Common Sense for the Present Part 1
I wrote this in 2008 and have decided it should rear its ugly little head again, probably because I feel the battle for our nation is still happening on the wrong field.
This is an altered version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Content has been edited and added. But, for the most part, the most significant changes were changing England to the” left.”
Take very special notice that I completed this before Obama was in office – before the close of the Bush administration.
It is important to note that millions of Americans lost faith in government before the current administration had proposed a single policy. We just didn’t know each other at that time. GW Bush, in terms of taking over the economy, inhibiting liberty, expanding government and exercising a complete lack of fiscal restraint was as much a part of the left as Obama or Pelosi.
The single largest infringement into a free market – direct ownership of individual companies was passed under a Republican congress and President in the name of an emergency.
This administration was hallmarked by Medicare Part D, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, 1st Stimulus bill, TARP, foreign aid and military funding run amuck, etc, etc. These are not things done by a defender of Liberty.
In 2008, I saw no potential for change in this scenario because not a single “mainstream” Presidential candidate (except Ron Paul) was showing any possibility of a return to Liberty minded principles. At that point, I knew the paradigm must shift and conversation must change.
We needed an ideological revolution.
It seemed appropriate to remind everyone that both history and common sense light the path of that which should not be traveled, but we must yield to the wisdom of that light.
So, in Part 1, we must first:
Define the Problem
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of “nuanced thought.”
As the good people of this country will be grievously oppressed by a pending false security as proposed by the Left, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions, and equally to reject the summations of this falsehood.
The cause of these United States is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected. The laying a Country desolate with entitlement and oppression, declaring War against the natural rights of each citizen is the concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling.
The Left of the political spectrum have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them. The truth is – they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. Were the impulses of societies conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver. But, that not being the case, it is necessary to surrender up a part of property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this, simply because it is the lesser of two evils.
So, protection of liberty being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. We choose government only because we must, not because we should. It is the lesser of two evils. Better to live with government contributing to a stable society, than live without in a state of anarchy.
Government is namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government – protection of liberties. Nothing more and nothing less. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show from the Left, or our ears deceived by sound; or selfish interests darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, it’s right. Government’s role is simply to protect the people who formed it, and allow for their freedom.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no rhetoric can overturn – the more simple any thing is, the less likely to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered. With this truth in view, I offer a few remarks on the much boasted policies and proposals of the Left.
The proposed change to come from the current Left is exceedingly destructive. The nation will suffer for years without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over long standing thoughts on taxation, and government assistance, yet if we allow ourselves to examine the component parts of the Lefts proposals, we shall find them to be the base remains of tyranny and oppression.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
You can change his words around all you want, but if you actually want to understand Tom Paine’s politics, go read the Rights of Man, Part Second (1792) or Agrarian Justice (1797).
Or you can go read an article I published on the subject over twenty years ago…
http://webspace.webring.com/people/xm/mlause/vita/LausePaineLHv27Sum86p385.pdf
April 7th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Mark – interesting stuff.
I will concede this for Paine as a whole – the guy was a loud mouth, radical.
He had a couple moments in time where he struck a chord with the mood of the people and colonies.
But, for the most part he was a bit of a goof. This is the reason why most of the founders kept him at arms length.
I have no problem admitting this.
It does not mean, however, that the right key wasn’t struck at certain moments.
With all that in mind, there is something to be said if you read Locke, Pascal, Rousseau, Tocqueiville, Montesquieu, etc, etc – they all agree on some dangers within organized religion and were equally skeptical on the dangers of over commercialization and urban centers.
Many have written on the dangers of the clergy of organized religion controlling behavior. See the Middle Ages absolute lack of literacy and increased control, significantly driven by the clergy and aristocracy.
The problems of urban centers and commercialization moving man into a state of dangerous interdependence and hyper-competition is real. Man willingly moves from the more pure state of Liberty only available in a more agrarian setting.
This leads to what Montesquieu called “inquietude”, or a very anxious and unsettled state, only balanced by both self-contentment in personal life and liberty. My summation is that the ideals of the American Revolution and the Constitution which it created were the happiest balance the world has ever known with the concerns of stability, commerce and personal liberty.
This why you see extensive writing on personal property, ownership, self-governance, etc – all very important in Democratic-Republics rooted in commerce.
It is also important to note that a very slippery slope was created in this delicate balance of commerce and liberty.
In Montesquieu’s judgment, “the legislature within a modern republic would be in serious danger of succumbing fully to executive influence only in the unlikely event that the management of commerce and industry within that republic were somehow, to a very considerable extent, entrusted to the executive. In such a polity should the populace in general and the middle class in particular ever be beholden to government for their economic well-being, the situation of the citizens would indeed be grim.” – taken from Dr. Paul Rahe.
Basically – liberties would be willingly given away in order to preserve what became a prosperous society.
I personally believe this is what we have today – something we can call a despotism of administrators, giving the administrators of society the control necessary to manage our happiness and address this “inquietude” for us.
Paine would have been ok with this as he clearly embraces this slippery slope. He begins to confuse liberty with equality – most likely because of his time in France. After all, their revolution was about – Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Things I do not consider part of the American value system.
Paine did not take this into consideration in his writing on revolution and Agrarian Justice. He didn’t believe in the separation of powers provided in the Constitution as an acceptable balance. He also didnt think through the sacrifice of personal liberty in order to achieve the comfort he desired.
Quite honestly, he didn’t even consider it. He was a bit too radical when it came to these matters. This is where his reason and logic were trampled by his emotion.
I’d have to assume this is why the founders steered clear of him after some initially insightful writings like Common Sense and The Crisis. He had served his purpose for popular culture of the moment.
Sad but true.