"A new era for politics is struck; a new method of thinking has arisen." So proclaimed Thomas Paine in 1776, making the case for American independence. But Paine did not stop there. For the next forty-some years until his death in 1809, he continued to sound the call for change on both sides of the Atlantic: the eradication of hereditary government and privilege; enfranchisement for the common man; abolition of slavery; freedom from organized religion; a preliminary blueprint for Social Security; an end to barbaric punishments; and, not least, an end to unnecessary wars.
Fast forward two hundred years, from "We have it in our power to begin the world over again" to "Yes we can": it is hardly surprising that Paine's emphasis on change continues to reverberate in our nation -- and that Barack Obama himself would tap into this spirit by citing lines from Paine's first American Crisis paper in his inaugural speech. Yet, even with "change" on the national agenda, we are still left with that which Paine identified as the "curious phenomenon of a nation looking one way, and a government the other -- the one forward and the other backward." The issues of poverty, inequality, torture and faith-determined legislation (to name only a few) remain as vexed as ever.
This colloquium is organized by Frances A. Chiu, instructor in the Humanities and Social Sciences Departments at The New School. It commemorates the 200th anniversary of the death of Thomas Paine in conjunction with Chiu's course, "The Age of Paine: Radicalism, Revolution, and Reform." The course and the colloquium reflect upon Paine's achievements and legacy and their relevance in the 21st century.
Bio
Frances A. Chiu
Frances A. Chiu is an Instructor in the Humanities and Social Sciences Departments at The New School.
John Nichols
John Nichols is a noted U.S. commentator who writes for The Nation and was a visiting guest at the 2010 Walkley Media Conference.
Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government. Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century (seeThirty Years' War). Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right (seedivine kingship). In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance. In the U.S. the New Deal program undertaken by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of governmental activities and its increased regulation of business. After World War II a further expansion of social welfare programs occurred in Britain, Scandinavia, and the U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S. Contemporary liberalism remains committed to social reform, including reducing inequality and expanding individual rights. See alsoconservatism; individualism.
Thomas Paine, detail of a portrait by John Wesley Jarvis; in the Thomas Paine Memorial House, New …Courtesy of the Thomas Paine National Historical Association(born Jan. 29, 1737, Thetford, Norfolk, Eng.—died June 8, 1809, New York, N.Y., U.S.) English-American writer and political pampleteer. After a series of professional failures in England, he met Benjamin Franklin, who advised him to immigrate to America. He arrived in Philadelphia in 1774 and helped edit the Pennsylvania Magazine. In January 1776 he wrote Common Sense, a 50-page pamphlet eloquently advocating independence; more than 500,000 copies were quickly sold, and it greatly strengthened the colonists' resolve. As a volunteer aide to Gen. Nathanael Greene during the American Revolution he wrote his 16 “Crisis” papers (1776–83), each signed “Common Sense”; the first, beginning “These are the times that try men's souls,” was read to the troops at Valley Forge on George Washington's order. In 1787 Paine traveled to England and became involved in debate over the French Revolution; his The Rights of Man (1791–92) defended the revolution and espoused republicanism. Viewed as an attack on the monarchy, it was banned, and Paine was declared an outlaw in England. He then went to France, where he was elected to the National Convention (1792–93). After he criticized the Reign of Terror, he was imprisoned by Maximilien Robespierre (1793–94). His The Age of Reason (1794, 1796), the first part of which was published while he was still in prison, earned him a reputation as an atheist, though it in fact espouses Deism. He returned to the U.S. in 1802; criticized for his Deist writings and little remembered for his service to the Revolution, he died in poverty.
I don't think one of the founding fathers would. And why would Paine, Jefferson or any one of them condemn Iran for raising up against an absolute despot who was responsible for murdering over a hundred and fifty thousand of its own US citizens, only to be condemned for demonizing the country who nakedly engineered the coup that put him in power in the first place? Holistic Wellness Center
Paine would most certainly not be a Zionist. I don't think one of the founding fathers would. And why would Paine, Jefferson or any one of them condemn Iran for raising up against an absolute despot who was responsible for murdering over a hundred.Yaneto
Paine just didn't talk the talk, he walked the walk. He was against all forms of tyranny. How insane is it that after the bloody civil war, the horrors of reconstruction, and the progressiveness of the civil rights movement, incarcerating people is now run by private corporate interests? How crazy is it that American foreign policy is being dictated by a minuscule minority that has obviously bit off more than they can chew, and are obviously circling the drain, and determined to drag the whole world down with her, in an artificial state that would have failed fifty years ago without our unsustainable aid.? Paine would most certainly not be a Zionist. I don't think one of the founding fathers would. And why would Paine, Jefferson or any one of them condemn Iran for raising up against an absolute despot who was responsible for murdering over a hundred and fifty thousand of its own US citizens, only to be condemned for demonizing the country who nakedly engineered the coup that put him in power in the first place? Do you understand now, Mr. Majid?
I don't think that Thomas Paine would see the health care issue as the big crisis that would make him so unpopular. He'd be focusing and criticizing the body politic about the The New Jim Crow... the mass incarceration of Black Males, the blind support of the Zionist State, and the blind condemnation of Iran, and the freedom that we've given to The Corporations to control both parties.
member. 
