Thomas Paine had an ability to describe clearly the different sides of controversial issues. He had the advantage of living in relatively simple times, so clarity was not inhibited or opposed as in our modern, fast-paced, and specialized society. His ideas and passionate language inspired many colonists to support the movement for independence from Britain, not just a few fringe groups of malcontents. He set the tone for the Declaration of Independence. He was a good writer, and his logic was not required to address any significant issues related to technology.
Due to similarities with Thomas Paine's Common Sense, there are some scholars who believe Thomas Paine actually penned the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, providing the style and key phrases to Thomas Jefferson. His ideas are further embodied in the U. S. Constitution, although he did not help to write that document. His principles keyed on the fundamental rights of man and the need for subservience of government. These two common sense concepts provided a broad foundation for a democratic yet representative constitutional approach to resolving disputes and managing an independent country. They encourage common sense in government.
Although possibly deserving more recognition than he received with regard to drafting the Declaration of Independence, he held the respect of many of his contemporaries. He was a powerful influencer of the colonial decision to choose independence from (rather than reconciliation with) the governmental controls of Britain. In achieving this respect and influence, Thomas Paine began his Common Sense logic with bedrock fundamentals of nature and human nature. Thus, his logic was difficult to attack.
We all recognize that some aspects of colonial life were strikingly inconsistent with modern views of fundamental human rights. Thomas Paine lived in an era of slave trade and military attacks on Native Americans, so the Founding Fathers had a different frame of reference even with regard to human rights. Nevertheless, they did a good job creating a new form of government and a new country -- a country of the people.
Whenever men spontaneously go to war for what they believe, those beliefs are likely to be heart felt and fundamental. The sacrifices involved with fighting the Revolutionary War probably reinforced the human rights and governmental principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, setting the stage for writing the U. S. Constitution. Thus, the U. S. Constitution was created in an atmosphere charged with the principles of common sense.
These principles ensured a strong focus on human rights, more so than did previous forms of government. The key, common sense principle that shaped much of the U. S. Constitution is that the federal government is to be responsive to representatives from the states and, thus, to the citizens' interests as expressed through those representatives. To serve this government responsiveness principle most effectively, the U. S. Constitution had to be structured to manage power (i.e., control those who are empowered under the U. S. Constitution) more effectively than had ever been done before.
The age-old competition for power over other men produces political systems. Political systems, in turn, interface strongly with the government systems that implement government programs. In this daisy chain of power management, common sense and basic principles can easily be obscured and compromised. When government officials make decisions for political reasons rather than in the overall best interests of the people, we could have a constitutional breakdown, but the Constitution itself provides safeguards that often result in a stalemate rather than action. However, those safeguards are increasingly strained in our modern technical culture, sometimes producing results that the Founding Fathers would have viewed as a constitutional failure of breakdown. One symptom of such breakdowns is that common sense is in more often (or even routinely) violated.
Besides the simpler times, the colonists that formed Thomas Paine's audience did have another significant advantage over their modern counterparts. The colonists' advantage over us was that they had to exercise their common sense frequently simply to survive. Those that didn't, didn't. Life was relatively hard, with limited forms of entertainment and communication. Colonial political candidates and other leaders were more readily challenged and ridiculed directly by the people when they displayed a lack of common sense.
Colonial people were better able to discern truth from fiction for themselves. They had plenty of time to do so on a day-to-day basis, as compared with our modern, rushed society that minimizes our daily opportunities for reflection. Besides having less time to reflect on each issue, we have routine access to many more world-wide problems and issues. We have become more reliant on others to filter and interpret information for us. Technology has brought us closer to problems, but it has also made us more dependent on others to represent our public interests. Politicians, special interest groups, and the news media are eager to fill this need for us.
Thus, just because Thomas Paine was effective in colonial times, does not mean that he would have a similar impact today. His passionate logic was more suited for his times than it would be today. In our technically complex world, we are not always able to identify what is logical and what makes sense, either common sense or technical sense. Certainly, a passionate approach to common sense is far less likely to be productive in our technical age.
Still, due to the gradual demise of common sense, modern political leaders can more easily rely on voter emotion overwhelming common sense. Reliance on manipulating voter emotions allows modern political leaders to sidestep the fundamentals that formed Thomas Paine's notions of individual human rights and the subservience of government to the best interests of the people.
Ten-second sound bites on television news are more suited to emotional
politics. Thus, modern political dialog on right-and-wrong in government
(and everywhere else, it seems) often involves emotion at the expense of
common sense. Yet, without a firm foundation in common sense, transient
emotions seldom develop into driving passions.
Using the complementary concept of systems, Technidigm 2000 also helps us to understand in fundamental terms how a range of factors fit together. An understanding of levels and systems was not needed in colonial times, but this understanding is increasingly vital today.
It is the objective of Technidigm-2000 to provide a logical and powerful method of promoting common sense in all areas, especially in the political arena, since politics impact so many other areas in our lives. With such a powerful method in hand, our newly emergent technical notions of common sense will help us achieve increased success in many areas, especially in the area of representative government. Like Thomas Paine, we might even get passionate about fixing our government systems.
Thomas Paine's clarity and unusually fundamental approach to issues increased the reader's understanding and, thus, the reader's self-confidence. Reliance on common sense was natural for the colonists. Common sense was the essential element needed to motivate the colonists to seek independence from the King of England and from the English Parliament. People realized that they could think for themselves. They did not have to rely on others to feed them and their families, so they certainly did not have to rely on others to think for them.
Thomas Paine was the Rush Limbaugh of the American Colonies. Although Thomas Paine did not have to entertain his audience to make his points, he did identify and express what many colonists felt, and his readers had a vital interest in Thomas Paine's objective -- the replacement of a government system that made no sense. His direct approach and earnest style were unprecedented, and his message fell on eager ears.
Like Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Paine had faith in the people and their ability to sort things out logically when presented with the relevant information. Logical attacks that are based on fundamental principles can quickly change how people view their government. Many professional politicians have learned to apply a superficial and transient logic and common sense. Political campaigns can even appear to be based on fundamental principles, but they have one objective -- winning the election. If winning requires deliberately confusing the voters, this is done.
The thrust of Rush Limbaugh's message is just that -- some professional politicians will deliberately confuse the voters if this helps them obtain or keep power. His popularity is based on his ability to reduce confusion and to communicate effectively in our otherwise confusing information environment. Thomas Paine's fame sprang from a similar ability. He made the colonial notion of common sense regarding the role of government in human affairs into a litmus test for determining right from wrong for forms of government. It follows that, within the framework of a well-constituted government, there would be a continuing or inclusive role for common sense in the control and operation of government.
Fortunately, the framers of the U. S. Constitution recognized that having a role for common sense does not equate to achieving it. They loaded the U. S. Constitution with many checks-and-balances under the assumption that good politics and good government are good objectives, but that bad politics and bad government can happen. In our modern frame of reference, we might say that even a Cadillac can be poorly maintained by their owners and operators.
Both the U. S. Constitution and Cadillacs come with maintenance guidance for the operators. The primary difference is that it is easier to tell when a Cadillac is not being maintained properly. There are many "litmus tests" for assessing Cadillac maintenance. We know when we have a flat tire, a noisy engine, or an engine that will not start.
The maintenance of the U. S. Constitution is more elusive mostly because we generally have to evaluate its performance through its political and governmental symptoms. Where these political and government symptoms clearly contradict common sense, common sense can become a litmus test. For their part, professional politicians simply avoid litmus tests. Politicians generally blur any differences between themselves and their competition with regard to litmus test subjects. Those politicians who take a firm stand on a sensitive subject are likely to be less effective than those who are noncommittal. Noncommitals often take the form of commitals in that some politicians learn to appear to commit to each audience or special interest group, even when logically contradicting a previous commitment. When challenged, these politicians abandon logic and embrace emotions, always seeking to please, knowing that integrity is not required by the majority of voters.
On the other hand, government programs implemented under policies established by politicians are more likely to have to reveal their position on voter litmus tests. The problem is that the voters have to go through the vague political arena to get at the obvious problems in government. The Thomas Paine and Rush Limbaugh approach to political commentary is to take the common sense consequences of government programs and passionately and vigorously hold the responsible politicians accountable.
There are other interesting similarities between Thomas Paine and Rush Limbaugh. Urged on by Thomas Paine, colonists viewed the 18th century European forms of government as often allowing robbers and murderers to go unpunished. Justice was frequently not served well under kings, queens, and dictators. Oppressive governments were the problem, not the solution. With a few changes in terminology, Thomas Paine's writings could be Rush Limbaugh's.
Similar to Rush Limbaugh's current attacks on big government, Thomas Paine complained of the royal appointment of a multitude of bureaucrats to harass the colonists and take away their wealth. He coaxed the colonists to take the action needed to fix government problems, pointing out that failure to do so would mean that they deserved governmental harassment and loss of wealth through excessive taxes.
Unlike today, the citizens of the colonies were communication starved and hungry for information. When they got their hands on information, they had enough common sense of their own to read, sort out, and understand the facts of a situation even without persistent, persuasive, and clever assistance. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Paine did not need to be persistent and clever; he only needed to be persuasive. This was all that was needed.
Would Thomas Paine agree with and be proud of Rush Limbaugh? Probably. After all, as demonstrated by Rush Limbaugh, common sense continues to be an effective tool to motivate the electorate. The 1994 elections reflected some of Rush Limbaugh's lessons in common sense, lessons that induced some voters to support a change in political party control in Congress. His modest but effective impact required persistence and cleverness in "exposing the truth."
Once the truth is pointed out, it rings true due to the effects of common sense, which is based on our fundamental principles. This is what the framers of the U. S. Constitution were depending on when they put so much reliance on the voters to pick the people who would represent them in the federal government. As long as the Rush Limbaugh dialog with the American people rings true in their ears, his influence will continue.
Thomas Paine had the advantage over Rush Limbaugh in that he only had to promote independence to get all or most of his concerns resolved. Rush Limbaugh, in contrast, is faced with more issues and more complex issues. Neither man was really expected to provide any details about how to improve things. Both asserted the need for common sense and reliance on fundamental principles. Thomas Paine lived in simpler times and was able to make simple suggestions on how to go forward. Facing far more complex issues, Rush Limbaugh focuses primarily on fundamental principles, especially on issues of leadership and integrity. He does not offer much guidance on how to proceed from here. Technidigm-2000 fills this void, at least with a solid communications framework that everyone can understand and apply.
Paine's relatively direct approach was adequate to help light the fire of independence. A keen focus on common sense helped spur the colonists to support the type of self government reflected in the Constitution. Rush Limbaugh's modern efforts are intended to do the same and help return the United States to common sense fundamentals and to a feeling of self confidence in the validity of those fundamentals. Technidigm-2000 may also be viewed as a means of establishing and promoting self confidence.
Nevertheless, Rush and Tom are not alone. With a little effort, we could span the last 200 years with the names of others who have appealed to the popular notion of common sense. Some were humorists, and some were presidents. Indeed, whose boots do you black?
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page