This is naturally a political post. Thomas Paine is one of the founding fathers of the United States and his writings were entirely about the political circumstances during the birth of the nation and the bright optimism that the release from monarchy brought about in the minds of Americans and European Republicans.
These are remarkably enjoyable to read. As a participant in many Reddit debates it is a joy to see Paine dunk on the Imperial British government, and the American Tories who apathetically hoped for a British victory in Common Sense.
Paine is very verbose by today's standards. He doesn't always seem to be able to arrive at his point as soon as I would like, but rather carves away at it like a sculptor at a great block of stone. He makes religious appeals, cites historical events, and rather than demonizing his opposition he mocks them. His logic is informal but endearing. He quotes his opposition then spins their statements in support of his own position.
The real reason for my writing this review is to discuss The Rights of Man Part the second. In it Paine makes a second go at rebuking an English writer whom Paine accuses of being a courtier to the English Monarchy namely Edmound Burke. In the first part Paine answers to a great tome of anti-revolutionary opinions on the French Revolution by Burke, but by rushing to answer so many errant arguements brought by Burke Paine doesn't make a singular clear point.
In The Rights of Man Second Part, Paine presents his full renunciation of the form of government known as Monarchy, which he characterizes as the legacy of robbers who plunder the nation and wage wars merely to justify and satisfy the expense of the monarchy.
Paine is joyfully optimistic about representative republicanism. This is where I tie in modern politics, because I think today we Americans should appreciate the founders. America was born a motley nation of religious outcasts. Paine didn't exactly say that "diversity is strength" but emphasized a unity of rejection of the monarchical tyrany which the European emigrants had fled from.
Burke, who this sequel was also addressed to, was not concerned with the interests of his nation, but instead he supported monarchy because it was the wellspring of his status within the aristocracy of Britain. America had no such vermin who fed off the crumbs of royal court intrigue, and so when the empire was thrown off Americans formed a government of uncorrupt individuals, which was only possible in the old world through the shedding of much courtier blood.
Today, the courtiers are back. The hereditary transmission of arbitrary power has spawned itself again, and the minions who seek to feed off of the great American royal families are not unlike Edmound Burke. Paine concludes that kings and these other sorts of greedy incompetents are the source of government waste and national impoverishment.
So, in short. I liked reading Thomas Paine. We may roll our eyes when when hear people make appeals to the founding fathers, but it is important to understand that the world hasn't changed as much as we like to imagine it has since then. It is no coincidence that the bill of rights was so immediately enshrined in the constitution. We really are lucky to live in a world where such utopian ideals must at least be appealed to by our leaders. I say we should cling to these founding principles when our more recent utopian aspirations are threatened so that we take only one step backward for each two made forward.
by stu54