|
 |
GREENFIELD AT LARGE
America Prepares for a New Kind of War
Aired November 7, 2001 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: It used to be simple. When a nation went to war, it rounded up as many able-bodied young men as it needed, sent them into the armed forces, sent many off to fight, and to die.
But this is a wholly different sort of conflict, where the targets and the need for people to serve, may be here at home. So what can and should this country ask or demand of its young men and women?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(voice-over): By the time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the draft had been in place for more than a year. And just about everyone, rich or poor, high school dropout and college graduate, was eligible. That's why they called it "universal military service."
It was very different during Vietnam. "Selective" service excused fathers, college and graduate students, those in the right kinds of jobs. To put it bluntly, the better off, better connected you were, the less likely you were to serve.
Even so, the specter of the draft helped fuel the anti-war protests, one big reason why President Nixon ended the draft in 1972. Today, the U.S. fights with an all-volunteer army. And the Pentagon says it does not want a return to the draft.
But what about the ranks of police, firefighters, and other such jobs with big vacancies because the reserves have been called up? Who will fill those shoes? Who will guard the nuclear power plants, the reservoirs, the bridges?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(on camera): Can we fill those jobs with an expanded corps of volunteers? Or will we need to conscript young men and women this time, for homeland defense? A new bill introduced today in the Senate offers an alternative to draft. A hugely expanded volunteer service corp. The bill would also expand program to roughly five times its current size.
Indiana Democrat Senator Bayh is one of the bill's sponsors, along with Arizona Republican John McCain. And Senator Bayh joins me now from Washington. SEN EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Senator, could you us specifically what jobs are needed to be filled because of what happened September 11?
BAYH: Jeff, that hasn't been determined yet. But fully, one half of the new volunteers that would exist under our bill will be devoted to public security and homeland defense. And we're going to be coordinating with the office of homeland defense. Former Governor Ridge will help put together the list, the job descriptions and the specific missions that need to be accomplished. So that work is in progress now.
GREENFIELD: But my question, senator, are you sure there's actually a need to fill a lot of these jobs?
BAYH: Well, about that, Jeff, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever. The number of tasks that need to be performed in the aftermath of September 11 dealing with public security, national defense will be enormous. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that every one of volunteers we proposed may be required and perhaps then some.
GREENFIELD: All right, then let me turn the question on its head. If there's this urgent need for people to perform homeland defense of the most urgent kind, we got thousands of people dead a few miles from here, then why not do this on an emergency basis? I mean, you're talking about a program that goes through the Congress. We all know that Congress' speed is not always, you know, lightning fast. Isn't this something then, that's more urgent than the pace of a new bill and program can meet?
BAYH: I think we're going to see a continuum, Jeff. Some things need to be done immediately. Those things that present a possible clear, immediate risk to the public will need to be addressed right now. There's no reason for waiting.
Others might be able to take a while longer. Just as the expertise required to fulfill these functions will vary. Some will require, full time, highly trained professionals in the military or in the police, fire services.
Others may require only volunteers trained up to a different level, available on a part-time basis. And so, it's going to be very task specific, time specific, given the nature of the risk involved. And that is -- that process, as I said, is ongoing now.
GREENFIELD: Do you have a sense, based on anything specific, that younger Americans are willing to enlist in this as the task.
BAYH: We've seen increase of 30 percent since September 11 of applications to Americorp. The current volunteer program that focuses upon a variety of important tasks, tutorials for children, helping with senior citizens, things of that nature.
So there's been a -- some actual evidence of a wellspring of a willingness to volunteer. And based upon anecdotal evidence that I and others I've talked to have gathered, I think there's a great desire on the part of the American people, a surge of patriotism, civil management.
The challenge here, Jeff, is to harness that emotional wellspring, into concrete ways people to help secure America.
GREENFIELD: And yet, you alluded to this earlier, than in some ways, the most urgent slots that need to be filled of those, say of firefighters and police and people who've been called up in the reserves.
You can't ask a 19-year, of the campus of the university to step in and be a firefighter. in the way you could say train that person to be a park ranger. I mean, isn't there inevitably wanting to volunteer. an enormous gap of time before those slots get filled?
BAYH: We need a crash program to fill the slots that you must mentioned, firemen, policemen, others that deal with the safety and well being of the public each and every day.
Others, you know, look at the infrastructure challenges. Jeff, bridges, power plants, airports, port facilities, rail facilities, that the list is mind-boggling. Those kind of things over time may be able to be handled by folks who are on the volunteer six months or a year of their time and are trained up to a certain level. It may not require full-time, highly trained professionals.
GREENFIELD: I think the numb of the final area I want to explore is this. You're talking about survival now. You're not talking about volunteers to make America prettier or to do kind of interesting ideas. What about the safety of the country?
Why should that be left to volunteer? Why shouldn't that be matter where the government, if may paraphrase an old recruiting poster says, Uncle Sam wants you and Uncle Same is going to pick up. In other words, why not conscription for this?
BAYH: Well, we'll all need full-time professionals for those jobs that require it. There's no question about that. And if there are slots going vacant that involve public safety and security, we may need a crash program to fill those.
It's only positions that can reasonable be filled by volunteers that should be filled. And I'm confident that there will be thousands and thousands of positions like that, where the most effective way and a very safe and secure way, will be utilizing volunteers.
So -- and part of our proposal also, Jeff, is to beef up the military, to offer a whole new tract for people who want to enlist in the armed services, serve our country that way and then come back into civilian life.
GREENFIELD: But bottom line, are you prepared to say that with respect to some jobs, they are so important to be filled so quickly, we may need compulsion, rather than volunteerism. BAYH: I don't think we'll need a draft to fill the firemen and firefighter slots that you mentioned, there may need to be some crash recruitment program. I don't think we'll need conscription right now, even for that. But in the fullness of time, we'll need to see whether we can meet the important public safety needs with volunteers.
I think there's going to be role for this type of effort in that regard. And I think President Bush may speak to some of that tomorrow.
GREENFIELD: Indiana senator Evan Bayh. Thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate it.
When we come back, we'll debate whether in fact the draft might be the right way to pursue homeland defense. That'll be right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREENFIELD: We're back. We're going to explore the idea of a national draft, involving men and women, for the purpose of defending targets on U.S. soil against terrorist attack. One of the plan's proponents is Paul Glastris. He's editor of "The Washington Monthly." Also in Washington, Jacob Sullum. He is the syndicated columnist. And he's the senior editor of "Reason" magazine, a magazine of libertarian orientation.
From Los Angeles, we're joined by Andrei Cherny. He's a former speechwriter for vice president Al Gore. He's author of "The Next Deal, the Future of Public Life in the Information Age."
Mr. Glastris, you've just heard Senator Bayh say look, we got a lot of jobs to fill. We just -- we don't need conscription. We can do this with volunteers and a certain amount of incentives. Isn't that a much better idea than conscription?
PAUL GLASTRIS, EDITOR, "THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY": Well, I think it's a great idea that he has in general that we need to beef up our manpower for homeland security and that national service of some kind can fill the void. I think that's absolutely right.
I think where we disagree is I think we're going to need a draft to do it. And I think that the evidence out there now suggests we will. If you look at the number of people who have, since September 11, signed up for the military, there's no net increase. So there are some things that you can do with volunteers, alas, but volunteers don't always fill uniforms.
GREENFIELD: So but, your point is this is based on need. I mean, there are people who argue that universal service has some other benefits. If you could fill these jobs by volunteers, would that be fine with you? You wouldn't need a draft?
GLASTRIS: I think a draft is a good idea regardless. And I have, and the magazine has for many years thought that it was a mistake to get away from it. So there are, in fact, a great deal of other benefits to a draft, in terms of pulling the country together and filling the void of public life that's been created over the last few decades since Vietnam. But the argument I'm making now is that I don't think we can avoid a draft, given the nature of the threat.
GREENFIELD: Now Mr. Sullum, you know, it would seem that if there's anytime when the government is entitled to call upon citizens to do more than pay taxes, that is to provide themselves, it's in a time of a legitimate national emergency. Not some concocted one, but the kind that we went through September 11. Isn't this the kind of event that even a libertarian will say, "OK, now the government has a legitimate claim on its people?"
JACOB SULLUM, "REASON" MAGAZINE: Well, and I think the kinds of positions that we're talking about filling involve defending the entire country. And so, this is a burden that should be borne by everyone. I think it's fundamentally unfair to impose this burden on just one group, on 18 to 25-year-olds, when in fact, it's benefiting everyone.
I think makes a lot more sense to fill these positions, simply by offering enough money so that people are willing to do these jobs. And I think the combination of offering enough compensation and people's desire to serve in these roles in defending the country will be perfectly adequate to fill these positions. I haven't seen evidence to suggest that anything like conscription would be necessary.
GREENFIELD: Well, but the question is on -- I'm going to do the question the other way that I did to -- if in fact, the government could say look, we need these jobs filled. They are matters of national protection and defense. And we don't have enough people to do them, doesn't that make a case for conscription? Or are you saying philosophically, no way, no how?
SULLUM: I'm saying that the current situation does not arise to the level of emergency that would be necessary to justify this sort of extreme measure. I mean, we're talking about a temporary form of slavery. We're talking about interrupting people's lives, telling them where to go and what to do, wrenching them from their current lives and their current livelihoods, the current education.
That's a very serious step to take. And I think it would require something like a massive invasion of the homeland that actually threatened our existence, which was so imminent in an emergency, that you could not possibly fill these positions voluntarily to justify something like conscription.
I don't think we're anywhere near that situation now. And I think, there is some amount of money that you could spend to fill all these positions. It may be higher than Paul is willing to pay, but the important point to keep in mind is that there is a cost to this that cannot be avoided one way or the other. The question is whether the cost will be borne fairly by everyone's whose being protected, or whether it's going to be imposed arbitrarily on one narrow slice of the population, which happens to not have very much political influence. GREENFIELD: Well, Mr. Cherny, you're of an age where you might actually be subjected to a conscription under Mr. Glastris' plan. Do you think it's fair to say to younger people, all right, we'll tax people, like me, but you're the guys whose bodies are going to be alive. Is that just?
ANDREI CHERNY, AUTHOR, "THE NEXT DEAL": II think it is just. Look, we don't have either the psychological or the physical infrastructure to go to a full conscription plan overnight. But the fact is, there are huge needs out there.
Certainly the needs that rose after September 11 are a big part of that, but they're not the only ones. We have high rates of child poverty. Many, many seniors who want to live on their own, want to live at home, and could, with this sort of help and this sort of program.
After school care, child care, environmental protection, so on and so forth. Many different areas where we need things that are beyond just a government bureaucracy, beyond just a check from the government, but actually problems that only bends to people power.
Greenfield: But Mr. Cherny.
CHERNY: If I may, I can almost hear Jacob Sullum saying, "See, that's exactly state as do." We start with an argument about protecting the country from terrorism. And now you're talking about caring for the seniors and childcare, and a whole list of programs that might or might not be good policy.
But hardly just conscription. Right? I mean, isn't that exactly the danger of a conscription, that the government will say, "Now we can take a 1.5 year of your life, not just to protect the Homeland from terrorists, but to do all these programs.
CHERNY: Well, I think that's part of protecting and bettering this country. I don't see there's anything wrong with that.
We had a draft in this country for, as you point yourself, more than 30 years, in times of war and in times of peace. And there was a universal expectation there that young people of all walks of life, of all backgrounds, of all colors, would come and serve their country.
You know, they even drafted Elvis. Why not today, as we have the specter of September 11, but we also have the specter of huge, unmet needs in this country. Why can't we have young people devoting themselves to national service? We already see huge expansions of Americorp. We see huge numbers of young people involved in their communities, involved in volunteering, hungering for something bigger than themselves, something they could really devote themselves to.
I think that this is not just about stateism. It's about really the idea that you have certain obligations to your country, that there is a basic bargain at the heart of what it means to be an American, that along with of the rights that we all celebrate, there are responsibilities. And one is to give back to your country. Greenfield: All right, now putting aside the issue that we might be wanting to -- drafting Britney Spears this time around, Mr. Glastris, are you seeing the draft as that, your idea, is that expansive?
GLASTRIS: I think yes. And I think that the draft that I -- that Charlie Moskoss and I put forward, would give Americans what in this day and age 2001 they want, and that is choice. Everyone who is drafted for 18 months to two years would have a choice to serve in the military, to serve in homeland defense, or to serve in the national service capacity, like Americorp. Those who take the more dangerous duty serve less lengthy periods and get more at the end, interims of a bigger G.I. bill, but everyone serves.
GREENFIELD: Mr. Sullum, I want to get a break, but I want to give you a chance to come in quickly. Does that sound like choice to you?
GLASTRIS: No, I'm astounded to hear it described that way. This is not about choice. This is forced labor. Let's not pussyfoot around. We're talking about of slavery here, where you force people to do things. You're not giving them a choice. That's exactly what you're not doing.
And as we see already that we're getting beyond the concept of security, which I think all of us agree is a legitimate function of the government into a whole range of social work and nice things for the community that you're going to conscript people to perform. I don't view citizens as the property of the state to do with what it pleases.
We're going ask good idea or not is the draft politically possible. After this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Greenfield: And we're back talking about the prospects of the homeland security draft. We're talking with Paul Glastris, of "The Washington Monthly," one of the authors of the idea. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum and former Al Gore speech writer, Andrei Cherny.
CHERNY: Mr. Cherny, while you might think it's a good idea. Is it politically feasible, after 30 years, of roughly 30 years of no draft, to say OK, all you young people, we're going to sound rounding you up for 1.5 year or so, whether you like it or not.
SULLUM: It's certainly not going to happen overnight. This is not something that we can snap our fingers and tomorrow, have a huge draft of 4 million young people a year or even more.
The fact of the matter is, there are extremes of both parts, of the political spectrum are opposed to it. There are those on the left who believe that we don't really have any obligations to one other. That we have the freedom to say and do whatever we please.
We could shout "fire" and any other four letter word beginning you with (INAUDIBLE) in a quiet theater.
There are those on the right, unfortunately, like the expressions that Mr. Sullum has said today, believe that we don't have any obligations as citizens or as corporations to the larger community. I just think it's awfully problematic to call this idea of serving your country slavery. I think it's offensive to the young people, the 18- year-olds who were conscripted, who were drafted, who landed on the beaches of Normandy. The 18-year olds and the 20-year holds who died at Gettysburg, I don't think they consider themselves slaves.
GREENFIELD: No if I may, I understand about the history. The question is, in this current climate, you're heading into a brick wall, I would think again.
GLASTRIS: Well, I don't think so. Because I think what we have today is that we have a huge expansion of the number of young people who are interested in volunteering, in serving, in being a part of their community.
94 percent of 18 to 25-year-olds think that serving your country and serving your community is part of what's required to the other citizen. The number of 18 to 25-year olds who have been helping elderly neighbor in the past year, has increased like 50 percent, just between 1989 and 1999.
There is hunger to get involved, to be part of something bigger than yourself. Volunteerism is a great. We should be encouraging it. We should be promoting it. But it's not the as the idea that you owe things to your country, that your country has obligations that it calls all of us to perform.
I think that young people are demanding that. I think that's what's going to push the political process forward.
GREENFIELD: Mr. Sullum, here's, I think, where people might a problem as Andrei indicated with the slavery idea. I mean, it isn't just for tens of millions of Americans, being drafted in World War II was part of the norm.
It's almost sounds as if you're saying that if you were rewriting that inaugural speech of Kennedy's, it would go "ask what you can do for your country, if you wouldn't mind too much. And we can pay you enough.
And I'm trying to pin you down on whether or not there isn't this a notion that beyond paying taxes, under certain circumstances and certain times, and this is certainly as unusual a time as any of us have ever lived through, the government has a legitimate right to say we need you to help us and we need everyone in the same pool.
SULLUM: Well, I think there's a certain amount of confusion going on here. First of all, you know, I'm not a right winger. I'm not sure where your guests got that idea.
In any case, we're not -- we keep tossing the term country and the term community. I certainly don't deny that people have a morale obligation to their community and the sense of helping others.
But the community is not the same thing as the government. And your country is not the same thing as the state. What I am denying is this idea which underlies these proposals, that people are resources for the state to distribute and use however it wants.
This idea that if the state decides that even though you have chosen a particular career on Wall Street let's say, you better serve your country or your community by being a teacher or by being a social worker or standing guard at the borders. And that's what you're going to be compelled to do.
I just think it's anathema to the American tradition of limited government and individualism. And I think it has no place in a free society.
GREENFIELD: All right, Mr. Glastris, one of the things that comes up, when we talk about a homeland security draft, is the inherently inefficient, sometimes comically so nature of government bureaucracy.
Libertarians have feasted on that and not without reason. So if we run into a situation where you need say 10 percent of the 18 to 25- year-old men and women in this country, just for openers. Remember what we through in Vietnam? How are you going to decide in a fair way, which 10 percent of them gets to have their lives completely disrupted?
GLASTRIS: Same way you always have. And that's with a lottery. And the Selective Service rules that are in place don't allow for student exemptions. So that the wealthy and well connected can't get out of it.
GREENFIELD: And -- but my point is that no matter how fair it may seem, if only one in 10 is needed, I think my own sense is that given the decades long nature of a nondraft system, the people who are conscripted, rather than volunteer, are going to scream bloody murder about this?
GLASTRIS: I think that's an argument for making sure everyone gets drafted. And that's why I think National Service has to be part of the mix.
Look, young people don't mind so much, if they are asked to give 18 months of their lives either before during or after college, say, to serving their country. What drives people crazy and why more people don't volunteer now is the sense of being a sucker. While I'm wearing the uniform, somebody else is having fun in getting ahead in their careers.
If everyone's in the same pool, I don't think people wouldn't mind that much at all..
GREENFIELD: Mr. Cherny, I want to turn to a -- we only have a minute or so left. The economic impact of this. They're taking hundreds of thousands or millions of people out of their work and putting them into a government program. In this time of economic weakness, is that really a great idea?
SULLUM: I think it can be part of strengthening this country. A lot of our economic weakness comes from these unmet needs that we've been talking about. I think that what Paul said is true. As long as everybody is part of it, I don't think people are going to mind. And it's also going to bring people together.
You know, World War II. John Kennedy on a PT boat, along with farm kids and immigrants and factory work errors and high school dropouts. And that was a great thing to bring this country together. People understood that we are all in the same boat. That, I think, would strengthen this economy and strengthen our country as we go forward in a really fundamental way.
GREENFIELD: Mr. Sullum, we've got about 30 seconds left, which I realize if unfair. But if you don't want the President tomorrow when he speak of that Homeland Security, to fall a draft. And I'm clear you don't.
What do you want him to say to citizens about what's on our shoulders?
SULLUM: Well, I think we have a responsibility to support whatever measures are going to be necessary to protect our security. But I think that burden should be shared fairly. I don't think it should be opposed in just one group.
I think there's also, aside from the issue of fairness, there's a question of efficiency here. I think if we do what Mr. Glastris is suggesting, and simply draft everyone, in the interest of being fair to at least all 18 to 25-year-olds, giving them all an equal chance to serve.
You're going to run into the problem that they will be used in a very casual sort of mailer because the government doesn't have to pay for the right the use their labor. It's conscripting them. And therefore, you run the risk of them being put into positions that maybe aren't really necessary. You know, set up these make work jobs, simply because we've enforced to draft them all, lest we appear unfair.
GREENFIELD: OK.
SULLUM: That's the sort of problem you run into when you refuse to admit the cost that you're imposing on people.
GREENFIELD: All right, our cost run in the time area, which we have spent all of. And I want to thank my guests. That was pretty clumsy. I apologize.
I want to thank my guests Paul Glastris and Jacob Sullum and Andrei Cherny.
And finally, no discussion of a draft would be complete without a brief look at the single most creative draft dodging scam ever perpetrated. It happened. History or maybe legend, but it really is history, has it in Brooklyn, New York during World War II. A local politician approached by parents seeking a way out of the draft for their sons would tell them, "Look, there are four doctors at the local draft board. One of them is my guy. If your son gets to see my doctor, he'll be out. You owe me $500.
If not, hey, that's life. But of course, you'll owe me nothing. The truth was Paul didn't know any of the doctors. He was simply relying on the laws of chance. If it happened that the kid was turned down for medical reasons, the grateful parents paid off.
If not, no money changed hands. Would satisfied customers and without any actual act of bribery of any draft board doctor that scam went on for years.
OK. so it won't make the next edition of "The Greatest Generation." I'm Jeff Greenfield. Thanks for watching. Lou Dobbs MONEYLINE is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
