Rights of Man [Paperback]

Paine and Burke were originally allies; Burke not only supported self-rule for the American colonies, he also supported the emancipation of the House of Commons from monarchical control and the independence of both Ireland and India. Many of his allies, then, were bewildered by his fervent opposition to the French Revolution; Burke drew the line between territorial autonomy from a distant or aloof government and the total overthrow of existing monarchies and institutions. For Burke, humankind's real enemies were drastic change and "unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos," and he proved himself a staunch defender of the status quo, of precedent, and of gradual reform.

Jerry Muller, in his recent--and superb--book "The Mind and the Market" asserts that Burke's denunciation of the French revolution is "the single most influential work of conservative thought published from his day to ours." (This, of course, depends on what one means by "conservative.") Yet Muller and likeminded historians inevitably cherry-pick Burke's more attractive economic and philosophical arguments and foreground Burke's critique, in Muller's words, "of the revolutionary mentality that attempts to create entirely new structures on the basis of rational, abstract principles." (Muller doesn't even mention Paine, much less the example of the United States.) Such a focus inevitably sidesteps Burke's brief for the supremacy of European monarchical institutions and of the landed aristocracy. And that's where Paine comes in.

With his usual acerbic wit and extravagant rhetoric, Paine, in the first part of his treatise, makes mincemeat out of Burke's sillier statements. For example, he finds especially unspeakable Burke's claim that that "the English nation did, at the time of the [1688] Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate [the right of self-rule], for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever." Paine correctly challenges the primacy of a decision made by members of that generation over desires of other generations, questions the right of any generation to surrender the rights of their descendants, and notes that "government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it."

He also chastises the English for a system of hereditary government that virtually guarantees unfettered rule by children, madmen, idiots, and foreign-born pretenders (and he certainly has plenty of examples from which to choose), many of whom led their realms into chaos and terror without the help of radical revolutionaries. And Paine argues that wars would cease with the promotion of democracy and the cessation of the selfish interests of absolutists. His critics rightly respond that the rise of democratic institutions has hardly stopped wars, although one might pose the counterargument that, relatively speaking, democratic governments go to war with each other much less frequently.

In the second part, Paine proposes a radical agenda for an overhaul of the British government. Although his anecdotally based statistics and figures must be viewed with skepticism and a few laughs, the prescience of his proposals is startling: poverty relief, social security, public education, maternity care, homeless shelters, workfare, veteran's benefits, and progressive taxation. His is the agenda of the idealist: "When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive . . . when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government."

Paine, of course, had the nascent United States to cite in support of his proposals, but he and Burke were debating these matters before the onset of the Jacobin Reign of Terror, which dismayed Paine and seems to have realized Burke's worst fears. Yet, throughout history, for every Robespierre or Lenin, one can find a Mandela or a Walesa; monarchies too were no strangers to upheaval. Paine hardly argued for "mob rule" or even "majority rule"; the French Revolution failed in part because it violated the fundamental tenet that the citizens of each nation have a right to choose whatever rule they please, even "a bad or defective government, . . . so long as the majority to not impose conditions on the minority, different to what they impose on themselves"--a caveat we all should take to heart in today's political climate.