As some will probably recognize, I ripped off the title of this post from a Hugh Nibley essay. No better words could be used to describe this.

The objects above show the works of two right-wing blowhards - Glenn Beck and Bob Basso. Both of them use Thomas Paine as the inspiration for their own works. I suspect that they used Paine as an inspiration because he wrote Common Sense and they are arguing for, what to their minds, is common sense.

Sigh.

Perhaps if their familiarity with Paine extended beyond simply knowing the title of his book, they might have chosen a different founding father for their inspiration.

Here is a snippet from Agrarian Justice

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. Nor it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not he brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.


Gasp!  Is THE Thomas Paine actually proposing....a social program to redistribute wealth!!!  Somebody should let Glenn Beck know that.  He might have to totally reconsider the title of his book.

Agrarian Justice was not Paine's only such work either.  Rights of Man rails against poverty and social injustice.  Far from being the work of a libertarian, it reads more like Karl Marx.

But hey, why should the facts get in the way of a good performance?  Since when has sensationalism relied on the truth?

Thomas Paine and the founding fathers hated monarchy and aristocracy.  Clowns like Beck and Basso are attempting to hijack their characters and twist their words to make them appear to be anti-government rather than anti-monarchy.  There is a huge difference there.  Of course accuracy is not their real aim.  It's about getting viewers and keeping the ratings up and this is much easier to do by stirring the pot, keeping emotions high, and playing loose with the facts.

There is something else here that bothers me as well.  Why the appeal to Colonial era figures in the first place?  Why do we see people showing up in tri-corner hats at tea parties?  Obviously they are trying to make some point by doing so.  Could they be saying that they are standing for the principles that the founding fathers belived in - and implying that those who don't, don't?  Well that position, besides being arrogant, is nonsense.

As mentioned above, Paine's writings, when actually read, bear little resemblance to the right-wing rants of Glenn Beck and his ilk.  There is another point to consider as well.  The constitution itself established a much stronger federal government than was previously had under the Articles of Confederation.  If the founders hated the idea of a strong central government as much as some people claim, then why did they write a constitution that dramatically increased the power of the central government?

I cringe when I hear people talk about how "we should return government to what the founders intended".  It makes "the founders" sound like a unified body that had a clear, specific vision of what government is supposed to be.  Of course any student of history knows that to be far from the case.  The constitutonal convention in Philadelphia was a summer that was filled with bitter disputes and compromise and near failure.

Perhaps instead of playing dress up and ranting, such people should open up a history book.  They might realize that debate and compromise have defined this nation since its inception.  Then maybe they will knock it off with the self-righteous attitude of wrapping themselves in the cloak of the founders.