The last thing I saw when I read the Sunday paper was the Alfred E. Newman grin of George W. Bush, his arms around a demographically-proper mix of cute tykes, as a cover story in Parademagazine touting Bush’s call for more volunteerism.
In Bush’s State of the Union, or, um, speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, W called for 4,000 years hours of volunteer service over the rest of your life. So it was wonderful seeing him speaking to the weekend’s marchers on Washington for Palestinian rights and against the IMF, lauding them for their volunteer principles and their commitment to a cause.
No, sorry, just joking. Bush would more rapidly be buried alive at Yucca Flats than do anything so radioactive as speak to a peace march.
I’m trying to give W the benefit of the doubt, but he just makes it so damned hard. On the face of it, volunteerism is great stuff; I used to be an organizer of a nonprofit network, and the fact that it’s still going today and has generated hundreds of volunteer projects makes it one my proudest achievements in Washington.
I’m just convinced that the world will be a better place if you get off your butt to work for your beliefs, even if those beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine. There’s a net gain if we’re both working to undermine everything the other stands for, when taken against the status quo of both of us sitting on our couches watching the tube. (For reasons of cardiovascular fitness, if nothing else.)
But now the Republican hierarchy wants to take credit for volunteerism, despite the fact that America already has the highest incidence of volunteerism in the world. So if I go out and do my thing, and contribute to some GAO statistic next year that shows N hours given over the year, you just know the Bushies will say that it was motivated by dedication to Republican ideas.
Here’s why I don’t trust it. The activist loves volunteerism because we ascribe morality to action: you don’t like the world, go out and make your difference! That difference can be on-the-ground, the “getting your hands dirty” part, or it could be motivating government, corporations, or communities to do the right thing on their own.
But the obvious subtext of Bush volunteerism is, “get out and do stuff so the government can walk away from it.” You know, hold a bake sale for your school, but don’t question why the school so desperately needs cookie money. (And absolutely don’t question why school monies are indexed to property values, ensuring that the schools most likely to hold bake sales are the ones least desperate for funds.) Add in the utter hypocrisy that the Republicans are now supporting and expanding AmeriCorps after spending years trying to shut it down utterly.
The Republican mantra is “the government can do nothing well, therefore it should do as little as possible.” We’ll ignore Reagan-Bush-Bush spending increases and the current Ashcroft attacks on privacy and freedom in the name of freedom and give them the benefit of the doubt that the less cynical members of the party actually believe this. Is there no room in that philosophy for the thought that every political and social action has a “natural” best place to be, and that some of those places are in the local, state, and federal government?
In other words, if you want to reduce hunger in your town, by all means, give money to your church. If you want to end hunger in your country—where do you go? The status quo answer, which the Republicans (and many Democrats) are satisfied with, is: “You know, we’d love to, but we just can’t. Sorry.”
So, please, by all means, get out there and do your thing. And if you’re so inclined, tell your government that there are things that you can handle on your own or with your community, but really, some things just need government, and laws, and leaders. That’s why we put them there.