ServiceNation Summit
So after cleaning up from the little gathering here last night, I sat down with some water and the TV before retiring. By chance, CSPAN was replaying the ServiceNation Summit interviews with McCain and Obama, which JN had the pleasure of having attended. I was struck by two things. First–and fairly broadly–the emotional and moral compulsion to serve the nation (or at least its people) as conveyed by both candidates is a beautiful thing, even in some of its militaristic moments.
Second–and in contrast–it was evident that the role of service is a disturbingly neoliberal formulation that (unfortunately?) overlaps with progressive ideals. As Obama was pointing out, many people want to serve and assist their fellows. And–overlooking the undertones of Obama’s fairly transparent long term political career calculations about working as a community organizer before going to Harvard Law before entering politics more generally–service has a clear role in developing civic mindedness and political awareness. However, the role of volunteer service as essentially a neoliberal instantiatiation of government production was painfully clear to me. The emotional and moral call to serve with little or no financial compensation functions as an outsourcing of government responsibilities. Should the government not be the entity responsible for providing social services to disadvantaged communities? Or, more accurately, should the government not provide the social services that comprise a portion of its responsibilities? Outsourcing these efforts to underpaid, idealistic, primarily young people in search of some employment and purpose effectively reduces the government’s cost of providing such services in a more comprehensive and organized manner. At the same time, it creates or supports an environment in which the government’s responsbility is effaced and individuals themselves are portrayed as the only obstacles to their own wealth. For example, to paraphrase Star Parker at the Value Voters Summit, “We know thatthe way out of poverty is to live a righteous life and work diligently.” No mention of job availability or educational obstacles, even though she independently described the US educational system as a “cesspool” to justify home schooling.
Is not the emotional and moral compulsion to serve a clear indicator that the system is broken, that the system is not taking responsibility for its attendant negative outcomes?
No comments yet.