National Service & Democracy In Wartime with Guest William Galston

July 21, 2024

When a democracy is at war, what does it mean to serve your country? Host Gil Troy and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow & Wall Street Journal Columnist William Galston discuss how the perception of rights and obligations is affected by the collective experience or its absence – of defending one’s country, and how those experiences can reshape a society. 

With a focus on US and Israeli policies and the context of the Israel-Hamas war, this episode explores questions of shared burden, equality, societal values, and effective governance, while texts and observations from US history illustrate these ongoing democratic debates.

[HOOK] – (00:03)

William Galston

There’s an old saying, that while nations make war, war makes nations. And I think there’s, there’s substantial truth to that. Which is not an argument in favor of war, don’t misunderstand me. It’s just an empirical observation, that nations are seldom the same after a great war, than they were before it. 

[INTRO] – (00:35) 

Gil Troy

I’m Gil Troy, and welcome to the Human Side of History podcast, where we discuss how history helps us understand our current moment. In this initial series, we’re going to use history and historical documents from the Shapell Collection to explore some of the most compelling questions raised at this very difficult historical moment, especially since Hamas’s horrific invasion of Israel on October 7th.

Our guest today will be a leading political scientist and thought leader, who has served in the White House and has spent his career thinking about what keeps democracies together and what keeps them idealistic. His name is Professor William Galston.

Today, we want to think broadly about the question of serving my country. What does war mean for individuals, for society, for the nation?

Let’s consider two significant historical documents that trigger questions about the ethics of national service. When do you serve? When do not serve? Should we be compelled to serve? First, it’s July 1863. The United States has issued its first draft in history, its first forced conscription, seeking 300,000 recruits. Abraham Lincoln is disturbed that various states are not pulling their load, including New York, which is filled with critics of the war, new immigrants who don’t understand why they have to fight, and people who’d actually made a lot of money in cotton trade with the South, who just didn’t want to go to war against the South.

Abraham Lincoln during this terrible national emergency, is not only worried about getting bodies to mobilize,, he’s also concerned with making sure that the national character, the national conscience, is preserved by sharing the burden.

He issues this document, and the reaction is so harsh that at least 120 rioters, and some say as many as 1200 rioters, died in what’s known as the Civil War draft riots. 

Now let’s go to what was known at the time as the Great War, eventually became called World War I, and a more personal document from Theodore Roosevelt, a former president who’s struggling. His kids are serving. Two of his sons have been wounded. One fell in battle. And he writes to an older friend of his, John Burroughs, whom he had met as a fellow conservationist, which was the old fashioned term for environmentalist. 

John had sent him a condolence letter honoring his service as a president, but also honoring, of course, his son’s sacrifice and basically saying you did enough. But Theodore Roosevelt is saying no, 

// I shall never cease bitterly regretting that I was not allowed to go to the other side. I would not have expected to come home alive, but at times it seems almost more than I can bear to have my sons face dreadful danger while I sit at home in ease and comfort and safety. It is a terrible thing that death should come to the young. But it is even more terrible of course, if the young fear to face death in a great crisis for a great cause. //

[INTERVIEW] – (04:03)

Gil Troy

And to understand that paradox, that the ugliness of war sometimes brings out the greatness of individuals and the greatness of a nation. We turn to William Galston of the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow, a participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Assistant to President Bill Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of nine books and hundreds of articles in the fields of political theory, of public policy, and American politics. His most recent books include Anti Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy, Public Matters, and The Practice of Liberal Pluralism. Galston was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004. He’s appeared on all the principal television networks and is frequently interviewed on NPR. He writes a weekly column for The Wall Street Journal and is also an extremely nice and generous man who’s taught me so much over the years, so it’s a pleasure to welcome you, Bill.

William Galston

Good to be here, Gil.

Gil Troy

So today we’re struggling with two interesting episodes from American history. We’re talking about Theodore Roosevelt and his frustration that he can’t join the battle during what was then the Great War, eventually became called World War I. And then Lincoln’s call for service, which ended up in the New York City draft riots. But in his letter, Theodore Roosevelt says something very powerful. “It is a terrible thing that death should come to the young, but is even more terrible of course, if the young fear to face death in a great crisis for a great cause.” Let’s talk a little bit about the… As awful as war is, the power of public service and the power actually of service during wartime. What are the goods and the bads for the country?

William Galston

Well, the late Senator John McCain, frequently talked of the human significance of dedicating yourself to a cause larger than yourself. And, risking death in war, especially a just war, is surely a principle example of that. The downside, of course, is that even just wars are terrible. And so war famously can ennoble human beings. It can also degrade them. Even in just wars, there are moral injuries done to soldiers doing their duty who have experienced terrible things, have seen terrible things, and even on occasion have found themselves compelled to do terrible things. And this eternal duality of war, I think, is, you know, is the subject of great literature, of great debates, and great pain. And nations, past and present are experiencing all of these things.

Gil Troy

In Israel, we’re certainly seeing that roller coaster. And, tremendous fear, tremendous loss, tremendous suffering, many, many moral dilemmas, but also a spiritual power, connectedness, a unity. And it’s you’re right. It’s a subject for great literature because it sort of overwhelms the small mind. It overwhelms the individual. What wisdom do you have for Israelis right now? And then we’re going to turn to your wisdom for Americans.

William Galston

Well, I mean, my my wisdom, I’m pretty sure would be less than wise. And if I offer it with any certainty, it would be presumptuous, because very few Americans have experienced, what every Israeli is now going through. Having having said that, I think that the, the, the debates that we’re now seeing about the conduct of the war in Gaza are inevitable. I recently wrote a column for The Wall Street Journal, drawing some parallels between, you know, the story of Purim and what’s happening in Gaza now. And I pointed out that the Jews of that time in the story exhibited enormous restraint. The Jews were permitted, not only to kill their attackers, but also their families and also to take their property. And the story as it unfolds makes it very clear they did not take any property, and with the exception of the sons of Haman, they didn’t kill any family members. They limited what they were doing to the, the attackers themselves. Israel does not now have that opportunity because of the tactics of Hamas. You know, but the question remains. And, the distinction between armed combatants and civilians and that question will not go away. So that that’s one of the things I had in mind when I said that there was there was a great debate. At the risk of sounding presumptuous I will say that the recent, the recent revelation of the Biden administration’s latest weapon shipment to Israel, including 2,000 pound bombs, otherwise known as bunker busters, will probably stir up additional debate about, you know, about civilian civilian casualties in Gaza. It’s not a debate that any one should welcome, but I think it’s inevitable.

Gil Troy

Look, it’s the part of the ugliness of urban warfare. You know, prior to the 19th century, as you well know, battlefields were often far away from centers of population. And they lined up and shot one another. And now we’re in a situation which is much more complicated. And we have truly the the fog of war. I would add, perhaps, we would talk about Israel bringing in humanitarian aid might that might be one of the, the balances, in terms of the moral question. So when we think about the United States, and it’s interesting to to think about Lincoln’s draft notice and the fact that it triggered one of the most horrific civil insurrections in American history, amidst the largest civil insurrection in American history. What is missing in a society that doesn’t have national service? What is missing in a society when you can rely either on a volunteer army or no army, because things are too good and you don’t need an army.

William Galston

I have long, for decades actually, and futilely criticized the shift that the United States made half a century ago from a universal draft to an all volunteer army. Very, very few military officers, especially the senior ones, agree with me on this point, because they point out that it was the trauma of a draft into an unpopular war in, in Vietnam, that led to the breakdown of military discipline, conflicts between officers and enlisted men,  huge decline in morale, inadequate professionalism, and despite the heroism of individual soldiers, poor performance on the battlefield. So the movement towards an all volunteer army was welcomed by the officer corps of the time, and and the officer corps of today, as a way of heightening professionalism and of, increasing battlefield readiness, and the discipline of constant training, continuity over time, and all of those are true. 

At the same time, I think the United States has paid a largely unrecognized price for the shift to an all volunteer armed forces, namely, that fewer and fewer Americans have anything to do with the defense of their own country. They do not understand what it takes to defend the country. Fewer and fewer elected officials at the national level, or at any level, have themselves had the experience of military service. And this, I think, lowers the quality of the debate in the US Congress and elsewhere about the national defense needs of the United States. It makes it easy to be an armchair warrior. Military people are typically the last who want to go to war because they understand what war means in a way that civilians do not.

But on the other hand, it it means that many members of Congress are reluctant to make adequate provision for the defense needs of of the country. And on the civic level, I believe that it has contributed to the idea of one way citizenship, citizenship that consists in the assertion of rights without the acceptance of responsibilities. The idea that American citizenship entails responsibility is, is, I think, a distant abstraction for most of today’s young people. And, they will be brought up short, I confidently predict, by future events and future crises. I hope they find it within themselves to overcome this background of one way citizenship and do what Americans have always done in the past. But there is very little in their lives up to now that has prepared themselves, prepared them for the sacrifices of citizenship.

But I think that’s the single biggest loss. But just to add one more element, on the political level, after the Second World War, the Americans, despite their partisan differences, had something very important in common. They had all served in the war. They had all fought in the war. And as a result, there was a sense of some larger commonality that did not eliminate political disagreements, but it tempered them and enable people to say, despite our differences, we are all on the same side ultimately. The American side. And I think it made it harder for one side to demonize the other. And we are now paying the price, of a politics that lacks that kind of commonality of experience, that common bond. And the results are not pretty.

Gil Troy

It’s a fascinating contrast with Israel. First, on October 7th, we saw the benefit of having a citizens army because Israelis mobilized when the command and control centers crashed. Many Israelis took initiative, but they had training. They had gumption and they had motivation. But I absolutely agree with you in terms of the the quality of political debate. You also see it that pre October 7th, everybody was talking about how divided Israel was and post October 7th, especially when you go to the reserve units, when you go to the soldiers, you see how they’re able to put politics aside and create both a sense of a common goal and also an understanding of how to put your political differences aside. I’m wondering, do you think National Service in America would be sufficient, or do you need that military discipline, you need that military focused, you need that common language that you were talking about. Because National Service would end up being I might do some social work somewhere else, somewhere some else might do some education work. It wouldn’t be the same kind of unity.

William Galston

You know, the American philosopher William James wrote an article called The Moral Equivalent of War. And I’ve read that article many times over the years. And I have concluded there is no moral equivalent to war. And, and that, at the very least, citizens should be exposed to the possibility of military service on equal footing with everybody else.

That principle, it seems to me, is one that does a lot of work, not only in the United States, but also in Israel. I think the war in in Gaza has heightened the sense, I think, of the Israeli majority, that everyone ought to be exposed on equal terms to military service.

And this is putting great pressure on religious communities that sense that since the beginning of the State of Israel have been largely exempted from military service. And I think the the same idea that led Abraham Lincoln to extend the draft to New York City, even even though he knew very well that New York City was filled with people who were sympathetic to the southern cause, the so-called Copperheads, he must have known that there would be resistance. But he thought that it was very important, that everybody be asked to serve on an equal footing. And I think , Gil, the fact that there was an opportunity in the U.S. draft law of the time for people to buy themselves out of military service, if they had sufficient wealth, was the source of great resentment.

And I think it was a very big mistake, then and now, to allow people of privilege to exempt themselves from the duties and the rigors that everybody else is subjected to. But, yeah, you know, everybody means everybody, and, I, I do think that there is a long overdue reckoning in Israel on that question. I won’t venture to say how it’s going to come out that I, I do not believe that it’s an avoidable controversy at this point now.

Gil Troy

Absolutely. The gap, especially since October 7th, of what many of the communities have have paid and including the religious Zionist community and the failure of the ultra-Orthodox community, except for a very small number of volunteers to participate in that way, has has indeed, brought out tremendous tensions. 

And I think you talked about great literature, but also great statesmen and stateswomen, are able to articulate that. And it was really Abraham Lincoln who both in that draft call talked about the sharing of the burden and the need for equality. And in speech after speech was really the, the, the national lyricist singing a song of liberty, singing the song of democracy, but also singing the song of equality.

And I think because of that, after his death, he became sort of this icon that helped Americans understand we do have something in common. And sadly, I think few people can quote from Lincoln today or learn from Lincoln today, but I think we need to.

William Galston

There’s an old saying, that while nations make war, war makes nations. And I think there’s, there’s substantial truth to that. Which is not an argument in favor of war, don’t misunderstand me. It’s just an empirical observation that nations are seldom the same after a great war than they were before it. And I am, you know, I know that’s true for the United States and I’d be very surprised if it weren’t true for Israel as well. Nobody can venture to predict how Israel will be different, once this war ends. Although Gaza may not be the only front in what is a wider war, unfortunately. But, you know, but I know a number of thoughtful Israelis are asking themselves what new opportunities may open up after the end of this war.

Will the will the frozen conflict of Israeli politics give way to something less conflictual and more productive? Recent years, both in Israel and the United States, have not been positive ones for effective governance. Could this war change that? I don’t know, but a number of number of thoughtful Israelis of my acquaintance are thinking about it.

Gil Troy

Absolutely. One of the cliches we learned in graduate school is that everyone goes to war to preserve the status quo, but the status quo was always the first casualty of war. And it is indeed, and certainly none of us delights in war. But you step back and you see that there sometimes are positive results. And in fact, I would say that once you’re stuck in a war, once you’re dealing with the ugliness at least have the kind of leadership, at least have the kind of vision, that comes out from war with some positive vision.

And we’re hearing that conversation not only among leading thinkers, but also in the trenches, the soldiers, the reservists are saying, we don’t want to go back to October 6th. We’ve learned the lessons of disunity. We’ve learned the lessons of ceaseless hatred.  And, there’s an analogy historically, because after the Kippur War, it was the reservists who came back and said, we’ve got to have a change.

And indeed there was a change in, in many ways, Yom Kippur War, the start looked like one of the darkest days in Israeli history. And then it led to tremendous prosperity and a certain stability that every Israeli now wants to achieve back.

William Galston

Well, in the United States, it’s now got to be almost a cliche among American historians, that the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was born out of the collective experience of World War II, when black soldiers, for the first time, really since the Civil War, were enabled to fight for their country, in large numbers.

And when they returned, they saw with fresh eyes the inequities of a system of segregation. And it was that sense that they had earned equality, you know, they were equal in, in principle, from the very beginning, from birth. But they had earned equality through sacrifice, and they were not going to let that experience of earned equality go to waste, and return to the status quo once they got back from the war. And they didn’t. And many, many of those veterans spearheaded the resistance to racial segregation that ultimately changed the country. And I could add many other examples of transformation, social transformation, through the experience of shared sacrifice in war.

Gil Troy

And that also helps heal from the war. I want to thank you very much for your insight, and I completely share your vision that we absolutely need to figure out how to have a common language and have common experiences that reinforces that common language and common values, because without it, democracies can’t survive.

William Galston

Well and Gil, thank you for inviting me, and I hope very much to have the opportunity to see you when I’m next in Israel.

Gil Troy

Absolutely looking forward to it. 

[Summary] – (24:16)

Gil Troy

Wow. So illuminating and so painful. I’m merely a historian. I’m not a philosopher. It’s hard to kind of process the way Bill Galston, the way Abraham Lincoln, the way Theodore Roosevelt, the way so many heroic Israelis today dance between the horrors and the honor, and as William Galston keeps emphasizing, the best of the nation. Right? What a thought, that nations make war but wars make nations. 

And I think one of the things that William Galston kept on emphasizing is the need to have shared experiences and shared values and shared conversations. That doesn’t mean that we have to have uniformity, but if we have a certain kind of unity, a certain kind of baseline, then we can yell and scream and disagree about details and about important issues. But we remember that we’re connected. And from the World War II horrors comes the civil rights movement. The question today in Israel is from the horrors of October 7th, what will come and can we make a better day?

So I want to thank all of you for joining us today and thinking about how difficult, heart wrenching, personally shattering events which can prove so costly to individuals can actually sometimes benefit them, their survivors, their country. 

As an added bonus for today, we’ve listed five of Professor William Goldstein’s favorite books in the Show Notes. And if you want to know more about the Shapell Manuscript Foundation and go on an amazing website, just explore different documents, some formal historical documents like the Civil War Proclamation for the draft, and some very personal documents from presidents and from others, go to www.shapell.org. That’s one P and two L’s. Also, feel free to visit the Show Notes for more about the manuscripts, about events, about everything else we’ve talked about today. And don’t forget to subscribe, to rate, and to review this podcast and the other episodes. History can’t determine our future, but it can help us understand the present better and make a better future. This is Gil Troy betting on better days.

Comments & Corrections:

The Moral Equivalent of War by American philosopher William James.

Ultra-orthodox army service in Israel and volunteers:  Following the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, approximately 2,000 Israeli ultra-Orthodox men volunteered to join the IDF. However, it is unclear how many of these volunteers completed their enlistment, as volunteer enlistment can be influenced by multiple factors. According to the Israeli Ministry of Defense website, about 6,000 ultra-Orthodox men are currently serving in the IDF, though this data may not be up-to-date.

After the initial recording of this podcast episode, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in June 2024, mandating the conscription of ultra-Orthodox men into the military and ending their longstanding group exemptions. The court viewed these exemptions as invalid selective enforcement. The decision was driven by the principle of equal protection under the law, highlighting the inequity of the existing exemption system. This ruling came amid heightened tensions and increased demands on the military following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, underscoring the importance of equitable burden-sharing in society.

Check out William Galson’s 5 favorite books:

David Hartman, Israelis and the Jewish Tradition

John Judis, The Politics of Our Time

Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine

Susan Shirk, Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise

Michael Walzer, The Struggle for a Decent Politics

Production by docyourstory

Music by Adam Weingrod