With the massive 2020 presidential campaign rollout from Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on Jan. 27 will come more talk of one of her policy proposals: the LIFT Act , a $500 monthly tax credit to help struggling working families. It is not quite a basic income, a sum of cash paid out monthly to citizens as a modern form of welfare and income redistribution, but it comes very close. Combined with the not-quite-basic-income proposal from candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., — “baby bonds” that give $1,000 to newborns, and supplementary deposits to children of poorer families, that will grow to five figures by the time most are 18 years old — the idea of simple cash transfers or tax cuts as a cutting edge welfare policy is sure to be front and center from now through 2020.

Not just Democrats are interested in a basic income. Some call it the most libertarian of welfare systems, because of its presumed low administrative costs and lack of top-down moralizing — everyone gets a check of the same size every year. Prominent conservative/libertarian Charles Murray wrote a favorable book backed by just such reasoning. If there is a bipartisan idea to reform the welfare system in the U.S., the basic income is it.

Yet, skeptics have raised a number of concerns. A basic income might drive down wages or disincentivize work. A more long-term problem is the effect such a system could have on the sense of what it means to be an American. Should we be encouraged to consider a guaranteed annual income as our birthright? Public attitudes toward current welfare programs, designed to strictly filter anyone that is not in need, suggest that expanding the welfare recipient pool would be unpopular because it would pay out to those who are not really entitled to it.

But what if they were? William F. Buckley’s 1990 book, Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country, might offer a way to make basic income acceptable to more voters and at the same time discourage an entitlement mentality.

Buckley wanted a way to prevent younger generations from taking their inherited country for granted. He called for a national service program that would incentivize young people 18 years old and above to work for organizations such as the Peace Corps or the Guardian Angels — some positions unrelated to career ambitions to encourage a sense of civic duty. To make it worthwhile financially, the young participant would receive wages and a $10,000 tax credit. Similar proposals have included a cash transfer instead of the tax credit; both the tax credit and the cash transfer were to be given only once following the year of public service.

Suppose public policy killed two birds with one stone, nurturing gratitude for all that has been passed down in the form of the United States, while providing a basic income to all based not on need, but on temporary service. Suppose instead of a one-time credit or cash transfer, a lifetime basic income were the payout for which some form of community service was the buy-in. It would be voluntary, with strong incentives to participate and exceptions for those who, due to health or some other factor, could not participate. The specifics (the math, how to phase it in, how to include legal immigrants) could be figured out by economists and policymakers. It might be precisely the type of bold, across-the-aisle big idea for an outsider candidate looking to unite moderates in both parties and independents, such as Howard Schultz.

Even provided equitable solutions to its challenges, there would be opposition. In a debate with Buckley, economist Milton Friedman opposed such a program because he opposed government imposing its own idea of good on free citizens. Whereas many of the strings attached to means-tested welfare programs carry moral messages for the recipients, a national service program sends messages to young people serving their communities — not just about what they owe their country, but what sorts of service are admirable. As Buckley himself wrote, “The states decide what are the accrediting activities and which should be given precedence.”

Still, a basic income advocate could point out that not to moralize while giving out cash also sends a moral message: Americans get free money for being Americans. A prerequisite, such as Buckley’s national service program, could simultaneously improve the effectiveness of welfare and create a culture of giving back.

The need today is great enough, and with basic income proposals bound to be discussed in presidential debates, primary stump speeches and the public sphere over the next two years, the context is perfect to reintroduce this decades-old idea for consideration.

J. Cal Davenport has worked in Congress, for political campaigns, for think tanks, and in political consulting. He received his M.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Witten/Herdecke University in Germany.