We talk of populism and progressive politics. Who better than Paine fits that description? If here alive today, would he be a progressive? Take a look at Hitchens' description of Paine:

Paine became a habitué of the working man’s lecturehall and the freethinker’s tavern, where enthusiastic discussion groups were the yeast for self improvement and political reform.

I think it's fair to say that Paine is admirable not only for his politics, but for his persona. This is a guy you literally could have a beer with, and enjoy the wit and intelligence of the conversation, not to mention the vastly interesting life stories of a man who lived on multiple continents and had a hand in multiple revolutions.

Thomas Paine is credited as being one of the great advocates of freedom in political history, despite his relative modern obscurity.

Christopher Hitchens chose Paine as the “philosophical cornerstone of the United States of America” in his spirited work on Thomas Paine, "Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography." Furthermore, he claims that Paine’s ideas are more relevant than ever “in a time when both rights and reason are under attack.”

In modern accounts of the American Revolution and the “Founding Fathers”, Thomas Paine is arguably overlooked. However, his fame was greater during his own lifetime.

In 1791, the radical poet Joseph Mather published a poem that captured the “defiant and satirical pugnacity” of Thomas Paine’s classic. Mather was a file-maker in the city of Sheffield whose pro-Paine poem was written in protest of the machinations of the English monarchy in the 18th-century. An excerpt from the poem:

God save great Thomas Paine,

His ‘Rights of Man’ explain, to every soul

He makes the blind to see

What dupes and slaves they be

And points out liberty

From pole to pole

During that same year, the fairly-mainstream “Society for Constitutional Information” held London meetings that featured chants like “God save ‘The Rights of Man’! / Let despots, if they can, Them overthrow….” Also in 1791, the “United Irishmen” made Paine an honorary member of their organization, which existed to “attach ‘Protestants of the middling ranks’ to the cause of national and parliamentary reform.” . Paine was a bit ahead of his time, as an Englishman, in his support of Ireland’s independence from the English monarchy. The events of 1791 point to how ahead of his time Paine indeed was. That year in Birmingham, England, a mob chanting “Church and King” broke into Joseph Priestley’s house and destroyed the library and laboratory of the discoverer of oxygen. This is indicative of the type of furor that had enveloped English politics of the day, and it ultimately inspired Priestley to relocate to America, whose revolutionary cause he supported already in his own pamphlets. Paine himself would face similar persecution himself in England for his politics as well.

There was a radical mix of extreme agendas influencing early America’s formation, but by the time of Paine’s “Rights of Man”, the U.S. “was an actual and concrete achievement, not an imaginary Utopia but a home for liberty and the conscious first stage of a world revolution.” Part of the credit for that transition goes to Paine, for his writing and military service. So it is clear to readers that, if indeed Paine is as great an American revolutionary as Hitchens’ claims, then he is also one of the great revolutionaries of modern history, given the impact of the American Revolution, the scale of change in the country’s development, and the depth of Paine’s involvement in all of it.

Paine was an ardent defender of the ideals of the French Revolution, writing to George Washington that “I have not the least doubt of the final and complete success of the French Revolution…Little ebbings and flowings, for and against, the natural companions of revolutions, sometimes appear, but the full current of it is, in my opinion, as fixed as the Gulf Stream.” The Marquis De Lafayette had even given the key of the Bastille prison, famous for imprisoning Europe’s liberals for so many years, to Paine and requested that he deliver the key to President George Washington as a “token of French regard to the American People.” Paine and the events in America were a huge influence on the French Revolution, and De Lafayette was known to keep an open panel in his study next to a copy of the Declaration of Independence in which he would someday place an analogous French version of that document.

Paine was part of a political tradition that saw wars and armies as burdens on the people and upholders of autocracies in Europe. The typical strategy for autocracies was to pretend to be ‘defending’ the country from attack in order to build armies that could then be used to consolidate power domestically. England’s wars had mostly been against France, and this was a basis for Paine’s inspirations. Paine met with liberal Frenchmen in 1787 to discuss the never-ending wars between the two nations, and put an account of this meeting in the preface of “Rights of Man.” Paine’s complaint was that all the wars were being fought for “no other end than that of a mutual increase of burdens and taxes.”

Part One of “Rights of Man” was dedicated to George Washington, who Paine would later disagree with bitterly and Part Two was dedicated to the Marquis de Lafayette, whose involvement in the American Revolution had tipped the scales. Paine was able to claim such allies as the American Revolutionary war hero Marquis de Lafayette in his arguments, including those in Part Two against Burke. General Washington even had Paine’s piece “The Crisis” read aloud to Revolutionary War soldiers before the victorious Battle of Trenton. Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense” was utilized to recruit soldiers for the Continental Army. Therefore, it is fair to say that Paine not only embodied the ideals of America in his writings, but he also literally played a role in shaping the foundations upon which our national political philosophies rest.

One of the notable arguments that Paine put forth was the invalidity of “hereditary rule”, the process by which monarchs’ families ruled nations for generations by inheritance. There was no more inherent value in that concept, Paine argued, as there was in the concept of a “hereditary mathemetician.” Going further, he laid down groundwork for future systems of republican government. Outlines of a ‘welfare state’ are even included in this section, an idea that put Paine many years ahead of his time. What made Paine such a literary force in his day is explained by Hitchens as his ability to “reform or purify the language of political discourse.” Paine’s pamphlets sold well in both England and America despite being accused by critics of being “barbarously uncouth.” The concept of “inalienable rights” was not invented by Paine; however, he enunciated the ideal in a way that inspired thousands, and forever changed the political discourse.

Through a connection to Benjamin Franklin, one of the most famous Americans of his time, Paine emigrated to Philadelphia in September 1774. In 1775, while writing under a variety of pseudonyms such as “Amicus” and “Atlanticus”, he continued the writing and debate that had begun in his life in England. He also published pieces as a journalist in The Pennsylvania Journal.

Paine’s love of freedom, the fundamental value of American independence and early law, is evidenced by the fact that he was an abolitionist in 1775 (having seen his fair share of the slave trade right there in Philadelphia). He wrote, “That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising. In his early years in Philadelphia, Paine would continue to work on his theories of welfare for the young and pensions for the old that was both ahead of its time, and precursors to our modern system of a social safety net. He also described America as a multi-national and multi-cultural melting-pot, an accurate description as well as a prescient one.

“This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe….all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; For England, Holland, Germany, Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not on third of the inhabitants, even of the province, are of English descent. “

As a man with Quaker parents and a residence in Pennsylvania, a state with a strong Quaker background, Paine dealt with his fair share of critics, both Quaker and Tory, who decried the use of violence in the quarrel with England. In essence, Hitchens take an insightful look at Paine’s actions and deeds in regards to pacifism, revolution, and justified violence. The result is a very candid and honest analysis on Hitchens’ part of the ‘pacifism versus revolution’ argument, both of that particular era and of a larger historical context.

At the outset of the American Revolution, Paine was one who had predicted a relatively quick victory for American forces. Quite the opposite happened. The British won major battles at New York and Pennsylvania, and morale sunk amongst General Washington’s troops. Paine enlisted in the Continental Army, joined the fray with a musket in hand, and served with General Nathanael Green. After witnessing the losses firsthand, Paine penned his infamous words his next pamphlet, “The Crisis.”

These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country, but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Later on in that same pamphlet, Paine also wrote:

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories. A noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about 8 or 9 years old, as most I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, “Well, give me peace in my day.” Not a man lives on the Continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or another finally take place, and a generous parent would have said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace,” and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to wake every man to duty. “

Hitchens draws a parallel with Paine’s rejection of the Tories’ claims to ‘peace’ and later historical events. “It was not only Neville Chamberlain, fawning on Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938, who gave ‘Toryism’ a bad name for all eternity by his wish-fulfillment pretence of a ‘peace in our time.’ Most pacifists and anti-warriors also invoke the sacrifice of their living descendents on the battlefield as a reason to avoid, or perhaps only to postpone, war. The childless Paine deftly avoids this difficulty by instancing an infant, or unspecified gender, who is well below military age, and who can thereby advance the claims of posterity.” (Hitchens 40) In other words, to postpone a fight that is inevitable is not ‘peace-seeking’, but merely passing a conflict on to one’s children instead of resolving it. What makes Paine’s words so lasting is the impact they had upon those in his immediate time period, as well as historians, and Paine backed up his words by taking up a musket and serving in the army. His participation in the French Revolution further cements his dedication to his ideals, and gained a reputation for Paine as an ‘international man of revolution’ (and misguided comparisons to Che Guevara.) Yet Paine knew all too well the arguments of his pacifist opponents, such as the Quakers, who actually announced allegiance to the British Crown (and infuriated Paine). He used religion against the pacifist positions with Biblically-framed arguments. He implored in his “Crisis” writings for readers to “Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence but “show your faith by your works”, that God may bless you.”

The philosopher Bertrand Russell paid tribute to the influence that Paine had upon him:

To all these champions of the oppressed Paine set an example of courage, humanity and single-mindedness. When public issues were involved, he forgot personal prudence. The world decided, as it usually does in such cases, to punish him for his lack of self-seeking; to this day his fame is less than it would have been if his character had been less generous. Some worldly wisdom is required even to secure praise for the lack of it.”



In contemporary politics, we see some of the same religious dynamics at play that were present back in Paine’s day. America has always had a unique religiousness, ranging from the extreme to the mundane. There is also an American uniqueness to Paine’s Common Sense, which was written in Biblical overtones so as not to appear too radical. It used selected passages of the Bible, such as the allegory of Eden as America or the lack of a ‘kingship’ dictate in the Old Testament, as arguments in favor of independence from England.

As a former preacher, Paine was savvy when it came to stoking the religious sentiments in his readers. Edmund Burke challenged Paine’s notion of inalienable ‘rights’ from a religious standpoint, and Paine employed classical Protestant rhetoric to defend his point. He wrote:”I will quote Mr. Burke’s catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: ‘We fear God-we look with awe to kings-with affection to parliaments-with duty to magistrates-with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility.’ Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in ‘chivalry.’ He has also forgotten to put in Peter.” Paine’s pursuit of the abolition of slavery, as well as his ability to incorporate religion into progressive views, is similar to what Martin Luther King, Jr. pursued during the Civil Rights movement. The most direct contrast between King and Paine would be King’s call for non-violent protest against an unjust war in Vietnam, whereas Paine encouraged citizens to take up arms, against the objections of the Quakers and other pacifists. Hitchens describes Paine as “an almost perfect encapsulation of the Protestant ethos, with its ideal of an unmediated relationship between mankind and the creative, requiring no priesthood or incense or stained glass.”

In modern politics, religion is often invoked as rationale for policies or a tool to attract voters and support. Right-wing Christian leaders urge conformity and obedience to authority, and often invoke a divine right or blessing for their policies and/or leaders. Adherents of both Sarah Palin and George W Bush believe strongly in the power of a unitary executive in America’s political system. In their viewpoints, citizens should reject politicians who don’t conform to a rigid religious litmus test, specifically, that of being a ‘born-again’ Christian who opposes abortion. These types of interest groups may not utilize the intelligent prose or discourse that Paine exemplified- in fact, the tactics that Palin and Bush used were quite the opposite- but the outcome of this religiously-framed outreach had the intended effect. An appeal to the higher or spiritual goals was a powerful tool in Paine’s day, such as the chants of “Church and King”, and remains so in modern times.

Many of the right-wing critics of Paine who helped push him into semi-obscurity at the end of his life became forgotten footnotes in history themselves, while historical events clearly show that the impact Paine had upon American history. Abraham Lincoln was an avid reader of Paine’s work, and used Paine’s arguments in his own battles against religious sectarians in his time. The abolitionist John Brown was found to have Paine’s books in his camps, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt quoted an entire paragraph from “The Crisis” to rally Americans after Pearl Harbor. Even at the end of his life, Paine was a factor in events that permanently changed America despite the misfortunes he endured, such as rumors about his alleged alcoholism. In 1802, he wrote to President Jefferson about the possibility of exploiting France’s economic woes and purchasing Louisiana.

“Suppose the Government begin by making a proposal to France to repurchase the cession, made to her by Spain, of Louisiana or a majority thereof….The French Treasury is not only empty, but the Government has consumed by anticipation a great part of the next year’s revenue…”

Even at the end of his life, dogged by false allegations and rumors, Paine exhibited the sense of pragmatism and business-like shrewdness in recognizing the opportunity that America had in international politics. Jefferson would come to the same conclusion as his friend Thomas Paine, and the Louisiana Purchase transformed a young United States of America.

Hitchens’ statement that Paine’s ideals are needed “now more than ever” is likely inspired by the rise of the Christian Right in American politics, the election of George W Bush, and the ensuing two wars that Bush launched with the support of the Christian Right. The jingoism and religious propaganda that accompanied these wars are reminiscent of the monarchs’ never-ending wars. Meanwhile, an anti-science and anti-intellectualism ideology accompanied the rise of the Christian Right. They have attacked the teaching of science in public schools, attempted to create a theocracy-inspired revision of American political history, rejected the proven science of global climate change, and cut funding for science research while promoting government-sponsored abstinence programs (and other religious ideology). The Christian Right in American politics is the antithesis of The Enlightenment, the ‘age of reason’, or of a government free of the corrosive influence of theocracy/authoritarianism.