During the years from the mid sixties to the mid seventies, the country was is a great deal of chaos. Nothing new, for sure. It was that way then and is surely that way now though now it is  far far worse as I hold there is far far more at stake. Back in those days, the turmoil had a focal point – the war in Viet Nam. It divided families, communities, indeed the country and the battle lines were sharply drawn and the discourse was intense, to say the least. As always, the facts got lost in the emotions. There were few who had any inkling as to just why we were in the jungles of Southeast Asia – and the “domino theory” lost all validity by 1965. There were even fewer who knew when we first got into that mess – 1954 –  and what came out years later as the truth was what many were saying back then – the pretext for the stepped up involvement in 1964, the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Incident never actually happened as it was portrayed by the War Department ( ref: The National Security Archives, declassified documents ). We could debate this all over again and probably would reach the same result. Regardless of how one felt, it was a part of history many want to forget but we should not allow it to be forgotten as much of the same mentality that got us there also got us to Iraq in 2003. But that is for another time.

The topic around the table is Conscription, or the Draft, as we knew it.

During the Viet Nam era, millions of young men were drafted.  Thousands never returned. They were drafted from their jobs, or just weeks after high school or college graduation. After a certain year, they were drafted right off the campuses into a War which no one wanted, except the usual war mongers and profiteers. Women were not included in this process and I figure they were fortunate in that respect, though they did, as always, have to keep things together here at home on so many levels – a monumental task at best.  Many evaded the draft by various means. Some leveraged money, political favors and the like. Others took other means, including exile and the label – traitor, or un-American was soon slapped on thousands. Those same labels were slapped on those of us who strongly opposed the war as well.

In 1972, the Draft came to an end and the military became a full volunteer military force. Many thought that was a good thing but some of us had been discussing an alternative to the Draft for a long time. It fell on deaf ears as it was a Draft of a rather different approach – something which few on the power ladder could not or would not entertain. The idea was to have a Draft but not have it entirely military in scope. In those days, we received little or no audience.

Fast forward to 2012 and an article ( Thomas E. Ricks ) in the New York Times of 09 July. While quoting General McChrystal who wants to see the Draft reinstated as it was, the article goes on to discuss an alternative – one which some had indeed heard before. It is broader in scope, far more fair than the Viet Nam era version and include women for the first time. What is interesting is that it is not entirely military in its approach. It provides for “alternative service” and the operative word here is “service”.The key  elements for this scenario allow for some options – active military service in non combat capacities – administrative support, logistics, etc. Generally, these would be low pay, low skills positions. However, they would still have post service benefits, including college tuition. There would be the option to continue in a regular military capacity if so chose. The “Alternative” would have one “Drafted” into a civilian national service for a longer period, same low pay, but the focus would be on civilian service work – maintaining parks, teaching in low income areas,  providing janitorial services in schools, rebuilding roads and the like. This is precisely the concept many were pushing decades ago but maybe now there might be some folks willing to listen. Doubtful, considering this nation’s seeming preoccupation with keeping the war machine well oiled but it is worth some serious consideration.

The NYTimes article then proposes, as part of this new Draft, that all who decide to opt out entirely would, in return, sign a pledge relinquishing all right to government subsidies in the future – Medicare, college loans, etc.

This concept does have merit. A lot of merit. It could relieve the strain on local and state governments needing to chose to either provide some of these services on a limited basis or drop them all together. It could provide a boost for services in many neighborhoods which do not ordinarily have access to them. It might give some people exposure to  what that proverbial “other side of the tracks” really looks like. In my opinion, that alone would be worth it. Back in the days of WW II, honest Conscientious Objectors were placed in just these sort of work settings. So, why not now. That whole military life is not for all but I believe that some time in national service should be. It would not be a something for nothing. It would, in fact, be something for something. Who knows, that whole concept of the country as a community might see a resurgence and this attitude might find its way inside the Beltway where right now, partisan extremism and rampant self interest have replaced functional government and an interest in investing in America.

In the 1991 movie “City Slickers”, a group of  three city guys in the midst of a mid life crisis of sort find there way to a dude ranch type program where they take on a real life Cattle Drive. They meet up with the trail boss, Curly, played by the inimitable Jack Palance – a real character with a whole bunch of , shall we say, idiosyncrasies. In the course of a conversation between Curly and Mitch ( Billy Crystal ) , Curly speaks about “the one thing “. Now, This may work on a cattle drive and for some, might be good advise in the business world. A single product or service honed to the top of the game.. All in all, perhaps a reasonable way to go. However, is this good practice in the world of politics or in the process of deciding an election. Allow me.

Recently, a Memorandum came out from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) requiring that firearms dealers located in the border counties in California, Arizona , New Mexico and Texas alert them to multiple purchases of semi-automatic rifles with the capacity for exchangeable magazines. The purpose was to alert ATF about possible dealings across the Mexican border, a rather lucrative business these days. Without getting in to the blatant stupidity of the “Fast & Furious” project and the mess that followed,  this requirement seemed to be a rational idea. It was not intended to outright ban the sale but rather to alert ATF as to who was buying in bulk, so to speak, especially semi-automatic assault type weapons.

Immediately, the NRA pounced on this as being a clear infringement of rights under the Second Amendment. Of course, that it had little to do with infringing didn’t seem to matter. I called the NRA office in Virginia and spoke with a young lady who, over and over, gave me the company line about the Second Amendment. That this requirement was one way to address the pressing issues in border counties and weapons trafficking made no difference. I tried to press the discussion but then she abruptly hung up.

So, the NRA’s position appears to be this – no matter what the consequences, no matter what the effect, especially those of an international importance,  the NRA will stand for the Second Amendment, or rather their interpretation of it and anything which in any way SEEMS to be any sort of infringement under the Second Amendment will be fodder for its canons.

Many Catholic groups today as before are  hard at pointing out that the Democratic platform supports access to birth control. The opposition to birth control stance – no matter if it is for medical purposes or for actual contraception – is one which the Church has consistently taken as part of its philosophy and tenet of  faith. Whether or not one agrees with it or not is up to the individual. What I found to the point at hand is that many Catholics were perfectly willing to vote, for instance in the 2008 election, based  a lot on that single issue, for the opposition – Senator John McCain. The same senator who doesn’t believe you’ve served your country unless you’ve fought a war ! The same senator who testified before a senate committee expressing regret that funding and involvement in the Viet Nam war was discontinued and  then stood by as the Bush administration lied its way into war in Iraq.

Simple examples of how single agenda lobbying or interest groups – and I fold churches in to that group – can sway an entire voting block. I don’t particularly fault the lobbying group. It is, after all, their role to press their point of view and push their  often singled  minded agenda. However, is it not the responsibility of the voting population to sift out what is valuable and what is not ? What is compelling and what is not ? And most of all, what is the broader view of the agenda of either the political party or the candidate himself or herself as it impacts the society as a whole.

The current election race is a prime example. While some may like the GOP side of having big business control so many facets of our lives, including health care, and get rich doing it,  are you willing to have the principle elements of the Ryan budget become the paradigm for government while sacrificing education, clean water and air and a safe interstate highway system ?  Should you be  willing to eliminate Medicare and other safeguards for those who do or will need it ? Should you be willing to subsidize the wealthiest corporations in the world while forty-eight million children are food insecure ? ( Cf.Feed America .Org and the Con Agra Food Foundation )

These are indeed the questions one must ask. While taking a look at certain aspects of  rule or precept, one must also take the broader context into consideration. Simply put, policy myopia has no place in  the discussion or the decision process if one is to be rational about it all. To stand in concert with the beliefs of one’s church is one thing.  To inflict – and I mean inflict the agenda of the GOP and the Ryan budget  – an agenda which would be nothing short of a catastrophe for the country – is not what I think any church should be all about. It must  take the broader context into consideration on this one. The issues around sectarian rules, whichever church we are addressing, need to be a matter  for the individual.

The context of ones church is similar to non sectarian organizations or associations. They have certain creeds and beliefs, if you will, and that is usually what attracts their membership. All well and good. However, my take is that it is contingent upon the leadership of those organizations to, if not support a particular platform or plank within, at the very least  provide factual information from both sides of the question. This is what I hold is the honest and ethical way to proceed. Then, after all, when one enters the voting booth, it is all up to the individual.