Nothing is deader in Washington now than proposals for reinstating a military draft. Barring some traumatic event, it should stay that way — for now.

But there is still much to be said about the ideas and ideals of more sacrifice and service to the nation by all Americans, both in war and peace. Think of that as an issue for the 2008 election campaign. That's what I'm writing about.

First, on the draft: I was for killing it in 1973 because the system then was unfair to poorer Americans, and its demise was a way of ending our agonies of the Vietnam War.

And yet in later years, I came to argue for various forms of national service. That could include a military draft as well as alternatives such as the Peace Corps, domestic service agencies like AmeriCorps, and maybe even War on Terror duties at airports and ports in this country. All who served could later receive educational benefits.

But such ideas have been shadowed in recent years by our failure and rising death toll in Iraq. You can argue that two ways: Having a fair military draft that included all Americans, including children of our leaders, might have deterred them from starting that disastrous war — or it could have provided the Bush administration with more cannon fodder.

So here we are now. It seems almost nobody's for a draft except U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat (and Korean War veteran) who feels it would replenish our Army, which is in critical condition, deter future presidents from military misadventures, and in the process make the armed services more representative of American society.

You can debate pros and cons (and the costs) on all those points. But with seven of 10 Americans, the military, White House and incoming Democratic congressional leadership opposed, Rangel's proposal appears doomed. And that's especially so until we find our way out of Iraq.

Still, I remain among those attracted to the idea of a period of universal public service, including all young men and women, involving various options that could include some nonprofits in the private sector, and providing educational benefits later.

Rangel's thinking includes such nonmilitary options. Moreover, others in Congress, including potential candidates for president in 2008, have ideas for such universal service that might be for periods of a few months or a couple of years.

Some might label that "involuntary servitude" (or "slavery," as one young person put it). I see it as a way or enhancing a service ethic that is too often lacking in our society, helping instill a deeper form of patriotism and equality among all Americans.

Admittedly, I am biased, having been a wartime volunteer who served four years in the Navy and later spent another two years as a Peace Corps staffer seeing what idealistic Americans of various ages could do in Asia and Africa. (Part of my reward for military service was a G.I. Bill that paid for two years of delayed high school and five years of college, as well as a first-home mortgage.)

Among President Bush's many failures was not calling for more general public sacrifice after 9/11 and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have ended up a nation too divided between a relatively small group who paid the price and those who rolled along in relative comfort until the price became too obvious to ignore.

So it's time to restore or to instill more balance in serving our nation's inevitable needs, some of them unpleasant, as a price of freedom. Periods of national service could be one of the ways to do that.

For now, we might ask ourselves whether we would want our children or grandchildren subject to some kind of universal service. And if not, why not?

John Griffin, a frequent contributor, is a former Advertiser editorial page editor.