What Thomas Paine's Common Sense Has To Teach Us Today

text: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html Thomas Paine's Common Sense should be read by all Americans for three reasons. For one, as the passing of time has allowed our separation from England to feel inevitable and obviously just, Paine's text provides the reader an opportunity to better appreciate how revolutionary and controversial such advocacy was. Second, Paine's resort to a careful analysis of history and public opinion should educate us as to the importance of scholarship to our country's founding. Third, the similarities in Paine's use of social contract theory to Jefferson's in our Declaration of Independence is a sign of how serious our founder's were in basing their new country's structure on logical principles available in social contract theory. Paine's arguments against the continuation of the British monarchy's rule on our shores is now considered so obvious that readers must read Paine's arguments very closely to appreciate the existence of a pro-monarchy side. In fact, it is only through studying Paine's text closely that one can one fully appreciate the extent to which "Common Sense" was revolutionary, and--although quite possibly -- not necessarily representing the majority opinion of the Colonialists, at least prior to its publication.The text reminds us that our separation from England at that time was not inevitable, even if (at least from our vantage point) eventually inevitable. Thus, Paine critiques and overcomes several arguments in favor of monarchy, such as status quo, natural rights of monarchs, religious rights of monarchs, obligations by virtue of being of English descent, and other "ancient prejudices." Paine's resort to historical analysis leads me to believe that logic and historical analysis played a huge role in the founder's view of why to separate from England and how to form a new nation. Thus, I conclude that in public deliberations, if and when we resort to taking positions that are not based in a good faith analysis of history and human nature, we run the risk of acting contrary to our founder's view of how this republic should be governed. Additionally, if we fail to resort to investigate relevant historical facts to determine our most adviseable course of action, we run the risk of only literally applying the Declaration, yet failing to engage in the serious contemplative arts envisioned by Paine and Jefferson. This point is made even clearer to me when I examine Algernon Sideney's "Discourses Concerning Government." In Discourses, Sidney incorporates both logic and historical analysis to challenge those who advocate for absolute monarchy. Much of his text is devoted to showing why those who argue for the divine rights of kings are misreading Scripture, human nature, and what we can learn from the facts of history. Although he lived a century before the founding of this nation, Presidents Jefferson and Adams considered themselves greatly influenced by the Discourses, and thus the distance in time between the publishing of Discourses and the founding of this county should not be a barrier for our appreciating the role of Sidney's ideas in shaping this county. More importantly, we must appreciate what Sidney does to make his case, and how this is similar to Paine and other writers who influenced the founders. First, as the monarchists rest on Scripture to argue for their eternal rights to power, Sidney shows how this is a misreading of Scripture. In explaining a more proper reading of Scriptural stories and statements that appear to endorse monarchy, Sidney often employs similar techniques that Talmudists utilize by looking carefully at context and language of Scripture to decipher meaning and possible mis-reading. He then addresses what he believes to be common mis-impressions about history. In both the Biblical and historical analysis, he explains what he believes to be the sources of common mis-impressions, and articulates what he sees as a more logical explanation. My point here is not merely to be impressed by thoughtful men. Although there are reasons why Paine and Sidney's texts deserve "great books" status, they also teach us a great deal of how we as citizens should employ contemplation, reasoning and thoughful analysis when considering the issues of the day. It is clear to me that American politics in the 21st century can sometimes resort to a type of language correcness that gives no way for complicated analysis. For instance, various potential political leaders have been publicly attacked for exploring communist though or other disrespected ideologies. Most recently a Senate candidate has been laughed at for having an isolated or a few experiences examining the Wiccan tradition, and thus convinced that her only hope to address the perception was to pronounce "I am not a witch" as if being a member of the Wiccan faith tradition were a barrier for US Senate. Our current President felt compelled to pronounce "I am a Christian, not a Muslim," and was made to answer for unpopular views of his pastor. I think it is fair to say that Sidney or Paine might intensely explore the political views of Ms. O'Donnell and President Obama, but I doubt either would evaluate their political views by drawing vast conclusions from their non-political and casual associations. Another point must not be lost in exploring Thomas Paine's work. As suggested above, Paine and Sidney's extensive analysis indicates that their views were not necessarily in the majority at the time of their writings. Sidney was executed by the State for his views. Thus, it must be telling that the 1776 Revolution was not merely a physical revolution, but a psychological one. It altered the way people saw citizenship. Specifically, it meant that the founders of this country were not scared to advocate rebellious notions. Thus it would only be true to the character of Paine and Jefferson for a thinker to engage in honest examinations and to risk humiliation for articulating one's thoughts. On this last point, I find it a sad state of affairs when individuals are ridiculed for their honest beliefs. Before ridiculing others for their minority views, we need to remember that many ideas we consider mainstream and "obvious" were once ridiculed and considered grossly offensive. Instead, in keeping with Paine and Sidney, those views should be analyzed for their logical consistency with our understanding of human nature and history.