DATE: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 TAG: 9704290007 SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B10 EDITION: FINAL TYPE: Editorial LENGTH: 65 lines
The summit on volunteerism was a Clinton classic: long on style and short on substance. He managed to turn out a bipartisan cadre of celebrity endorsers including former presidents, Colin Powell, and stars of television, screen, jukebox and sports. But after all the hoopla dies down, it's reasonable to wonder about the long-term impact.
There's no question that volunteer efforts are a good thing and do much to make America a better place. More volunteers could do even more good works. Presidents - and others who shape opinion - can help by highlighting volunteerism and encouraging it. But the government's role, beyond that, is more problematic.
The need for more volunteers is to some extent a consequence of the push for less government. As a New Democrat, Clinton has favored welfare reform, greater toughness on crime and cuts in government services to aid the unfortunate and troubled. But he's enough of an Old Democrat to be concerned about who will do the jobs that government is abandoning. The theory is that volunteerism will take up some of the slack.
Perhaps. But it isn't as if volunteerism is new. Surprising numbers of Americans already give generously of their time, talents and money. There's a question how many Americans can make time to do more.
When the average family included a working father and stay-at-home mother, there was a large pool of potential volunteers. In an era of stressed-out dual-earners and single parents trying to keep their heads above water, volunteers with time to contribute are harder to find. Often it's not a question of selfishness but of survival.
Finally, there's the question of expertise. Some jobs can be tackled by anyone with idle hands and a willing heart. But some jobs aren't suitable for amateurs or here-today, gone-tomorrow volunteers.
Clinton has been promising an assault on illiteracy fueled by an army of volunteers reading to children. Bring them on. But many who have trouble learning to read have disabilities that require special skills in the teacher. This isn't a job for volunteers.
Clinton and friends can't be faulted for encouraging volunteerism, but they must be cautious not to represent it as a panacea or substitute for needed government programs. Volunteers can clean up neighborhoods. They can't address most air and water pollution. Volunteers can read to children. They can't teach reading without special training.
Distinctions need to be made. The country shouldn't expect to rely on unpaid volunteers to do needed jobs that ought to provide the worker with a living wage. That said, many programs that do rely on volunteers make a difference at the local level. Paint Your Heart Out, for instance.
Initiated in 1992 by Chesapeake Rotary Club, it's a gratifying springtime ritual in South Hampton Roads. Last Saturday, more than 3,000 volunteers turned out to paint, repair and landscape. The low-income, mainly elderly and/or disabled occupants of 64 residences benefited.
Churches assemble teams for Paint Your Heart Out. So do the military, service clubs (35 Rotary Clubs were among this year's participants), banks, businesses, families. . . . Eateries donate food and drink for the volunteers.
A year of planning, soliciting money and materials and designating properties to be freshened precedes the burst of talent and energy on Paint Your Heart Out day. By the end of the day, the lives of direct beneficiaries of Paint Your Heart have been touched by the outpouring of caring. Neighborhoods are enriched, and so are volunteers.
Paint Your Heart Out is the kind of program that only volunteers can do. It deserves to prosper. If Clinton's focus on volunteerism spurs interest in such worthwhile endeavors, it will be a success.
Send Suggestions or Comments to
webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu |