20 Nov
Posted in: Blog
By    22 Comments

Charlie and the draft factory:

Charles Rangel is once again proposing that the U.S. reinstitute the draft. Rangel’s argument is that if there were a draft, leaders in Washington would be hesitant to engage militarily when there is limited evidence. Though I agree that having a draft would be a good idea, mine is for different reasons.

Instituting a draft would be the best thing this government could do for inner-city kids. Many of these kids will never leave the crime filled neighborhoods they come from. Many either drop out of high school or don’t go to college. They turn to a life of crime or low paying jobs to only have kids themselves to keep the cycle going. By having a draft you get these young men and women out of the neighborhood and place them in an environment that will put them on a fast track to bettering their lives.

The draft is not only good for low-income neighborhoods. It would also help middle and higher income groups as those kids are soft and could use a good kick in the rear that the military will give them.

I have three cousins in the military right now and all three will tell you it’s the best thing they ever did. They’re going to come out educated, disciplined and ready to add to society. They will have seen more of the world then dozens of people combined and will leave no doubt in prospective employers minds that they will be ready to work.

As a father of a young boy, I hope Congress reinstitutes the draft. It can end up being just what this country needs to get the new generation to understand and respect the sacrifices of the old.

DISCLAIMER: This post and the contents thereof are the views of only the author identified immediately above and do not necessarily represent the views of the New York Young Republican Club (the "NYYRC"), its officers or its members. The NYYRC expressly disclaims responsibility for the contents thereof and by its charter documents may not, and does not, endorse any candidate for any office, except in a general election.


  • Didn’t they have a program in Vietnam that would draft the ‘disadvantaged’ as a social policy and it was a complete blunder from a strategic and social standpoint?

    I don’t recall the name of it.

  • The draft instituted during the Vietnam War had no bias toward a particular group. It was a lottery system where dates were put in capsules and drawn like a bingo number.

    The failure of the drafts during Vietnam had nothing to do with the draft but the war itself. Vietnam was a war started by Lyndon Johnson after he fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get American’s to support a war he desperately wanted to fight.

  • I agree Nick. Coming from a large Annapolis family, a military and social service draft in my eyes would do nothing but benefit America and its citizens for obvious reasons. In a shrinking world, we need to expose all youth to the realities of the world we live in, the discipline and respect that comes with hard work and organization, and the general appreciation of what our freedom is actually worth and the benefit of giving back to those who are less fortunate.

    In a growing culture of consumerism and materiality, we need to reinstitute the draft (both militarily and socially) to realign the american values with our population.

  • Interesting to note that Milton Friedman was very much opposed to a military draft

  • Correct. Accept that was during the Nixon administration and the Vietnam War. Friedman felt that a paid armed service would make better soldiers then the debacle that was currently taking place where tens of thousands of soldiers were coming home in body bags.

    During a time of war you can argue that a volunteer service like the one we have today will be more dedicated. At the same time though, Israel has shown with its compulsory military service that it is possible to have a draft and create a stronger united society.

  • Moot point Keith. It is but one man’s opinion.

  • Refresh my memory Nick, which branch of the armed services did you serve in?

  • Oh God, here you go Jen. You sound more and more like the other side everyday where somebody can’t talk about something or have an opinion unless they did it. That would be like me saying you shouldn’t talk about abortions unless you had one.

  • I’m just wondering why someone who thinks everyone should do a stint in the military didn’t do one himself.

    I do not think it is time to go back to a draft yet, though I do think we should keep the option open in case the war on terror escalates. I, however, would have attended the Naval Academy if chronic knee injuries hadn’t disqualified me.

  • Oh, and for the record, I haven’t had an abortion but if I were to become pregnant before I was ready to start a family, I wouldn’t hesitate to get one.

  • Lover’s quarrel? haha jk. So I assume you two disagree a lot.

    Nick, would the other side be “terrorists” or “democrats”? That polarization and division right there was much of what was wrong with the Republican Congress and why nothing got done.

  • To humor you. I went to college instead of the military. However I have enough people in my family that have served or currently do serve from the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines to see and respect what it has done to them.

    I just always find it comical when people try to say you shouldn’t talk about something unless you did it. If that were the case we wouldn’t have professors since most of them never did anything they ever teach.

  • Nick,

    From my own personal experience through architecture school including architecture, engineering, business, and economic classes at three different institutions, every single one of my professors had worked or were presently working in the fields they were teaching.

    Do you have any statistics for that comment that could defend your statement?

  • Kellen,

    Not to deviate from the topic of reinstituting the draft.

    I’ll agree the majority of professors have had some experience in the various fields. My comment was more of a general statement to mean where you have some professor that worked for a company in a midlevel management position telling students how to be a CEO.

  • Just making a point in calling you out on that comment. When you make a generalization like that, it has be either backed up or clarified. No one is going take you seriously when you make broad blanketing statements like that.

    That’s my last off topic comment.

  • In Jen’s comment about how she would have joined the Naval Academy if not for chronic knee problems, it has a tone as if since she almost joined, she deserves the same (or near the amount of) credit as actually joining. In that sense, you cannot imply that you have more credibility than Nick on this issue because you almost joined. Many people have been very close to joining the military and in the end, just chose not to for many different types of reasons. For all you know, Nick might have been very close but in the end, decided it wasn’t best for him. From my standpoint, one has to admire those who actually did make the leap into the military and not try to bring oneself up to the same level as them.

    My issue with Nicks post is that it is akin to someone that is 19 years old and complaining how the drinking age should be lower, but once they get over 21 their opinion of a drinking age is derived from a much different perspective. This perspective is one free from direct negative consequence of their opinion.

  • Mike,

    I’m not saying that I’m on the same level as someone who served, just that I was willing to make the sacrifice, when Nick was not. I actually don’t feel I’m in that much of a position to support a draft because my medical condition would disqualify me from any kind of physical service.

    I agree with your assessment that the argument is akin to how people’s opinion on drinking age changes as they get older – imagine being a 19-year-old kid who is faced with compulsory military service because he or she decided not to go to college. My brother chose a career as a mechanic over college – should he be punished for choosing a trade that our society depends on?

  • What I am getting at is that I don’t believe that until you are actually %100 in either the academy or military that you can say you were %100 willing to go. I am sure many times people really are about to join and then right when it’s time to make it official they don’t because they have 2nd thoughts.

    The bottom line is the only way you can truly say that you were willing to make the sacrifice is if you actually did, If you actually officially joined and were in. Otherwise, I believe, this dilutes the real sacrfice that these people make.

    If you had joined and you were in and then doctors said you couldn’t continue because your knees weren’t what they should be, you could say that you were truly willing to make the sacrifice.

  • I did not try to claim the same level as someone who had served – just that I had at least considered it, which is more than Nick, and I assume you as well, can say. FYI – the Naval Academy does not let in people who have medical conditions that disqualify them from military service, so no, you can not join then be disqualified. I didn’t have 2nd thoughts – I have a degenerative knee condition that would have prohibited me from completing the training.

    Doesn’t really matter either way, because the Democrats are killing the draft legislation.

  • And what do you make your assumption based on?

  • You don’t seem to really be that into physical fitness – which is a key part of military service.

  • Well up until that comment, I firmly believed that I was the picture of physical fitness!