition of the planet or the human population. He deems the future of the United States, the future of the world, and his outlook is not self-assured. The fears and challenges he invokes regarding the military and the new kind of international conflict, Wars of Ways as opposed to Wars of Ideology, require a new kind of participation, or at least reflection on an old form of participation.

Without getting too heavily into the military aspect, and whether or not our nation is equipped to defend itself in the 21st century, I would like to ponder Gold's suggestion that to become more fully human is the goal of the future, and that is what many of these conflicts may surround, human rights and welfare. The question of whether war is an appropriate solution for human rights and welfare issues is a separate issue.

Gold asserts that becoming more human, being fully human, is the goal behind citizenship. Citizenship in a free society is the path to full humanity, and what it means for an individual to fully live one's life. Gold references the founders of the U.S. and that to them, citizenship meant active participation in the public realm. And, more importantly, that it did not negate the value of individual relationships with family, school, community, church, work, but in fact citizenship stemmed out of those relationships. The founders acknowledged the importance of relationships in a person's life, for both the sake of their own, and the sake of the greater good. Because it was through strong personal relationships that a person feel compelled to step into the public realm and participate.

Participation in the public realm ensured, for the founders, that the common defense would be provided for. Ultimately, at the origins of this nation, the common defense was the most important, and unifying cause.

According to Gold, "Few dilemmas plagued the Founders more deeply than how to nurture and sustain civic virtue" (Gold, p. 178). One may look at the philosophical origins of citizenship in the U.S. and find similarities today. How to nurture and sustain civic virtue may not be at the top of our political leaders list; however, Gold makes the argument that without it, we are by default making the statement that we no longer value our common survival. If that is the case, then so be it, but it is unlikely, if posed as a question to any elected official or average Joe Citizen, the response would be to abandon our survival.

So what then? Gold asserts that what we, as a citizenry, as a people, are lacking are good enough reasons to serve. He does not place the obligation on the government to provide those reasons, though he does not oppose any attempts. He plants government in the legal realm and these necessary reasons for our survival in the moral realm. Thus, Gold places the responsibility on the people, to come up with good reasons to serve, whether it be militarily or generally. He then, however, places the responsibility on governement to make service happen.

This is where the idea of universal service opportunities connects to Gold. If we can identify our current reality, and identify what is lacking in terms of our present citizen participation, civic virtue, and service on behalf of our common defense, then we may be able to come up with reasons to serve. Maybe even "good reasons to serve." Service here defined as supporting or bolstering our common defense or our common good.

What are good reasons to fight? What are good reasons not to fight? What are good reasons to serve? What are good reasons not to serve? And how can we convert these reasons into opportunities? This, according to Gold, is where government steps in, turning good reasons into real opportunities.

Being true to Gold's arguments, these opportunities would not be administered through conscription.

Gold, P. (2006). The Coming Draft. New York: Ballantine Books.