Book Review: Common Sense

Spoiler: America declared its independence from a king.

After attending two No Kings protests, it felt like an appropriate time to finally read the original No Kings text — the seminal, influential Common Sense pamphlet by Thomas Paine, originally published anonymously on January 10, 1776. Paine, an Englishman, who only recently came to America, writing about the cause of America, liberty and independence, particularly from a king, is the most American origin story ever. Penguin started the Civic Classics series, of which this is one of the six books included published in 2012, because Americans need to know their civic history in order to safeguard American institutions. What a prescient warning. As historian Richard Beeman, who introduced the book, said, understanding history empowers us to learn how to best make use of America’s vaunted institutions to address the problems we presently face. To quote Paine in a snippet from a second pamphlet featured at the end of this edition, December 19, 1776’s The American Crisis, “We have in our power to begin the world over again.” So far, one other period in America’s history had such an opportunity other than the original founding itself: the second founding with Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the Reconstruction Era when slavery was ended. I would argue the era we presently live in is another such opportunity to make the world over again. We do that by becoming reacquainted with our founding principles to bring American democracy, this most noble of experiments, back from the brink.

Paine’s Common Sense is not lofty in its writing, as it is very accessible, but it is lofty in its aim, a revolutionary aim: to compel the colonists to free themselves from the yoke of monarchy and British rule. It’s worth remembering at this time how many colonists were sympathetic to King George III, and not only sought reconciliation with the King, but certainly considered themselves Englishmen. That’s what is so extraordinary about Paine immigrating to the United States and this revolutionary pamphlet he wrote shortly thereafter: he considers himself an American. American identity is only possible with American independence.

Before he can arrive at a full-fledged argument in favor of American independence, Paine needed to address the basic arrangement of government. Paine minces no words about government in only the second paragraph of the pamphlet: “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.” The reason this is so, Paine says, is because “we furnish the means by which we suffer.” Of course, the corollary is true: we also possess the means to alleviate, and indeed, end our suffering. As imagined by Paine, because government is made up of representatives entrusted to carry out our wishes, again as but a necessary evil, then those representatives ought to be limited in nature to ensure accountability to the people. As Paine argues, “prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often.” That is so the elected will “mix” again with the electors (the people) and their fidelity to the public will be secured by the “prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves.” Which goes back to the necessity of civic education. The public can only hold the rod to the elected officials, as it were, if they are well-informed about how the elected officials stray from their duties.

Back to no kings, Paine’s writing is delightful because he is so obviously annoyed with the entire conceit of monarchy and hereditary succession. Paine says there is no natural or religious reason men are distinguished by kings and subjects. Amusingly, he said it’s worth “enquiring into” whether kings are the “means of happiness or of misery to mankind.” Indeed, Paine points out that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings, which answers the prior question. Those standing vices? So they are for certain American presidents, too. Paine is funny; he argues as a proof against royal hereditary that nature disproves it, otherwise “she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.” The point being, even if the first king in the line of succession was “great,” it does not follow that the next or the next or the next will be. For certain, nature provides more asses than it does lions. Again, the same is true of presidents, which is why we ought to have better safeguards in place to protect us from asses who pretend they are lions (Trump). Paine’s indignation at the injustice and stupidity of monarchy draws to a conclusion with, “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”

However, just as poignantly as his humor and his indignation, is Paine’s warning. He reiterates a few times that just as royal hereditary makes no sense, virtue itself is not hereditary, which is to point back to civic education again. Virtue needs to be relearned and passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes, we need to make the world over again if we stray too far. But again, as I said, we also need to fortify the law against would-be asses and ruffians who, if given power, would attempt to subvert and weaponize it, such as Trump has in his second term. This is where Paine comes in with a line I’ve previously quoted. Paine says some may wonder where is the King of America? He responds: … “so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.” Goosebumps. He continues, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” Paine’s emphasis.

Paine also hints at what the promise of America could be if we declared our independence for not only future generations, but for the (then) present-day oppressed peoples across the world. “… receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.” Oh, if we only we lived up to that notion of America being a “shining city upon a hill” for all the world! But I digress. Paine argues for an open and determined declaration of independence that would settle our affairs with Britain “so expeditiously.” He believes that it is independence that will bond the colonists together. You could say it would “unite use.” Less than seven months after this pamphlet was published, America declared its independence from King George and Britain.

In the Appendix, Paine reserves further scorn for the Quakers, who made an argument against declaring independence since we were “taking up arms,” which they saw as immoral. Paine says, in a nice parallel to Ukraine and Russia today, it is no moral offense to take up arms in a country’s defense against an aggressor and a tyrant. His was not an argument against Quakerism as such, but an argument against a Quakerism that accepted and allowed for tyranny. More to the point, he thought those who proffered the view were merely pretending to be Quakers in furtherance of their allegiance to a king. Again, there is salience to that point in how some of today’s Christians comport themselves.

If you need a rousing defense — the original defense — of America’s proud “No Kings!” heritage, then you must read Paine’s accessible, brief, but passionate and often amusing Common Sense. But if you get this 2012 edition, be sure to read the snippet for The American Crisis provided at the end, as Paine provides the sort of rah-rah speech I needed right now, and we’re far from the brink of defeat at the hands of the world’s mightiest military force at the time, Great Britain, as the colonists were when Paine wrote it.