I am utterly flabbergasted. Maybe Glenn Back is actually a subversive socialist. Maybe his mad ruminations broadcast across the country are a front, a means to introduce conservatives to dangerous ideas. Why else would he bring up Thomas Paine, a true radical, rabble rouser, socialist and anti-Christian deist?
In a recent skit "Thomas Paine" is used as a prop to incite support for and legitimize the planned protests on April 15th. In this skit, "Paine" accomplishes a few things: he whines that the Government has become arrogant, that Americans have a sense of entitlement, that Americans are lazy, that protesting on the 15th is akin to going to war after Pearl Harbor, that the stimulus bill is equivalent to literally attacking the U.S., and finally exhorts others to protest, just like him, "Thomas Paine."
I’m not going to address most of this ridiculousness, as I’m sure you can do it on your own. What I do want to briefly discuss is how these morons are misappropriating the imagery of our "founding fathers" to legitimize their idiocy. I’ve already addressed the Boston Tea Party imagery in another diary.
The basic logic seems to run like this: since Thomas Paine advocated resistance to British governance and taxation, he would also advocate resistance to our current government. No logic at all, there, which is hardly surprising. What IS surprising is how Beck is using the image of someone who would absolutely approve of taxation to support entitlement programs to support the poor. How do we know this?
In 1797, Paine wrote a handy little tract called "Agrarian Justice." In it, he argued that while private property was to a degree needed, all people had a right to share in the profits of the earth. He therefore proposed a tax (or fund) on property owners that would be used to disburse a minimum income to everyone, regardless of their position. How socialist!
Of course, he had already indicated his support for social justice in earlier works, such as 1792's "Rights of Man."
Also, Paine was affirm believer in representative democracy. He knew that s simple democracy run directly by its citizens would grow dysfunctional as a nation grew, and believed "the representative system of government is calculated to produce the wisest laws." He knew that in representation not every view would be expressed as law, but still believed that "by ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population."
Further, Paine believed that the structure of taxes should not burden the middle and lower classes, and favored taxing property and wealth before taxing cheaper, common goods as such taxes are typically regressive. "Men of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being thrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it from landed property, for the following reasons: "First, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in proportion to their property, than those of large estates. Secondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in houses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on consumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has been favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than seven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the aristocracy are in a great measure exempt."
We could go on to innumerable quotes that show Paine was not in fact a symbol of conservatives, but instead is a far better symbol for the modern progressive. I hope that, as you encounter those indulging in their fantasy that their every desire is in accordance with those of our founding fathers that you will take a moment to point out their errors. Remember: facts are the progressive’s greatest weapon.
(For more on the misappropriation of patriotic "Founding Fathers" imagery, see my first Diary about the Boston Tea Party.)