• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "John Judis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

A Good Idea Whose Time May Never Come

There is something about the sheer idea of a compulsory or semi-compulsory or semi-semi-compulsory national service program that doesn’t sit well with most Americans.

Link Copied
By John Judis
Published on Jun 20, 2013

Source: New Republic

It’s time for the biannual, or is it quadrennial, push for a national program. The old Democratic Leadership Council made this a major priority in the 1990s. Now the Aspen Institute seems to have come on board with a column in Politico declaring that “national service is the key to national strength.”  Joe Klein echoes these sentiments in a new issue of Time. “Imagine the impact a robust national-service program—like the service corps proposed by the Aspen Institute's Franklin Project—would have on our nation of couch dwellers,” Klein asks.

I can’t tell exactly how the Aspen Institute plan works. It seems to be voluntary, but uses the promise of prestigious certification to induce 18- to 28-year-olds to join. I’m all in favor of national service. It would bind Americans together. I’d go farther. I’d be for reinstituting a military draft. It’s the best guarantee for the country pursuing a responsible foreign policy. If there had not been a draft in the 1960s, we might still be fighting in Southeast Asia. Richard Nixon ended the draft in order to curtail protests against the war from young people and their parents who didn’t want to risk their lives for a cause they didn’t believe in.

But I don’t think anything like a universal national service plan is going to work. I was at a small conference of liberals in suburban Washington about a year after September 11. The conveners were looking for support for a national service program as a way to direct the spirit of patriotism and community engendered by the September 11 attacks toward progressive ends. All the invitees were middle aged or older. And most of us agreed with the conveners’ plan. But then a young woman who was an intern for one of the conveners and was a student at the University of Maryland asked if she could say something. She explained while she thought the plan was a good idea, no one that she knew at college would actually support it. They didn’t want to be pressured or required to do some national program. 

The discussion went on, but I thought it should have ended then, or at least begun entirely anew. We have had drafts in time of national peril, but there is something about the sheer idea of a compulsory or semi-compulsory or semi-semi-compulsory national service program that doesn’t sit well with most Americans. That’s why, I think, these bursts of enthusiasm for national service come and then go. 

This article was originally published by the New Republic. 

About the Author

John Judis

Former Visiting Scholar

As a visiting scholar at Carnegie, Judis wrote The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    This Election Could be the Birth of a Trump-Sanders Constituency

      John Judis

  • In The Media
    Policy Chops

      John Judis

John Judis
Former Visiting Scholar
John Judis
SecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Corrupted by Absolute Power

    In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?

    Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.