What Has Been Forgotten About our Common Sense Founding

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 November 15, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To the extent that America may be said to have a central idea, common sense is the key to understanding it.

America’s Founders used the term “common sense”with regularity, and common sense operated at every level during the Founding Era, starting with the American Revolution itself.

Indeed, Common Sense is the title of that famous book by Thomas Paine. It was so popular before that Revolution that it was read by virtually every literate American at the time, and it was read aloud to most of those who could not read. In the book, Paine subjected the idea of rule by monarchs to a common sense scrutiny, ridiculed monarchy, and convinced enough Americans they did not need a king—which made the Revolution a practical possibility. It is no exaggeration to say that without Thomas Paine, there could not have been an American Revolution because Paine uncovered that common sense sentiment in the hearts of Americans that yearns for and believes itself capable of self-rule.

And for all of our troubles and the problems that muddle our confidence, we Americans remain convinced of that today—thanks to Paine and to that spirit of self-government that has dominated the American narrative since the Revolution. Paine won that argument. It changed the way we think in America. If someone were to propose tomorrow that what America really needs is a king to substitute his judgment for our own about how we ought to be governed, ordinary American citizens would dismiss the idea as ridiculous and its proponent as some kind of an eccentric.

We wouldn’t give up our right to self-government to a king today, but perhaps we might still be deceived into giving away that power in other ways.

It is important to remember that, at the time, Paine could not have gotten away with publishing his book anywhere except in America. Monarchs in those days were accepted as a necessity, publishing a book that challenged the idea of monarchy could result in a separation of head from body.

The common sense idea that Americans are capable of self-rule, however, was something that Americans already felt in their bones and experienced on a daily basis before Paine articulated it. According to the Founders, the same common sense that Paine used to show we don’t need a king also made it clear that we can, and should (!), rule ourselves. The Founders put their faith in the common sense of their fellow Americans and in the proposition that we would continue to be a people who valued that sense and had pride in our ability to govern ourselves.

If we stop and think about it, we would realize that we constantly rely on our common sense to guide our actions and to make our choices every day. The same common sense that lets us  function in everyday life also makes us capable of functioning as citizens. No human being is born so superior to any of us that he has a natural right to rule us. The best we can expect is the best that we can do. So in the American system citizens rule and we get the kind of government that we deserve.

Common sense was also was a key idea on the level of the formal philosophy that shaped the Founders’ thinking. Just as a book titled Common Sense powered the Revolution, the Founders’ understanding of common sense was formed by a brilliant philosophical tradition that also went by the name of common sense. It was called “common sense realism.”

According to that view, common sense is what enables us to make sensible decisions and take sensible actions in our daily lives, and it is also what allows us to know right from wrong. Reason sets us apart from the beasts and the gods. We are all equals before the one true God who is the only being superior to us, and equals in front of beasts who do not share in our capacity for reason. When we decide to put money aside for a rainy day or when we recognize a dishonest action for what it is, we are exercising common sense. Common sense, then, is the attribute of human nature that makes us capable of being rational beings and moral agents.

For the Founders it is self-evident that we have unalienable rights to life and liberty because we are rational beings and moral agents, beings that are capable of giving reasons and understanding reasons. Our unalienable rights are ours because those rights are part of what it is to be a rational and moral being. The argument is easy to follow: we know by common sense that murder is wrong. That means we have an unalienable right to life.

If by now you have guessed that the phrases “unalienable rights” and “self-evident truths” in the Declaration of Independence came from that philosophical tradition, you are right.

Because we have common sense, the Founders believed, we are capable of ruling ourselves and because of the kind of creatures we are, any other kind of government is illegitimate. Only a system of self-rule that recognizes our unalienable rights can be legitimate.

The Founders provided for self-rule by means of a government populated by fellow citizens we select with our votes. Those selected to serve are our agents, not our rulers.

“It is the plain dictate of common sense,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “and the whole political system is founded on the idea, that the departments of government are the agents of the nation.” Marshall nicely summed up the Founders’ view.

Our task as citizens is to select people for public office wisely. For the Founders, common sense is essential to that all-important task. Of course, we can make mistakes in the leaders we choose, but we make mistakes and we also make good decisions all the time in our daily lives. The Founders’ system is designed with this fact in mind. Elections to political office are for a limited and specified number of years so that we can correct a mistaken choice when we discover we have made one.

So, common sense shows up everywhere in the Founding and at every level; in justifying getting rid of monarchical rule; as the attribute which makes self-rule possible; and as the defining feature of the formal philosophy that guided the thinking of the Founders.

What has been forgotten is that common sense is the key to understanding the Founders just as it is the key to securing free government today. If we lose our belief in our capacity to govern ourselves and, instead, imagine that we need experts to replace the monarchs of old—people who “know better” about what our best interests are or should be—then we will be a long way toward rejecting the proud inheritance of our Founders. We should use our common sense to avoid that fate.

 

About the Author:

Robert Curry
Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute and is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea from Encounter Books. You can preview the book at: http://www.amazon.com/Common-Sense-Nation-Unlocking-Forgotten/dp/1594038252 He also serves on the Board of Distinguished Advisors for the Ronald Reagan Center for Freedom and Understanding.
Loading...

14 Comments

  1. Marathon-Youth November 15, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Well written about our Founding Fathers and the Founding documents that defined a nation. That system held well when we were 13 colonies. It began to break down through the 19th century and reached a catastrophic moment in 1881 when 2 armies (Confederate and Union), in two territories, the Confederacy and the United States, two Capitals, DC and Richmond, and 2 currencies. Confederate and US dollar
    The result was ‘unity by force and the gun’. The system of consenting states died in 1865.
    Then it progressively got worse.
    1913 the Federal Reserve, IRS, Anti Defamation League and the FBI came into being.
    After ww1 and 2 the US was facing a Communist world and communism was changing America, especially due to the Frankfurt School of Marxism
    and
    a powerful Elite rose The elite of America are so wealthy their combined income is greater than most nations. and they control most of America’s wealth including most major banks around the world.
    We have now a government beholden to them and not to us I doubt George Washington would like what he sees today.
    i

    • Michael Morel November 18, 2017 at 6:50 pm

      I don’t think George Washington, who founded the federal government, would have been in favor of breaking the nation in two. And it’s perhaps just a little presumptuous to assert that everything bad that happened after the Civil War was because the nation remained intact, and could have been avoided if the Confederacy won. The undemocratic influence of elites on our government today is appalling, no doubt, but it’s not like the south was some kind of egalitarian paradise, nor was the greater government representative of even half of the people back then, but only property holding men.

  2. Marathon-Youth November 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    Next to Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” is Adam Smith’s book “Wealth of Nations”, one of the best books on Capitalism. By the 19th century new books changed the west. Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” and its economic solution of Collectivism, to Marx and Engels “Communist Manifesto”. Together they represent a system and economics that opposes everything the Founding Fathers stood for.

    • Robert Curry November 15, 2017 at 4:50 pm

      Dear Marathon-Youth,
      Thank you for this excellent comment.
      Yes ! and Paine’s Common Sense & Wealth of Nations both appeared in that banner year of 1776. That’s a wow!
      And indeed yes, those new 19th century books were to change the West–for the worse. They initiated the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of wealth and productivity on a scale that is simply beyond imagining.
      With best wishes

      • Marathon-Youth November 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

        Thank you Mr. Curry.

    • Robert Curry November 16, 2017 at 8:19 am

      Yes, Marx et. al. opposed everything the Founding Fathers stood for. And how have those ideas done?
      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/zimbabwes-coup-venezuelas-default-and-the-ongoing-failure-of-socialism/

      • Marathon-Youth November 17, 2017 at 3:01 pm

        I just checked the website you have in your comment and it is a valid point but I see little of Marxism in the collapse of the Venezuelan economy though Marxism has wrought terrible things including the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.

        However Karl Marx has effected our society in a far more fundamental manner. The Frankfurt school of Cultural Marxism is the underpinning reason for the demise of American traditional and Christian values. It is the reason why the values in our Constitution are not having the intended effect. We did not devolve in an organic manner. It was deliberately done.

        Cultural Marxism has damaged America across the board. in the last week I have read “Cultural Marxism” stated in a couple of Websites and articles dealing with the depravity of Hollywood to Left wing social policies the predatory nature of business and politics
        If you Google ‘the 45 Goals of Communism to bring down America” you maybe amazed on the number of Goals that have been achieved especially from # 15 down.

      • Marathon-Youth November 17, 2017 at 3:03 pm

        What constitutes the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism is not the same as the “45 Goals of Communism”. If you were not aware of this I just wanted to make that is clear since I mentioned both in my comment without differentiating between the two.

        • Robert Curry November 17, 2017 at 5:27 pm

          Thank you very much for the clarification.
          Achieving clarity in commenting on an article is really challenging, isn’t it? I am somewhat surprised by how often I often must use the “edit” feature in the comment section to get my comment right.
          Wishing you the best

          • Marathon-Youth November 17, 2017 at 5:59 pm

            True. I just read what I posted to you and see grammatical mistakes. Hopefully my post is clear enough despite them.

  3. Michael Morel November 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    The article makes a good point. However, there is nothing wrong with seeking to elect someone we think is extraordinary, indeed we should vote for who we think would govern us best. The question then becomes, is that person an “expert” or an “elite” or just someone we admire or think has good leadership qualities? It’s a bit hard to draw that line. But before you know it, you’ll have a professional class of politicians and experts instead of normal citizens running the show, as the author suggests was the Founder’s intention. Yet, it’s important not to idealize the founders. Indeed many of them were rich polymath elites, or the experts of their day, and far from common everyday citizens. If we actually sought to be governed by mere everyday citizens, instead of choosing who we think are the best to lead us, then we shouldn’t have elections but instead a random rotation of citizens that cycle in and out of government roles. That would be an amazing experiment, but risky, and perhaps against our… common sense 🙂

    • Robert Curry November 19, 2017 at 8:12 am

      Dear Mr. Morel,
      Thank you for your comments.
      I certainly agree with you that there was nothing “everyday” about the founders. From the article that is a companion to this one:
      “Though the American system of government is the most radical design for a system of liberty ever conceived, it is readily understood by means of common sense because it was designed by common sense realists who were also astonishingly “wise and good.””
      And I also agree that we must strive to choose the best when we vote. From that same article:
      “It is our common sense and our love of the common good that equip us to recognize and to choose those who are “wise and good”—or in the instance of a choice narrowed down to two, the one who has the most common sense and the most love of the common good.”

      • Michael Morel November 19, 2017 at 2:52 pm

        Thanks for taking the time for a thoughtful reply and helpful links, max respect. – Mike

        • Robert Curry November 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm

          You are very welcome!
          I appreciate your interest and your seriousness. – Bob

Comments are closed.