Here's A Novel Idea: Just Abolish It Already!

Now that a federal judge recently struck down as unconstitutional the longstanding requirement that only men, and not women, have to register for Selective Service (aka the draft), its legal status is in limbo until the Supreme Court sorts it out.  Some believe that the best solution is to expand it to include women, and that does indeed make sense from a gender equality perspective.  But here is an even better solution:  just abolish it already, period.

The United States has not had an active draft since it was officially abolished in 1973, at the end of the Vietnam War, and for good reason:  it no longer made any sense.  Following that, the requirement to register for Selective Service was subsequently ended in 1975, pushing the Selective Service System into "deep standby", which was essentially complete hibernation.  After all, it makes no sense to have registration if there is no active draft or chance for one in the near future, right?  Such hibernation lasted until 1980, when President Carter reactivated the registration requirement--but not the draft itself--in order to, in his own words, "send a signal to the Russians" since the Cold War looked like it was (briefly) heating up a bit once again.  Fair enough.

But here we are now in 2019, and the largely symbolic registration requirement still remains in effect, and for what, exactly?  It is basically an antiquated relic from a time when given the technology (or lack thereof) of the day, it may have been perhaps a bit more difficult to quickly reactivate a draft even if truly necessary.  But even in 1980, and with relatively puny enforcement, the registration system was back up and running within a matter of months despite being idle for five years.  And today if they really wanted to, even without registration, the government could literally find anyone they wanted to draft from all of the many other databases that already exist.  That method may have a bit more friction to it, of course, but a little bit of friction for something with that much gravitas is really not a bad thing.

And the odds of an active draft ever being reinstated in the foreseeable future are almost nil given today's technology and the increasingly professional nature of the US Armed Forces.  Even if we run very short of troops, we can simply pay them more and we will be thus able to meet our recruiting goals.  And if we still can't meet our goals, we should really question the wisdom of whatever war(s) we happen to be fighting at that time, and exactly whose interests are really being served.  To put it bluntly, a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and in a truly just war, conscription would be unnecessary since volunteers would surely be plentiful.

(Some would note exceptions, of course, but those very rare exceptions only prove the rule.)

Therefore, the TSAP believes that registration requirement be abolished at once and the Selective Service System be put back into the hibernation of "deep standby" just like it was in 1975-1980.  And if they like, they can also update the law currently on the books to include women in the event it is ever reactivated in the future.  But make no mistake, the TSAP has never, and will never, support a draft--unless of course you mean the "consensual conscription" idea that we have floated before in which all wars longer than 90 days are put up to a popular vote, and only "yes" voters (and perhaps followed by abstainers) would get drafted.  That's about as fair as it gets.  Otherwise, we unequivocally say, as they famously said back in the day:

"HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!"

and, as the late Major General Smedley Butler famously said,

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Americans Are Still Having Fewer Kids, and That's a Very Good Thing

Even in 2018, after several years of ostensible economic recovery, Americans (particularly Millennials) are still having fewer kids than they were before the Great Recession.  The total fertility rate in the USA has thus fallen to around 1.8 children per woman, down from 2.1 before the Great Recession (replacement rate is around 2.1).  And contrary to what the naysayers may claim, that is actually a very GOOD thing on balance.  The world is grossly overpopulated and in serious ecological overshoot, and Americans' truly elephantine ecological footprint per capita due to our massive pollution and overconsumption of resources only makes it that much more important to reduce birthrates in the USA relative to the rest of the world.  And such grave ecological concerns greatly dwarf any social and economic concerns about population aging and other consequences of low birthrates.  Especially since with a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government, money is literally no object when it comes to things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and things like that--the government can literally only go broke if they choose to.  And our addiction to economic growth is also part of the problem in terms of ecological sustainability, so that fear needs to be jettisoned at once as well.

In fact, one recent study finds the ideal TFR in terms of standards of living overall is in fact in the 1.5-2.0 range, basically the same as what the TSAP has long advocated since our founding nearly a decade ago in 2009.  Yes, really.  Take that, birth dearthers!

Of course, it is not all wine and roses either.  The very same New York Times article referenced in the beginning of this post does note that both women and men are on average having fewer kids than their own self-reported ideal numbers, primarly due to economic reasons.  Part of the decline in fertility is due to Millennial women having more choices than previous generations, of course, but at the same time those choices are severely constrained by economics.  Our nation has a truly abysmal record of providing paid family leave, high-quality childcare, and social safety net benefits in general compared to most other modern and even semi-modern countries.  And in spite of increasing gender equality in many ways, the modern workplace remains both largely male-dominated and male-defined, and thus stuck in the past in terms of work-life balance.  And while the perennial fears of low birthrates are largely overblown, it is still entirely possible that if they eventually fall to extremely low levels (such as Japan's 1.2-1.4 over the past two decades) and remain that low for decades at a time, we may very well hit a "pothole" on the road to sustainability.  So there is still plenty of room for improvement in that regard, even if current TFRs are right where they should be.  And besides, it is simply the right thing to do regardless of fertility rates and any concerns about such numbers.

If the pro-lifers and pro-natalists really cared, they would instantly advocate not only very generous paid family leave and subsidized (if not free), high-quality childcare, but would also support things like Universal Basic Income (UBI) to eliminate poverty (especially child poverty) while also (partially) compensating the unpaid work of mothers (and some fathers as well).  They would also advocate better quality education from pre-K through post-grad, also free, as opposed to currently trying to kill the entire public education system via death by a thousand cuts.  They would advocate better work-life balance for both women AND men, higher minimum wages, and especially shortening the workweek (what's the point of having kids if you are never going to see them?).  And they would also advocate single-payer Medicare For All.  But do you see them advocating any of those things?  Of course not.  Gee, I wonder why.

So can you really blame young people for effectively going on a (partial) reproductive strike given the world we currently live in?  Of course not.

The best way to sum things up:  Want us Millennials to have (more) kids?  Give us a quarter-million dollars, then we'll talk.  Because that's about how much it costs on average to raise a child from birth through age 18--and that doesn't even include college.  And besides, our Mother Earth will truly thank us in the long run.  Otherwise, silence is golden.