Voluntary service, according to virtually every President since
the early 20th century, has been a vital factor in America's
success. It provided the groundwork from which 13 disparate
colonies could grow into a mighty nation. It survived centuries of
wars, depressions, and partisan politics. But today it is dead.
So implies the Serve America Act (S. 277).[1] Serve America is the
Senate's attempt to turn into reality President Obama's campaign
promises about public service. Since the campaign, Obama has
described these promises as the start of a new era of selflessness
and civic responsibility. But in practice, the bill (and its House
companion, the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education
Act, or GIVE[2]) hearkens back to an old era and to the old
ideas of someone Congress should hesitate to mimic in a recession:
Herbert Hoover.
The Rhetoric in Favor of Expansion
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama suggested
the government create a few new programs for public service in new
areas such as public diplomacy and "green jobs," use the Internet
to make the federal government a central figure in connecting
people with service opportunities, and increase government
involvement in the nonprofit sector. He also wanted to expand and
create federally funded financial incentives for students to spend
time volunteering. But mostly he wanted to expand existing programs
so as to employ more workers--AmeriCorps to 250,000, the Peace
Corps to 16,000 and YouthBuild to 50,000.[3]
Much of this and more has made it into Serve America, which
supporters contend makes a statement about the government's
dedication to invigorating public service. Senator Edward Kennedy
(D-MA), co-sponsor of the bill, released this comment: "Many years
ago, on the fifth anniversary of the Peace Corps, I asked one of
those young Americans why they had volunteered, and I will never
forget the answer: 'It was the first time someone asked me to do
something for my country.'"[4] This emotional angle has been used to
ensure the bills meet little opposition from proponents of limited
government.
Beneath the Words
There are, of course, other underlying goals--President Obama
had originally pushed the national service proposal partly in order
to meet certain infrastructure needs, such as construction projects
and school improvements.[5] The economic meltdown provided added
rationale for this notion, as these projects could be performed by
workers on the federal payroll, thus reducing unemployment.
These goals are important, because they highlight the bill's
real statement about public service, the one that has lurked in the
President's rhetoric since the campaign: that public service cannot
meet its objectives--and may not even be able to survive--without
federal funding. It seems that without Washington's assistance and
coordination, people like Senator Kennedy's young friend will never
be asked to serve their country--indeed, the implication of the
person's statement is that involvement in a federal program is what
constitutes serving one's country. If Congress believes that
public service can only survive as a government-funded job, it is
indeed dead.
Renewing a Failed Idea
But this logic is merely revived logic from another economically
difficult time: the Great Depression.
In July 1932, President Herbert Hoover begged Congress for a
special appropriation of funds to support his office for
unemployment relief. "Should this organization be discontinued," he
wrote, "not only would its important functions of stimulation of
private giving and coordination be destroyed, but there would be
grave danger of national, state and local volunteer groups
concluding that services such as they have rendered were no longer
necessary."[6] He acknowledged the popular opinion that
independent volunteers are both the most effective and the most
important kind, because they know local conditions and have a sense
of responsibility to their neighbors. But he argued that
"continuance of this organization with its background of experience
is, in my opinion, most essential to the intelligent carrying out
of the provisions of all relief activities whether private or
public."[7]
Congress rejected his request at the time but shortly thereafter
agreed with Hoover on the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of
1932, which significantly expanded the federal government's
involvement in volunteerism. It funneled far more substantial funds
(over $1.5 billion in 1932 dollars) into federal loans for states
and private organizations in order to provide employment in
"reproductive construction work of a public character."[8] Just
as with Serve America, it was tempting in a struggling economy to
buy the argument that public service needed to be propped up by
federal funds.
Yet even Hoover's bill was more moderate than Serve America.
Hoover was a Progressive, but he did not buy into the statist
nationalism of the ideology as much as had his predecessor Woodrow
Wilson. Wilson had argued that the new way of public service
demanded federal organization, which is now present in Serve
America,[9] but Hoover insisted on temporary loans to
help public service organizations get back on their feet rather
than a large administrative expansion. In Hoover's view, public
service was very sick--but not dead.
As troublesome as such a "stimulus" today might be to proponents
of limited government, Serve America goes further. It uses Hoover's
ideas minus the self-restraint, expanding Washington's involvement
as a bureaucracy, making participating states and organizations
permanently dependent on the government for their service
activities. Even Hoover recognized that such a move would signal a
belief in the death of real voluntary public service. He
consequently called his bill what it really was: a government jobs
program.
One Thing Not to Imitate
For all his faults, Hoover knew there was a difference between
public service and government service, and he sought
to keep the former alive and well while using the latter to help
revive a struggling economy. Yet his approach failed to stop the
slide into depression. (In fact, Hoover's overall efforts are
generally credited with worsening the problem.) Meanwhile, by
linking public service with government dependency, Hoover opened
the door for the possible death of volunteerism. Today's
congressional leaders are fond of comparing today's economic
situation to the Great Depression. Do they really want to imitate
this Hoover idea to try to get America out of the current
crisis?
Brian Brown is Research Associate in the Center
for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.