If you need to score political points fast, calling for personal sacrifice is a pretty sure bet. Sacrifice is, after all, the stated theme of President Bush’s new plan for the Iraq war, one that calls for the deployment of more than 20,000 additional soldiers in a last-ditch effort to stabilize the region. Such rhetorical packaging comes at a time when President Kennedy’s mandate to “ask not what your country can do for you” carries a particularly persuasive ring, harkening us back to an era in which national struggles could become a source of national unity. But the tragically one-sided nature of the sacrifice Bush has proposed reveals that the president’s outlook has little in common with this vision.

Under previous administrations, the call for sacrifice served as more than just a compelling political tactic; it was also the hallmark of successful policy. Kennedy’s frequent references to collective sacrifice, for instance, were matched with a substantive commitment to national priorities, as well as a candid appraisal of what we’d have to give up in order to make endeavors like the Apollo program successful. Under FDR’s leadership in World War II, we agreed to ration our consumption of gas, shoes, and coffee, and our national wealth was used to protect our national security. Likewise, Bill Clinton, who asked in his first inaugural for us to choose sacrifice not “for its own sake, but for our own sake,” saw the necessity of restraint in federal spending, allowing our nation to prosper while cutting the budget deficit.

With Washington divided over Bush’s proposed troop “surge” in Iraq, the concept of sacrifice has resurfaced in American politics, but this time in a mutilated and parasitic form. Defying his predecessors, who demanded restraint and sacrifice from the country as a whole, the president has again chosen to place the entirety of the burden on a small segment of the public—the 130,000 American families, which will now become 20,000 more, with sons and daughters deployed in Iraq. Bush has ironically come to the same conclusion as the enemies he so steadfastly opposes—that our problems should be solved, not through collective sacrifice, but by martyrs in faithful service.

It is hard to know which is more troubling—the magnitude of the sacrifice Bush demands from those deployed, or the blasé serenity he expects from the rest of us. In a recent speech discussing the future of our economy, the president, who was once ridiculed for asking Americans for their “continued confidence and participation in the American economy” in the wake of September 11, again made it clear how he expects the middle class to contribute to our nation’s well-being: “I encourage you to go shopping more.”

In a January interview on PBS Newshour, Jim Lehrer asked Bush why he hasn’t involved more Americans and American interests in the war by calling for more widespread sacrifices. The response: “I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.”

By limiting our options to either serving on the front lines or sitting in front of the tube, the president’s deluded view of sacrifice misses all the ways in which our success in Iraq depends on the choices we make back home. If we want to defeat an enemy that gains strength from oil revenue, then we need a more aggressive approach to ending our dependence on petroleum. On the individual level, this means becoming smarter consumers who prioritize fuel efficiency over engine size in buying cars, and who take advantage of public transportation. On the collective level, this means supporting policies that entail sacrifices in the short term—like a gasoline tax, or at least a floor price for imported oil, and mileage standards for automobile manufacturers that are stringent and immediate.

Perhaps we can’t all throw ourselves in the path of enemy fire like one of the soldiers Bush honored in the State of the Union, but we could give up our tax cuts so that the government could provide our troops with what they need to stay alive, without the nation spiraling into further debt. But difficult solutions don’t garner public support on their own. They require courageous leaders who advocate sound policy and ensure that all Americans feel their connection to the war overseas. The first step is to teach voters that supporting the troops means scaling back aspects of our lifestyle that funnel cash to America’s enemies.

President Bush is right to revive the principle of sacrifice in the American political lexicon, for surely all of the problems we face as nation—whether the war in Iraq, global climate change, the rising cost of health care, or the tenuous state of Social Security—will require a diversion of our own short-term interests for the long-term interests of the nation. But unless this sacrifice comes from all parts of society, relying not only on the valor of the few but also the discipline of the many, then such endeavors are destined to fail—we’ll still be expecting something for nothing.

Justin S. Becker ’09 is a molecular and cellular biology concentrator in Winthrop House. Jarret A. Zafran ’09 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House.