MARCH 27, 2026 – (Cont.) Later, while ascending and descending the hills of “Little Switzerland,” I framed the preliminary objectives and methods of a “universal national service” (“UNS”) program:
The objectives would be to:
- Counteract political polarization by integration of people across all demographic factors;
- Bridge traditional socio-economic divides, again by integrated living, working;
- Instill common civic values;
- Enhance participants’ real world experiences and opportunities;
- Make America Great Again. (Just kidding; the program would not be a flag-waving exercise, but by the same token, neither would flag-burning be part of the agenda.)
The means and methods of UNS would include the following:
- Two-year service for all 18- and 19-year-olds within a wide choice of programs, many of which either exist or have some kind of precedent: military (including Coast Guard and National Guard), as well as non-military (e.g Peace Corps; Teach America; Vista; programs similar to the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression);
- Shared and quasi-supervised “room and board” accommodations in relatively spartan but safe and adequately comfortable quarters/compounds (not unlike military barracks); social, intellectual, athletic and artistic outlets provided, with participation encouraged;
- Applicable technical instruction and other training/education components led by qualified personnel;
- Participation would be compulsory, subject to hardship exemptions or deferments. Every participant would receive a modest stipend, payable in regular installments, during the service term, and health insurance. Upon discharge and completion of a half-day primer on personal finance (using a lively PowerPoint display featuring mostly cartoons), each participant would receive an initial deposit of $1,500 (today’s dollars) in an IRA (for 30 years, withdrawals would be subject to sliding scale forfeiture, starting at 97% in year one)—plus, as might be advisable, a permanent “proof of citizenship” card and bracelet.
Now that I’ve set every Republican’s hair on fire, let me address some of the most likely points of resistance.
FIRST: From the rugged individualist view of “American Exceptionalism,” I can hear howling at decibels striking envy in the heart of every Minnesota Timberwolves fan. Individualism defines American culture, despite the many aspects of our lives that are heavily influenced by the collective, such as: our infatuation with team sports; our participation in organized religion; our esteem for the military; our acceptance of public education (however we might disagree with its content); our obsession with pop culture and its mass appeal.
What these examples reflect is that despite the persistence of a “frontier” (i.e. rugged individualist) mentality among Americans, a host of factors have already herded us into collective corrals. The fringed leather jacket might be de rigueur (among the hordes, ironically) at the annual motorcycle rally in Sturgis, and across the land we might see retrograde “Don’t Tread on Me!” flags flapping next to signs and flags showing support (just as ironically as the leather jackets in Sturgis) for the man who treads contemptuously on every single element of the Bill of Rights except the Second Amendment, but except for a handful of mountain people living completely off the grid, all of us have accepted or at least adjusted to a substantial degree of collective organization and regulation in our lives.
Most pointedly, I have yet to hear of or encounter a Trump Era Republican who isn’t a huge fan of the military. What organization in our society is more intrinsically, conceptually and, it can be argued, out of necessity, more antithetical to individualism than the military?
In other words, from the standpoint of the enduring appeal of the romantic treatment of our historical “rugged individualism,” that feature of our culture has already been diluted. So should resistance to the idea of “universal national service.”
Most critically, however, what this country so desperately needs is reformation and restructuring. Some would say we’ve blown past such avenues of change. What’s now required, they urge, is wholesale revolution. But as history has shown time and again—graphically and painfully—revolutions usually don’t go according to plan. They go off the rails and wind up serving the interests of a small minority at great cost to the majority.
Reformation and restructuring possibilities, however, are limited within our existing political, economic, social and cultural strictures. Universal national service, however, could well prove to be a gamechanger; a force that over time would enhance the common good beyond measure—and by the common good, unprecedented improvement in the prospects of every individual.
SECOND: From each end of the ideological political, religious, social spectra, I can hear rancorous opposition to universal national service. Resistance would likely be driven by a fear of indoctrination contrary to the dogma of an opposing ideology. This fear isn’t unfounded. See the history of nationalist communism or fascism, even—or “especially”?—when labeled as anti-fascist. Yet, on this point our very own Constitution—specifically, the First Amendment; more specifically, the Establishment Clause—could provide critical guidance; so could the principles underlying the Hatch Act (prohibition against using official authority and government resources for political purposes) and similar laws. Under proper structure and management, UNS could be isolated from undue ideological influence.
What would be essential for the success of the program would be enabling legislation that strictly prohibited practices that could likely serve (a) fascist or über-nationalist designs; (b) “Taliban-like” or “Christian Nationalist” religious objectives; or (c) partisan political agendae—left or right. In both theory and practice, UNS should be laser-focused on enhancing the common good through public service and strengthening civic values, all with the ultimate objective of aligning our hearts, minds and actions with the principles to which we say we adhere.
THIRD: Cost of the program at scale big enough to ensure success, would be staggering when expense is considered without context or comparisons. The two most basic parameters would be population and per capita operating cost.
Currently, there are approximately 4.36 million 18-year-olds in America. If we look at the average annual cost (room, board, tuition) of higher education in this country, the numbers are $30,000 for public universities; $65,000 for private schools.[1] The average annual cost of higher education thus works out to be $47,500 . Surely DNS could be run no less efficiently than American higher education. Thus, according to the simple math—operating costs only—the gross cost would be $207.1 billion x 2, or $414.2 billion since after year one, the total number of enrollees would be twice the first year’s class.
HOWEVER, before choking on $414.2 billion, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) would have to subtract costs that would reflect “double counting”—that is, the cost of incurred by 18- and 19-year-olds who normally join the military (around 280,000). At the per capita cost of $47,500, the military contingency would reduce the annual UNS operating budget by $13.3 billion.
For perspective, compare $401 billion per year to our total military budget approaching $1 trillion (or Elon Musk’s current estimated net worth of $900 billion)—or the Pentagon’s “ask” for $200 billion for additional funding of “Epic Myopia.” My guess is that by eliminating pork rind (where is DOGE when and where we really need it?) and weapon systems that will never make America safer, a dull butcher knife could chop $401 billion from the “defense” budget. The savings could be re-allocated to UNS, and within a few short years, the profoundly transformative effect on America would pay huge dividends far outweighing the operational costs.
In addition, extensive analysis would have to be applied to up-front capital outlays, mostly in the form of facility construction and furnishing. After development of a total cost model, assuming bond financing, the annual debt service would have to be taken into account.
Bottom line (pun fully intended), the projected cost of UNS would be its greatest vulnerability to broad acceptance. But as it was once said, “If we can put a [person] on the moon, we can do pretty much anything we put our collective will to.” In today’s world, I’d add, “If we can spend a billion bucks a day on yet another potentially endless war for which there is no credibly sensible objective or cogent exit strategy, we could achieve a much bigger bang out of those bucks if we re-allocated then to a game-changing effort to repair the foundation of our republic.” Oh, and let’s not forget that well beyond the obscene monetary cost of wars is the infinite cost of life and limb. Enrollees in UNS would not be expected to lay down their lives for the country as a measure of their patriotism.
* * *
Is UNS the irresponsible talk of a “crazy, radical, extremist, communist, Democrat lib”? Perhaps, but when all is taken into account, I’d argue that it’s no more “craz[ier], radical, extremist, etc.” than universal military conscription, for which there is ample precedent in our history and in other Western democracies even today. In any event, I’d be curious to hear thoughtful reactions from my readers.
Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
© 2026 by Eric Nilsson
[1] The per capita annual cost (all-in, including health insurance, other benefits) of maintaining active-duty members of the armed services runs between $140,000 and a whopping $200,000.
