Obama's Vindication of Thomas Paine

posted by John Nichols on 01/20/2009 @ 12:20pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (56)

Subscribe Now

"I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure, that it will prevail, that the dream of our founders will live on in our time."

Barack Obama, 18 January 2009

President Barack Obama swore on Tuesday to protect and defend a Constitution that was not written in anticipation of his presidency--that was not, in fact, written in anticipation of his citizenship.

And that is where we should begin to measure the historic turning that has taken place this day.

The American experiment began with its promise constricted by the narrow vision of Virginia plantation owners who saw an African-American as three-fifths of a human being--and that scant measure only for the purpose of granting the South a greater share of the seats in a Congress that would for the better part of a century be all white, all male and all of the propertied class.

America was founded on the original sins of human bondage and violent discrimination.

Barack Obama's inauguration does not erase that history. As W.E.B. Du Bois told us, "One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over...We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner... and simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect man and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth."

Obama's inauguration turns the tables on the founders.

Those who proposed and accepted the Constitution's initial compromises, have been put in their place--not dismissed, but confirmed, finally and unequivocally, as having possessed a vision insufficient for the America that would be.

That goes for Jefferson, Madison, even for Washington (Obama's "man who led a small band of farmers and shopkeepers in revolution against the army of an Empire")--all the "good guys" who were not good enough to reject the crude calculus that in the words of Du Bois "classed the black man and the ox together."

Yet Obama speaks, often and favorably, of the founders, describing them in Philadelphia just days before his inauguration as "that first band of patriots... who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew."

The reference to making the world anew was borrowed--imprecisely-- from one of founders. Thomas Paine called his comrades to the revolutionary cause with the cry: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months."

Obama quoted frequently from Paine, and particularly from Common Sense, during his campaign for the presidency. And he did so, again, on Tuesday, referencing Paine in a speech that spoke of a "return to these truths" of the American experiment.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

That line is from Paine's The Crisis, which George Washington did, in fact, have read to the troops in the most difficult days of the revolutionary struggle.

From that reference, on Tuesday, Obama continued:

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

It was right that Obama turned to Paine.

When the Pennsylvania Assembly considered the formal abolition of slavery in 1779, it was Paine who authored the preamble to the proposal.

Paine's fervent objections to slavery led to his exclusion from the inner circles of American power in the first years of the republic. He died a pauper. Only history restored the man--and his vision.

And on this day, this remarkable day, Thomas Paine is fully redeemed.

Paine, to a greater extent than any of his peers, was the founder who imagined a truly United States that might offer a son of Africa and of America not merely citizenship but its presidency.

Barack Obama is wise to associate himself with the better angels of our history, including the architects of our republic who, for all their imperfections, issued--as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. noted on another crowded day in Washington--"wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" and in so doing "(signed) a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the 'unalienable Rights' of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"

"But," concluded King, "we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt."

The bank of justice, unlike those of Wall Street, has proven to be solvent.

Our new president--and we the people--do well to recognize those who signed the promissory note.

But that does not mean that we should presume that the founders were all equally wise, or equally good.

It was Paine, the most revolutionary of their number, who proved to be the wisest, and the best, of that band of patriots--for his time, and for this time.

Today belongs to Barack Obama.

But it also belongs to Thomas Paine.

When our new president says that his election proves "the dream of our founders is alive in our time," it is Paine's dream of which he speaks.

That dream may not be fully realized. But it is alive--more, indeed, today than at any time in the history of a land that might yet begin our world over again.

Comments (56)

He now has the wheel... we will soon see if he can drive....or be driven around... I wish him and us the best.

Nice prayer by Warren.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
what a dull, flat speech, and dull, flat delivery.

(this is coming from an obama supporter).

Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
Careful, Mr Nichols...

injecting any sour notes may get you a note from the Boss.

Right, FROSTY?

Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
Amen, Bush and the Klingon empire has left the Galaxy,read the final farewell on blackcoptermedia.com, and prove Obama right and donate to the growth of blackcoptermedia.

Posted by thesid at 01/20/2009 @ 12:44pm
Just a side note to Nichols and the constant drum beat about the FF being slave owners as the focus of a flawed system...

In case Nichols forgot..Washington freed all his slaves on his death..another symbolism could be drawn..No?

The same FF also gave us the mechanism with which to adapt, change, and fix inherent problems with in the very system they set up...to correct and re address issues of the next generations views as the country and morals change...without firing a shot..

Obamas election is a celebration of those changes as much as it is, if not more, than the symbolism of a black man being elected to live in a house that was built by slave tradesmen all those years ago.

Obamas was not raised here for the bulk of his young life and is not a descendent of slaves, so the issue might be a little over dramatised by the Nichols crowd.

After all, wasnt his mother a sinle unwed jew?

does that mean something somewhere in the symbolism ethosphere of the lefty?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/20/2009 @ 12:49pm
I misunderstood,

I thought the politics of fear were over..??

We've gone from scary scary WMD and terrorists to dark clouds and financial collapse.

Obama (Bush) to US:

You'd better do what I suggest ($$trillions$$ and war) or things are gonna get really BAD.

whatthefuckever

Posted by bleedingheart at 01/20/2009 @ 1:04pm
The speech was flawless.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/20/2009 @ 1:04pm
Obama's mama is of English and Irish descent. If she were jewish that would make Barack jewish as well as jewish identity is determined by matrilineal descent. He would then be our first black and our first jewish president.

Posted by Guiles at 01/20/2009 @ 1:09pm
I misunderstood, I thought the politics of fear were over..??

We've gone from scary scary WMD and terrorists to dark clouds and financial collapse.

Obama (Bush) to US:

You'd better do what I suggest ($$trillions$$ and war) or things are gonna get really BAD.

whatthefuckever

Posted by bleedingheart at 01/20/2009 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

O Superman. O judge. O Mom and Dad. Mom and Dad. O Superman. O judge. O Mom and Dad. Mom and Dad. Hi. I'm not home right now. But if you want to leave a message, just start talking at the sound of the tone. Hello? This is your Mother. Are you there? Are you coming home? Hello? Is anybody home? Well, you don't know me, but I know you. And I've got a message to give to you. Here come the planes. So you better get ready. Ready to go. You can come as you are, but pay as you go. Pay as you go.

And I said: OK. Who is this really? And the voice said: This is the hand, the hand that takes. This is the hand, the hand that takes. This is the hand, the hand that takes. Here come the planes. They're American planes. Made in America. Smoking or non-smoking? And the voice said: Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.

'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice. And when justive is gone, there's always force. And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!

So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms. In your arms. So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms. In your electronic arms.

O Superman by Laurie Anderson

Posted by OneVote at 01/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
what a dull, flat speech, and dull, flat delivery.

(this is coming from an obama supporter).

Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

the oath was bad too.

Posted by OneVote at 01/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
Ah, yes, the perfect inaugural speech for Americans of the present age: Plastic, platitudinous, evacuated of substance. And a presidency that promises to be as much: Plastic, platitudinous, evacuated of substance. But not without a touch of the ominous, however: The Moslem world characterized solely as supporting of violence and a restoration of science to its "rightful place". One imagines this latter to be a place freed from the constraints of morality, a utilitarian, Frankenstein's world where the weak are sacrificed in the interests of the powerful. No, this was no Kennedyeseque, New Frontier speech. Neither was it Lincolneseque, or Rooseveltian. It was just the standard pap of 2009 America, consumerist, childish, fantasy laden, and threatening to life. End the cotton-pickin war, Mr. Obama, and end abortion!

Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/20/2009 @ 1:12pm

OV, bleeding is a GOP poser.

Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 1:27pm
OV, bleeding is a GOP poser.

Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Yes...."bleedingheart"........He has a 'New Mom' now. Already the petulant child.

Posted by OneVote at 01/20/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/20/2009 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

how many people have lost their jobs in the last year? how many will lose their jobs this year?

it's not fear mongering. the american people are afraid, very afraid.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/20/2009 @ 1:47pm
it's not fear mongering. the american people are afraid, very afraid.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/20/2009 @ 1:47pm

And they have every reason to be afraid...the govt has taken over everything and is using the printing press to "fix" everything.

It will not work....

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/20/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/20/2009 @ 1:49pm

Yes, because nobody would have been afraid if McCain had won and promised more of the same, would they?

Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 2:11pm
I liked the parting shots at hsuB admin, while the camera quickly focused on hsuB's terse mouth letting out a puff-- the MSM not skipping a beat.

Obama will not have as good a time with the media as new con talking heads whine about.

Great speech.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/20/2009 @ 2:20pm
It was just the standard pap of 2009 America, consumerist, childish, fantasy laden, and threatening to life. End the cotton-pickin war, Mr. Obama, and end abortion! Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 1:21pm

You'll never find the perfect speech. Or the perfect President. Or a perfect nation. If you are willing to take part you will find that embracing change as the only constant is the WAY to change, and to expect one person to change it all for you is the sure ticket to unhappiness.

And let's hope Obama, in that dream world of unrealistic expectations, in the crucible of unfulfilled ideologies, can also end overpopulation and apocalyptic obsessions with the worlds end, two things that surely drive us towards the brink. given the choice between hope and fear, I choose the former. The only other option is to live beneath a rock someone else found for me. Let's all live in the LIGHT.

Posted by ficheye at 01/20/2009 @ 2:23pm
Mr. Obama, and end abortion!

he cannot. it is not within his power.

making abortions illegal will not end abortions, it will drive them underground, with deleterious results for women.

your concern for women is phony.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/20/2009 @ 2:27pm
lowell is a looney...and sore loser.

In that order....heheh

Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 3:03pm
"And let's hope Obama, in that dream world of unrealistic expectations, in the crucible of unfulfilled ideologies, can also end overpopulation and apocalyptic obsessions with the worlds end, two things that surely drive us towards the brink. given the choice between hope and fear, I choose the former. The only other option is to live beneath . Let's all live in the LIGHT."

Well it would seem clear that we're overpopulated by one, you, at the moment. You can do something about that, for us you know, something that will end that unendurable, but deserved, consignment "beneath a rock someone else found for" you. Crawl out on a ledge and try self-defenestration, its exciting and sure in the end to fill you with lots of LIGHT. And, assuredly, they'd be nothing unrealistic or apocalyptic about that expectation.

Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by emile duBois at 01/20/2009 @ 2:27pm

Ah, yes, emile duBois, and the self-centered, potty logic of the elite. Bend over and crack a smile, emile.

Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 3:03pm

Yeah, I guess not. Sometimes turning on the gas doesn't work, they live through it. Try this, Mask, draw a tub of hot water and then go off in search of a razor blade. Write for instructions when those steps are behind you. There'll be someone here eager to help, I'm sure.

Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 3:03pm

Yeah, I guess not. Sometimes turning on the gas doesn't work, they live through it. Try this, Mask, draw a tub of hot water and then go off in search of a razor blade. Write for instructions when those steps are behind you. There'll be someone here eager to help, I'm sure.

Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 3:24pm
let a new era of freedom ring the birth of blackcoptermedia.com. I am so happy with change but when I wake up things will still be the same Bush and Cheney are free to roam about the country and crime in high places will still pay. Oh how much would I love to be a Senator! or A CEO!

Posted by thesid at 01/20/2009 @ 3:36pm
"stumbling over his oath merely proved even he was somewhat overcome by the moment"

John Roberts - can you give the man 3 or 4 or 5 words to repeat, instead of dozens of syllables? I've seen priests/pastors do this at weddings too. Presidents (and bridges and grooms) have other things on their minds, and are a bit nervous standing in front of everyone watching - to remember full sentences to repeat.

Jeez John, bad job.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 3:48pm
Nice article, John. Very nice.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/20/2009 @ 3:52pm
Great speech on Obama's part, yet I found myself wishing that Obama had mentioned Thomas Paine by name. Paine, after all, was the most progressive founding father who most embodied the idea of change: he was the first to advocate not only independence and the abolition of slavery, but also universal (albeit male) suffrage, progressive taxation, and an early form of Social Security. He was the one who not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Btw, this year marks the bicentenary of Paine's death. I hope all Americans will find a way of commemorating this great radical and revolutionary.

Posted by fac at 01/20/2009 @ 5:12pm
Posted by john lowell at 01/20/2009 @ 3:05pm

We, here at the Nation blog, wish Mr. Lowell the very best counseling money can buy this year, and want to remind him to eat breakfast. It's the most important meal of the day!

And if we have to do it without you, John, the world wants to move forward. Sorry.

Great article. Hope instead of fear. I can live with that.

Posted by ficheye at 01/20/2009 @ 8:14pm
Yes, John, nice article. We tend to either deify or occasionally demonize our founding fathers and none of them deserves either. Yet, clearly Paine was the most human (faults and all) and most visionary of the founders. He, unlike many of the others, transcends his time- a remarkable achievement.

Posted by erazma at 01/20/2009 @ 8:23pm
Without even mentioning Paine by name, Obama's brief quote thrills liberals who seem to have suspended all critical faculties. Alas, The Nation is among them. How about less cherry-picking analysis of the speech, and more about his appointments? I doubt, for example, that his reactionary inaugural minister could have handled any quote from Paine's The Age of Reason. Where does all this hope come from? It can't be from incoming top White House financial advisor Laurence Summers, who secretly advocated that western toxic waste be dumped in Africa, since the resultant cancers wouldn't kick in because most of the population would die first from famine, aids or malaria. From Robert Gates through to the appointment of a raft of other pro Iraq invasion figures and Obama's hitherto silence on every aspect of the present tragedy in Gaza (except the missiles falling on Israel), it surely makes sense to assess the incoming president more by his actions than his speeches. For instance his vote for the immunity of telephone companies from prosecution for wiretapping. But look at some of his other appointments: on security we have Misick who politicised allegations of weapons of mass destruction and Brennan who gave us extraordinary rendition; Daschle for health, who lobbied Congress for the pharmaceutical corps and Holder who, under Clinton, secured a pardon for Marc Rich.By all means celebrate the end of Bush and the failure of McCain, but this is real change? Damnit, Obama's not even a death penalty abolitionist.On that issue he's lined up with only a handful of European extreme reactionaries.

Here's hoping that The Nation will eventually see through the haze of hype. Meanwhile it's left to Jung to explain the ill-informed euphoria: "People can't take much reality".

Posted by pongacat at 01/20/2009 @ 10:55pm
Posted by pongacat at 01/20/2009 @ 10:55pm

I hear what you're sayin'. Great fact checking.

I guess MY main feeling of 'hope' is held aloft by the departure of Bush, but it's true that it's supposed to be a government by and for the people, so I think that one may be able to assume that a lot of people know that.

And they know there's a lot of things that need to change, and Obama can't do that alone... we have to do that by at least being willing to change our head space a little. The initial euphoria can also be translated into 'easily deluded', but only time will tell.

As far as the cabinet picks, etc... let's prosecute one administration at a time! Love the Jung quote.

Posted by ficheye at 01/20/2009 @ 11:13pm
Nichols claims:

>> America was founded on the original sins of human bondage and violent discrimination.<<

False.

America was founded on the notion that things can be improved.

Ordinary men and women sought to make things a little better for themselves in 1776, nothing more. They thought that by exchanging a distant king and parliament for a local president and legislature they'd have a better chance of controlling their govt and compelling it to serve the citizenry. That was all.

It was not an attempt to change the fate of humankind, or to undo human wrongs and injustices, or to improve anything for anyone except to make things a little better for the people who rebelled.

At the root of 1776 was a sense that things need improving and can be improved, that the world is not a settled and finished affair. It can be fixed and bettered. The Founders institutionalized a way to make constant adjustments, endless improvements, peacefully, routinely, so that the world does not have to be torn down and remade from ground zero all the time.

If this idea had a single dangerous opponent it was Thomas Paine who wanted to change the world, now at once and once and for all. That is why he found his real bailiwick in the radical and utopian extemes of the French Revolution.

The US is the opposite of now at once and once and for all. It is pragmatic, it does what is possible, when it is possible. It piles improvements on improvements. It believes in compromise. Thomas Paine refused to compromise. Without compromise the thirteen colonies could not have united against Great Britain. Without compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified; without Clay and Webster and endless compromises the country would not have survived until 1860.

Paine was a pain.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/21/2009 @ 05:39am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/21/2009 @ 05:39am

An excellent retort. You point out a common human folly; confusing the destination with the journy.

I do not embrace moral relativism for I do not beleive that morality is arbitrary or dependent upon the whims of public opinion. Yet I don't believe that morality is static either. I believe that constitutes moral actions is a function of technology.

Since the beginning of time murder was and continues to be immoral. But technology has blurred the line of what is murder and what is euthanasia and what it abortion and what exactly is unplugging the machine that has artificially kept a braindead woman's heart beating for the last seven years.

How will morality change... Strike that. How will humanity's understanding of morality change if it is proven that existence is just a two-dimensional holographic projection onto a three-dimensional space?

Hugo is correct, there is no final destination where we can rest once and for all. Hugo is also correct in pointing out our folly in lionizing or demonzing historical figures. In all likelihood Paine beat his wife and children because culturally, it was as common as rain.

But I still say Nichols is right to point out Paine's superior ability to read the moral compass with respect to human bondage when so many around him were content to avert their eyes.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/21/2009 @ 07:56am
but this is real change?

come back in two years and we'll see.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 09:17am
First there's intent, then there is movement.

Talking in terms of conscious intellect, not its opposite.

Of course...

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/21/2009 @ 11:55am
How ironic to read a Bush supporter writing about compromise and it's positive effects. Added to that irony is that the author has been ridiculing the new president, a man whose very inauguration epitomized compromise.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/21/2009 @ 12:46pm
now they want to compromise. before it was our way or the highway.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:29pm
As always-- they'll take whatever they can get away with.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/21/2009 @ 2:26pm
Paine ("My country is the world, and my religion is to do good")died in 1809 and in 1810, P.T. Barnum ("There's a sucker born every minute") was born. Paine to Barnum--what symbolism for the changing of the times! Don't forget that also in 1809, Fulton patented the steamboat, the first woman awarded a patent, Mary Kies, patented a straw weaving process. Louise Braille, E.A. Poe, Nikolai Gogol, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Kit Carson were born--and on Feb. 12, both Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born. Also in that year, the courts found the Cordwainers trades' union society a criminal conspiracy for attempting to combine with each other to compel employers to raise wages. In response, the Jeffersonian newspaper, the Aurora, editorialized on Nov. 28, 1809 "Hitherto the people had traveled the level road to equal justice ... Of all the barbarous principles of feudalism entailed on us by England, none was left but slavery, and even this would be generally restricted in 1808. Yet would it be believed, at the very time when the state of the Negro was about to be improved attempts were being made to reduce the whites to slavery. Was there anything in the Constitution of the United States or in the Constitution of Pennsylvania which gave one man the right to say to another what should be the price of labor? There was not. It was by the English common law that such things became possible." Yes, it is time to resurrect Paine's principles and finally expose the P.T. Barnums of the world for what they are.

Posted by dschaff at 01/21/2009 @ 6:04pm
I agree that many of the Founding Fathers preferred compromise: and indeed, too much of American history has been all about Burkean "compromise."

However, does that make it right? If we "compromised," we'd still be a British colony. We'd still have slavery, Jim Crow, inadequate protection for workers, and even fewer rights for women: in fact, many of the problems we are currently dealing with today (i.e., affirmative action, gross disparities in wealth, etc.) can be viewed as a natural consequence of "compromise."

Now for the French Revolution. Although it was not immediately successful, it was nonetheless a powerful lesson for western Europe, particularly Britain: if anything, it demonstrated ironically enough the need to "compromise"--that is, to attend to the needs of the so-called "lower and middling orders." This is why Britain slowly but grudgingly granted universal suffrage, imposed child labor laws, and allowed women access to higher education, to name only a few.

Of course, Paine himself was not perfect. He may have indulged in his cups perhaps a wee bit too much or may have been a little lax with his physical hygiene…but so what? When he is compared to other slave-holding Founding Fathers or those who sought only to protect the wealthy and well-born, Paine was a much better man--and a true Christian, whatever his deist beliefs. He was generous enough to donate nearly all of his earnings to both revolutions and other charitable causes. He abandoned work on his authoritative edition of his writings to attend to the issue of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase. All told, he truly was "his brother's keeper."

Posted by fac at 01/21/2009 @ 6:46pm
This is why Britain slowly but grudgingly granted universal suffrage, imposed child labor laws, and allowed women access to higher education, to name only a few.

in england yes, but not in the colonies.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 6:55pm
Posted by fac at 01/21/2009 @ 6:46pm

You know, you have a point there. There are probably some things we shouldn't compromise on, so why bother compromising on anything? In fact, we might be able to feel even purer if we try to find the most extreme position we can. We can also assume (with perfectly good reason) that anyone who happens to disagree with us is just evil. Or deluded. Or maybe even both. Now, that won't make for particularly happy political discourse, but we can at least say that we put our foot down and feel good about it.

One of my favorite moments in the movie Amazing Grace is a confrontation with a man heading, oddly enough, to France, because he wants to learn from the French Revolutionaries. It wasn't just "not quite what they were hoping for," unless you would include massive riots, lots of guillotine, and then Napoleon as little whoopsies. He yells at Wilberforce that they must fight for a perfect order. What he seems to forget is that in a world of perfect human beings, the search for perfection can make it very easy to sublimate all other goals (including lives) to that quest. That might be why perfectionism has been one of the most destructive forces in all of the world's history. Compromise entails a recognition that other human beings who disagree with you might in fact have valid points and concerns, and that though a perfect order is unattainable in a world of imperfect (I daresay, sinful) human beings, we should still strive for the best temporary and fallible remedies that we can get.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
I think I remember that very radical--was it Thomas Clarkson?

I think if anything history has shown that compromising only entails a further compounding problems. Again, the French Revolution illustrates this. Robespierre, Danton, and the rest only took the paranoid, violent measures they did in reaction to the counterrevolutionary efforts in Paris. This is partly how and why the revolution came to be so terribly derailed.

There are, of course, circumstances where compromise is necessary: and it's something that even Paine recognized when he wrote pamphlets recommending a federal bank despite being rather leery of the idea. He knew it was the only way to unite the 13 colonies. He was less than satisfied, however, with the implicit retention of slavery: this is why he continued to argue against it.

Perfectionism in itself is not wrong; instead, it's the misapplication of perfectionism or at least what might be deemed as such (i.e., W's "liberation" of Iraq). Because in the end there are ideas that are better than others in their respective spheres whatever our sense of moral relativism today.

Posted by fac at 01/21/2009 @ 9:01pm
see Jules Michelet, "history of the french revolution".

"Robespierre, Danton, and the rest only took the paranoid, violent measures they did in reaction to the counterrevolutionary efforts in Paris. "

I think it was more complicated than that.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 9:16pm
Being somewhat a flawed human myself, I find it funny that our vary language, both a major form of learned consensus and growing form of freedom to create new meaning, does not give enough clue of how we already work a successful compromise.

Some of us know many languages: much compromise; much freedom.

The flaw is never in compromise, it is in its subversion; a misdirection meant for growth, plowed asunder.

It's in the lie.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/21/2009 @ 10:10pm
Well, of course, it's a bit more complicated, for undoubtedly, the Jacobins did desire power for themselves. That's why I said "this is partly how and why the revolution came to be so derailed."

Btw, Michelet was writing only a few decades after the revolution, was he not? Hardly objective.

Posted by fac at 01/21/2009 @ 10:16pm
I think it was a case of I'm more revolutionary than thou.

the fact that Michelet was closer to the events speaks for him. it does not mean he was less than objective, if such a thing is even possible.

he was a giant among historians. you should read him.

I disagree with the Britannica article, that's the wiki entry.

here's a sample.

when the revolutionaries encountered a royalist, they would cut off his ears, and nail them to his forehead, coming back later to finish him off.

I also like to read Leopold von Ranke. very worthwhile.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 10:30pm
Michelet wrote his book around 1848, while the events took place around 1890.

it's like a historian writing today about the beginnings of the cold war, for instance.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 10:34pm
Posted by fac at 01/21/2009 @ 9:01pm

Yes! Thanks for refreshing my memory; it was him all right. I take it you enjoyed the movie?

I think you're right to an extent, that misapplication of perfectionism is the problem. First off, I don't think it's all the problem, though, because this isn't just a question of whether there are objective moral truths that we have access to. Aiming for a perfect moral order while settling for nothing less (if that's what you're defending as perfectionism) ignores the fallibility and corruptibility of human beings. One of the best examples of this, I think, can be found in our almost intuitive rejection of any kind of benevolent dictatorship. No matter how good we think a person is, and how imperfect we think democracy is, I don't think we'd ever be OK with giving one individual absolute power, and for good reason. Power can corrupt anyone, and we are wise to guard against that danger. Our choice is almost always between imperfect systems.

Second, I think there's a distinction between recognizing objective moral truths and possessing an indubitable answer for how those have to apply to a particular situation (especially because different situations often involve clashing moral claims). That, I would argue, is one of the largest areas in current political discourse where compromise is absolutely essential.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/21/2009 @ 11:14pm
Your first example is fascinating is because it's one that Paine and other radicals of the time did in fact use in their defense of republican governments. They fully acknowledged that republics and monarchies had their own unique advantages and disadvantages but also knew that overall republics were still less susceptible to corruption and fraud--and hence more "virtuous." (And thank God: would we want a Bush dynasty? Or a Clinton one?) They were right not to compromise on that.

Yes, I enjoyed Amazing Grace: and I think the story of Wilberforce is one that demonstrates the very strength of conviction.

Posted by fac at 01/22/2009 @ 12:08am
I'm a fifth-grade teacher, and an intrical part of teaching civics is providing students with our primary sources: the founding documents. This is critical in understanding what "We the People" really means. Today, as they did over 230 years ago, those documents instill in students the belief that all our voices are important. Everyone of our citizens are given the right to pursue liberty. Futures do not have to be inevitable and "Little voices" can make dramatic impacts on events. That is Thomas Paine's greatest contribution to our country. His pamphlet, Common Sense, spoke to ALL the voices in the 13 colonies during a time of great fear and indecision. He gave a vast number of citizens a vision of what each could do, 176 days before the Declaration of Independence. A belief that power should radiate from the citizens. That message is still paramount to all our students today. For that pamphlet alone, Paine needs to be recognized everywhere as a intrical part of the American miracle.

Mark Wilensky, author of "The Elementary Common Sense of Thomas Paine: An Interactive Adaptation for All Ages" www.NewCommonSenseBook.com

Posted by markwilensky at 01/22/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by fac at 01/22/2009 @ 12:08am 

Agreed, but I think it's important to note that seeking a republican government automatically entails a rejection of any search for perfection. It is, after all, a system that by definition is built upon compromise. In order to secure majorities from people with very different beliefs, you almost always have to find some common middle ground with them. That doesn't mean that you won't find some essentials on which you don't compromise; it just means that you should be very relucant to assume that compromise is the wrong way to go. The presumption, in other words, should be in favor of seeking compromise. It can be overcome in some cases (such as, for instance, the slave trade), but it should be a strong presumption nonetheless. And if the system's own structure doesn't encourage compromise, innate human fallibility (both moral and logical) should.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/22/2009 @ 10:23pm
While I agree that a republican government intrinsically involves a certain degree of compromise--since it was after all a reaction to the hegemonic design of monarchical governments--I would disagree that it entails a rejection of the search for perfection. Indeed, the very appeal of republican governments in late 18th century America and Europe was because it was believed to be the closest form of a perfect government: that it was one that would be much more responsive to the vast majority of the people rather than merely to the minority of titled property owners. They believed that a responsive government would alleviate (not eradicate) the ills of poverty and injustice.

Btw, I'm not denying the existence or even the values of compromise. I've also mentioned that even Paine himself knew it was necessary at times for the accomplishment of a larger goal.

In the end, he knew better than to give up when fighting for American independence, challenging Silas Deane's corruption, and yes, fighting for the life of Louis XVI. This is what makes him such an outstanding character in Western history. And think about it: had British radicals and reformers stood their ground in the 1780s and 90s , they wouldn't have had to wait for more than nearly a century for universal (male) suffrage. Similarly, if the Founding Fathers hadn't dragged their feet over slavery, we wouldn't have had the Civil War or be dealing with affirmative action today.

As Mark Steele has said (and I paraphrase), we can't all be Tom Paines--but we can certainly try to be little ones. There are times and circumstances when we should not be content with compromise.

Posted by fac at 01/23/2009 @ 12:37am
Now they want to compromise. before it was our way or the highway. Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:29pm

As always-- they'll take whatever they can get away with. Posted by hsuBfools at 01/21/2009 @ 2:26pm

..................................

Exactly. During the same week Anne Coulter AND lvlib said something positive about Obama's speech. Should I be confused or paranoid? Or both?

Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 01:32am
I think your discussions on compromise are misplaced. The issue in the American Revolution was for most of those in power--how to get the masses behind them to throw off the British, and then how to limit the masses' built up expectations for participation in a new government after the British are gone. The original constitution shows this motive quite clearly--the mass of people should only be spectators of the political shenanigans of the politicians--not to have their own ideas or pursue their own interests, just vote on the issues and interests presented to them by the rich. There's nothing about compromise here. Indeed, we've devolved so bad that for the general public, there are no issues left being discussed in any substantive or thoughtful way by the standard 2 party candidates.

Posted by dschaff at 01/26/2009 @ 7:22pm