Last month U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced his plans to propose a bill to reinstate the draft. The bill is scheduled to come before the House at the beginning of the next session, in which Rangel will be the chairman of the Powerful Ways and Means Committee.
Though 70 percent of Americans disagree with the reinstatement of the draft, I can recognize were Rangel is coming from. He represents New York’s 15th Congressional District, a district that is predominately black and Hispanic, as well as one of the poorest districts in the nation.
As Rangel sees more and more of his constituents going over seas to fight in a long, frustrating war similar to that of the Korean War in which Rangel received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, he can not help but feel a bit of anger. When he searches for equality in situations, all he has to do is look at the other side of the city in which many wealthier Americans are going to college instead of heading to Iraq.
This may seem to be a tough topic to deal with at the “J-Crew U” establishment that we attend, but in putting myself in Rangel’s shoes, I can sympathize with a feeling of inequality.
This theory is one that can be expected by society and should be talked about in political science classrooms across the country; but Rangel is not the chairman of the Fairfield Politics Department, he is a United States Congressman.
The House of Representatives is one of the most powerful governing bodies in the world. Its action must be found in a practical manner, one which would not include ordering 18- to 42-year-olds to serve in the military.
Rangel has tried drafting this bill before. In 2003 he proposed HR 163, which was turned down 402-2 with Rangel voting against his own bill. Then and now, Rangel was trying to make a statement.
“A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent,” he told The New York Times.
This time around, Rangel said the involuntary service would include non-military positions such as port and airline security, as if we had not found enough ways to take away American Jobs.
Rangel has taken a wrong approach to this issue.
In a country with so many people driving cars with yellow “Support your troops” magnets on the back, he could have fought for better perks to voluntary service. Improve the free education, and the compensation of the GI bill and incorporate that with more impressive opportunities that would give the lowest class a more applicable chance to rise to the top.
The fact that sons of low-income families are going to Iraq is a practically, compensating those that do is a necessity.
Leave a Reply