 So, I think it's pretty evident to most Americans that there is currently a fundamental lack of social cohesion. We're polarized, we are increasingly tribalistic, we're seeing the rise of white supremacy and political factionalization. Even within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, there is different factions. So, obviously, social cohesion is an issue, and if you are president, I do want you to be thinking about ways that you can increase social cohesion, how you can foster that type of spirit of, I guess, camaraderie with fellow Americans. But the way that Pete Buttigieg, 2020 presidential candidate, is proposing we foster social cohesion, it struck me when I heard him talk about this, because I don't like what he pitches as his plan to foster social unity. Take a look. I'm really glad I did get the chance to serve it, helped me connect with very different Americans, people, especially when I was deployed to Afghanistan, who had almost nothing in common with different politics, different generation, different racially, different regionally, but you learn to trust each other with your life, because that's what the job requires. And I want more Americans to have that, but I don't want you to have to go to war to get it. It's one of the reasons I think national service will hopefully become one of the themes of the 2020 campaign, because we really want to talk about the threat to social cohesion that helps characterize this presidency, but also just this era. And one thing we could do that would help change that would be to make it, if not legally obligatory, then certainly a social norm that anybody after their 18 spends a year in national service, so that afterwards, whether it's civilian or military, it's the first question on your college application, if you're applying for college, or it's the first question when you're being interviewed for a job, if you're going right into the workforce. Now, to do that, we're going to have to create more service to your opportunities, and we're going to have to find a way to fund it, but I think it's worth approaching. I feel like that point, and you discussing those difficulties with it, sort of strikes me on that, because it's always really resonated with me, the civilian military divide that you're talking about is something that I've been interested in a very long time. I wrote a book about it, and it's something that I have struggled with, because the easy answer is that there should be a draft, and the easy answer that there should be a draft is easy, and sounds like a great solution to everybody except the military, who doesn't particularly want to deal with a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there, because it's a high skills, high tech environment, a voluntary service, professionals. But this idea of national service that's not necessarily a draft, I've heard so many smart people left, right, and center talk about that for the last 15 years, and I feel like it's this constant drawing board idea, and somebody pilots a thing here, or pilots a thing there, there doesn't seem to be any appetite for it at the federal level in terms of actually making it happen, because it will involve some sort of level of raising expectations, if not creating a mandate for people, and we seem wired as a country to reject that at every level. I don't have faith that something like that ever gets off the drawing board. Well, I think it's a bit like some of the democratic reforms we were talking about earlier. One of these ideas that everybody kind of likes, but it was always important and never urgent, right? I mean, how would that ever kind of hold its own in a policy debate where we're dealing with kids in cages, and we had to deal with climate change, and there are all these pressing burning issues. But again, one of the things I'm trying to have us have a conversation about are, what are the conditions that made this moment, this presidency possible? And one of them, I think, is a fraying in the social cohesion that we experience. And so some of that kind of stewardship, kind of housekeeping of our society, I think requires direct policy intervention that, to me, makes something like what national service could bring us a little more urgent than we maybe have given it credit for. I get the obstacles, I get that it would be challenging, but if we made it more of a priority, I think we could establish that as a norm by the time that my kids are going to college. Yeah, I don't like that. I don't like it one bit. Because if you truly want to foster social cohesion, I think there are better ways to do it than to require us or legally compel us to do something. Now to be fair to him, he doesn't necessarily say that he would definitely make national service compulsory. He also floated the idea of just kind of promoting it, making it a social norm. But when you start getting in this territory, you make me very nervous because I don't want you to impede on my freedom. I don't want you to tell me that I am required to do something that I may not want to do. What if I want to go to college and go to medical school? I have to dedicate a year of my life to do something because you think that's what's going to help us be more socially cohesive? Fuck that. And think about the context that he was discussing how he bonded with other fellow Americans who he maybe ideologically disagreed with. They were in Afghanistan, presumably killing people who posed no threat to us, killing people, occupying a different country because our government says that that's what we need to do. Now, to be fair again to him, he says that you don't necessarily just have to do this when it comes to war. There are other ways, you know, besides the military, but I am against being compelled to do something. I am against compelling young Americans to do something because this really does get into territory that I feel uneasy with. Who are we to tell Americans who pay taxes that they have to do something as big as this? Like I believe that compulsory policies aren't inherently evil because I support compulsory voting. But for something like this, where you dedicate a year of your life, a year of your short life to this, it makes me feel uneasy because then we start talking about the draft and that's what Rachel Maddow brought up. She says, the easy answer about the civilian military divide is that there should be a draft and it sounds like a great solution and everybody likes it except the military. What? Who likes the draft? If you look at public opinion polls, the last one that I could find is from 2003. 80% of the population are against the draft, 80%. And it's because we don't want to be forced by the government to fight in a war that we view as immoral or we don't want to be compelled to fight in a war that we know was launched on false pretenses. So who's saying that we should support the draft? Now to be clear, that's what Rachel Maddow says. She's not the candidate. What Pete Buttigieg proposed is mandatory national service. Now if you look at public opinion polls for that, it is more popular. About half of Americans support it at 49%. But again, when you start getting into this territory where you're floating the idea of compulsory service, I feel uneasy about that. Because I mean, if we're going to have the choice, that's great. If you want to join the military, that's great. Anyone who I know who joined the military, my cousin, my two brothers, they did it because joining the military gave them an opportunity. They would get access to education, even though they didn't fulfill that. But still, it gave them access to different areas of the economy, education. It gave them access to healthcare, which all of them use. So I believe that the choice is fine. If somebody wants to do that, that's fine. But don't compel us to do that. Now he isn't necessarily dead set on saying you have to serve a year in the military. He's not proposing, in my view, something that looks like what Israel does where they compel national service for men for three years. And I believe women for a year and a half, I want to say, but I'm not too sure on that. So don't quote me. But it's weird. Look, it's great that you had a really positive experience in the military. And you can do whatever you want to encourage that socially. I'm fine with that aspect. But when you start talking about legally mandating it, that's weird to me. The fact that he was enthusiastic about going to war is weird to me. And I want to share this tweet from Kate Aronoff, who says, it'll never not be weird that Buddha judge joined the military in 2009 as a financially solvent adult after working at McKinsey. And the thing with the military is that a lot of people feel compelled to join the military because they view that as really the only way out of poverty to get them healthcare, to get them, you know, education without student loan debt. So I don't I don't get this and why he's choosing to make this something that is going to be presumably one of his biggest platform planks, maybe to separate himself from the rest of the field. Because if truly the goal is social cohesion, don't you think there are better ways to do that? Don't you think that simply by unrigging the economy so we don't have this ruthless capitalist system that makes people desperate, that leads them to be radicalized? Don't you think it's easier to encourage social cohesion if everyone has an equal standing in society if black Americans aren't killed by the police? I mean, don't you think there are better ways to foster social cohesion? So I just I don't get why he's doing this. And again, to be fair, I said this four times, I sound like a broken record, but people get really angry when I criticize Pete Buddha judge because I see a cult of personality forming that worries me because if I talk about policy specifics, people attack me. Like if you saw the video I put out about Pete Buddha judge and you look at the comments, which you should never do, you should never look at YouTube comments. But if you go to the comments section and you sort by new, you will see people heavily suggesting that I am homophobic for criticizing Pete Buddha judge. Now, why is that notion ridiculous? I'm a homosexual myself. I'm not homophobic. I'm trying to criticize them based on the policy substance. But the reason why people are saying that is because they're not really looking at the policy. It's a cult of personality. So even if I present them with the evidence that Pete Buddha judge isn't as progressive as he says he is or wants you to believe, well, they still attack me because there's this cult of personality forming around him, where no matter what we tell you, you don't want to hear what we're saying, you dismiss what we're saying. So that's why I feel as if I need to go out of my way to be extra kind to him and not straw man him because I wouldn't want myself or someone who I support like Tulsi or Bernie to be straw man. But here's the thing, when you start talking about national service, you start worrying me because we get into the realm of making it mandatory. We start talking about the draft as Rachel Maddow did. And that's something that I unequivocally am against because the US empire has waged countless wars that are all to get natural resources from countries that didn't attack us. We're not fighting to protect national security. We're not droning Yemen because we're worried that, you know, there's going to be a Yemeni threat or a Yemeni invasion in America in the near future. We're doing it because we're trying to be the world's police. And I don't want to be associated with that. I don't want to serve in a military that serves the military industrial complex. Now, there are Americans who do that because economically speaking, the military gives them that opportunity and that's fine. I respect their decision to do that, but you're not going to force us to do it. You can go fuck yourself if you think I'm going to be, you know, forced to join the military. And I'm sure that that wouldn't apply to me since I'm in my early 30s. And this would presumably apply to people who are, you know, turning 18. But nonetheless, I don't want my nieces and nephews to be compelled to do something that they don't want to do, give people the freedom of choice, improve what they're able to do economically speaking, give them more purchasing power, and that's how you increase social cohesion. You don't have to do this. You don't have to float the idea of national military service or national public service or a draft. You just have to make sure that the economy is unrigged against us. And then it seems like, for the most part, everything else will fall into place. Now, you have to do other things. You have to tackle white supremacy. You have to make sure that black Americans and women aren't second class citizens, but these are the things that you should be looking at if you genuinely care about social cohesion, not compulsory national service.