Although he may never have known it, it is apparent that Thomas Paine embodied the characteristics of a Civic Republican, at least when he wrote Common Sense. It’s easy for us to see now; but even today, civic republicanism vs. classic liberalism is not as black and white as it may seem, not to mention at the time of the American Revolution. Paine was certainly not thinking about that when he wrote these pamphlets which still enthuse people today. To be sure, Paine embodies most of the tenets of civic republicanism: He believed in the community as a political unit, participatory democracy, and the common good over individuality. However after careful examination, it becomes evident that Paine may have had some ambitions that were less community-based and more grandiose, or self-centered. While he certainly was a civic republican in his public life, the greatness that Paine may have strived for is the kind that comes from the mind of a classic liberal.
Is it possible that Thomas Paine used the ideals of civic republicanism as a means to an end? Yes. Thomas Paine was of the upper class (for a while, anyway). He was an intellectual who mingled with other intellectuals. He was regarded as a leader at the time of the Revolution, and was obviously a white male. What people continue to love about Paine is that he encouraged throngs of people to be catalysts for change. But how many of these people were people that Paine would have associated with? As we all learned the other day, Thomas Paine had some tendencies that appeared xenophobic. It’s probable that this was not on purpose – the people he surrounded himself with at the time believed in the power of the white land-owning male, and the degradation of poor people, women, minorities, and non-Christians. Paine knew that unity was key, that the word “we” was extremely important at such a tumultuous time.
This is the part where I play devil’s advocate. What connected Paine with his followers was his problem with Great Britain. But while his followers dreamed of a government that would be better to the masses, he knew that the only way to cure a government he didn’t like was to become his own governor. If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, was Paine sucking up to the people so that he could become an important political figure of the North American continent? Were the colonists his friends or his pawns? I’m not saying that classic liberals were bad people – I’m just saying that Paine may have been a dishonest man and a classic liberal at the same time.
Paine was already implicitly and explicitly exclusionary when he suggested that citizens switch from obedience to an overthrow-the-government type mindset. He used soaring rhetoric to gain followers, as if to say, “Forget everything you care about and come join this cause.” But did Paine want anything to do with the likes of poor people? Did he have visions of the impending grandeur that would follow after he had allowed the masses of commoners to do his dirty work for him? Today, Paine’s suggested ratio of representatives to citizens seems almost outrageously democratic. But there were enough elites (at the time of Paine) to do all of the jobs. In his argument against ratification of the Constitution of 1787, Anti-federalist Melacton Smith warned of the government “falling into the hands of the few and the great.” (pg. 51) Thomas Paine never went that far in terms of his vision for a new government, because he knew that his position in society enabled him to be one of the few and the great.
Today, politicians are horrible at covering up the fact that their number one ambition is personal advancement. “Putting America first” comes off, at least to me, as hogwash. Maybe I’m more disenchanted than everybody else. I can’t help but wonder if this was the same case with the founding fathers. Today, people pray at the altars of the likes of Thomas Paine. I hate to take away from that, but wouldn’t it be good to know if Paine was a manipulative snob who aimed to take advantage of people using his skill of persuasion? It’s obvious that he will never go down into history as one; however, for those of us who are skeptical, ignorance is pure bliss.