Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Ouf-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

As a fan on Thomas Paine (especially Common Sense and Age of Reason), I was very much excited to read Beck's book. After the first few chapters, I realized there is almost NO connection at all to Paine's work. It seems that it is more of marketing ploy to attach one's name to Paine and use a famous title of Paine's work that inspired a nation, to generate book sales. That initial frustration got me off to a bad start. That is of course in no way reflects Beck's view or his writing. However, I was "fooled" thinking this was a revisit of that classic work "Common Sense" to modern times. Unfortunately the book, other than title, has little if any connection to Paine's work.

Ironically - for those unfamiliar to Paine's work, but a fan of Becks - I wonder how they would find Paine's "Age of Reason" - it would almost stand to reason that he would lose half (if not more) of his supporters if he visited "Age of Reason" - he might even lose his show on Fox. Note any reference to that work is completely devoid in this book (which is a shame - if it where REALLY a tribute or inspiration of Paine - which I begin to wonder.)

However, are we to judge or compare Paine to Beck? Of course not and this certainly is NOT even close to measuring up to any of Paine's works. But the question is it worth the read?

Beck's writing is very weak and many cases repetitive. Not able to grasp tangible arguments he sometimes ventures down ad hominem methods - which lower the value of his arguments. It is important to note that regardless if I agree or disagree with some of this points, his methods and suspicions are conjecture and rudimentary. The connections to past affiliations can lead to suspicion, but certainly does not make the case. It's is logical in approach, but fails in Reason - and that is probably the greatest flaw in Beck's work (as compared to Paine).

Paine used "reason", not just logic to forward his view and arguments, Beck falls flat in this regard. Beck's approach is simple (and I hate to say, but kindergarten) logic. If X is Y, and Y is Z, then Z must be X. On the surface you can make some very stunning conclusions, but the logic is flawed by reason - (unfortunately).

I say unfortunately because Beck has some important points to make and does bring dialogue to the table as per the state of our federal government. This is an important debate as to where we are going, what our future holds, what is the role of the government. However, his ability to string a fluid thought process together with not just logic, but also reason, in order to give weight to his message fails. It is geared way below the bar and is so embarrassingly written for such an important topic that he does his view a disservice.

Beck's problem is not his message, it's his delivery. It reads poorly and a ranting narrative trying to connect minutia based on logic. It most certainly will charge both the left and right (just like his show), but don't expect intelligent debate.

5 stars for a rehash of Beck's message, introducing people to a great and important work (Common Sense). If you love his delivery and his message - then by all means - purchase this book.

1 star for offering any intelligent debate that goes beyond a basic dot-to-dot connection on some frivolous examples. I really wanted this to be an inspirational book, but it significantly falls flat. Unfortunatly it reads as if the town jester is giving an inspiring message.

-5 (that's negative) stars - for making any connection to one of the most important works in U.S. political history, "Common Sense". I would suggest reading "Common Sense", "Age of Reason", "Federalist Papers", and "Anti-Federalist Papers" - to see not only how logic and reason collectively work together, but to gain insight as to what Beck is TRYING to accomplish in this very rudimentary work. At the very least he brings awarness.

The book should be called "Beck's Sense" (logic without reason)

This great quote by Paine explains why the book fails to deliver its important message:
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."

Reviewers Politics: Libertarian/ Laissez Faire

I bought both books paper back and audio used the audio and found it interesting. Now Beck has done a turn around and got into promoting the very pepole he was talking down.
I dont listen to the show and dont buy any more books.
But did enjoy this audio when it first came out.

Well, I just finished Glenn Beck's "Common Sense," which, according to Beck, was "Inspired by Thomas Paine." Beck has clearly never truly read Thomas Paine and knows very little about him, his history, or his beliefs. For many readers, pages one to seven seem to make a lot of sense. There are some general and specific criticisms about government spending and corruption in Congress I agree with. Who wouldn't? But Beck's attempt to connect his neo-conservative positions with Founding Father Thomas Paine is shockingly ignorant of both Paine and American history.

Beck uses this book - and Paine's name - to criticize "Progressivism," blaming it for much of what ails the country. Sadly, this is a complete distortion of Paine's legacy. While the extent of most Americans' knowledge of Paine is "he wrote Common Sense, I teach his work in class every year. I use "The Crisis" and selections from "The Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason." If you want to understand Paine and his vision for America, you should read them. Beck doesn't understand Paine, but he does want to use the credibility of "The Founding Fathers" to promote an anti-government message.

Far from opposing "progressivism," Thomas Paine is one of the original "Progressives," though at the time he was called a radical for his liberal views. He is commonly associated with the origins of American liberalism. "Common Sense" was one small piece of his work - it was a pamphlet simply designed to encourage revolution against Britain. Paine later clearly outlined his vision of what he thought American government should look like. This is where Beck falls off the apple cart.

Beck uses this book to openly criticize progressive taxation, public education, social security, and "the progressive agenda." But readers should know something - Thomas Paine was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation, even drawing up tables and rates.

He was also the first proponent of the estate tax. And in Agrarian Justice he proposed a democratic ideal to combat poverty and income inequality by taxing the wealthy to give jobs and "grants" to young people. He also proposed using this system to provide government-sponsored pensions for the elderly. Historians cite Paine's Agrarian Justice as the earliest call for a national old-age pension - ie. Social Security. He wanted to tax the rich and give money to the poor.

He joined Thomas Jefferson in strongly advocating universal tax-supported public education, believing it was necessary to promote an educated electorate and was a necessary way to combat poverty. Paine also sought a federally guaranteed minimum wage, and long before Woodrow Wilson, Paine urged the establishment of, and US participation in, global organizations to help solve international problems and avoid wars.

Yet, this is all lost on Glenn Beck.

Beck criticizes Progressives for leading the United States away from its original purpose. He even goes as far as chastising Teddy Roosevelt. That's pretty bold for a guy whose only contribution to the United States has been as an entertainer. Has Glenn Beck completely forgotten "The Gilded Age"? While Beck, for whatever reason, is disturbed by progressive ideals, he fails to concede the un-democratic conditions that led to the desire of Americans for the rise of progressive reforms.

In fact, if you look at American history from 1776 to 1900 and from 1900 to present, you will see that Beck is right in that progressives shaped America into the country that it is. It's one with a thriving middle class, reasonably safe food and water, no child labor, forty hour workweeks, etc. If Beck wants to dismiss Progressives and return to life under President McKinley or Harding with robber barons running the economy and the atrocious work conditions chronicled by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, he's crazy. Beck has never known what it would be like to live in an America not guided by the leadership of progressives. Instead, he lives comfortably in a nation defined by liberal and progressive policies, and then audaciously challenges the very notion of the peaceful prosperity they provide.

Beck ironically praises "our political leaders" that could inspire us to "defeat Nazism and fascism," and then goes on to criticize that leader - FDR - as helping destroy the country. Beck doesn't even concede that the United States would never have been able to wage WWII or build the Atomic Bomb or put a man on the moon or wage and win the Cold War if it weren't for the large-scale ability of the federal government to raise revenue, mainly through progressive taxation. He reviews the original foundation of the United States government in the Articles of Confederation, acknowledging that it failed because it was too weak, and then heaps his praise on the Constitution. However, he doesn't concede that the significant difference in power given to the federal government in the Constitution was the power to levy taxes. Even conservative Edmund Burke knew that "the revenue of the state is the state." Thus, weak revenue gathering equals weak government. And a weak federal government would never have been able to respond to two World Wars, the Cold War, and two Iraq wars.

Beck goes on to criticize Hillary Clinton and the public education system for "suggesting the community has a vested interest in what each child is taught." Who doesn't believe that? He offers no alternative proposals for how education should be carried out. Though I hardly believe he is proposing the end of public education. That would be so un-Jeffersonian, another Founding Father.

On page 99, Beck shifts from a scathing criticism of public education to promote God and religion in public life. This is completely disingenuous in a book "inspired by Thomas Paine." Paine was a deist who vigorously opposed Christianity or any organized religion. He often called himself an atheist. Paine was very anti-Christianity. He vehemently opposed the government supporting religion in any way. In fact, in his later life, he was practically exiled from the country because of his criticism of religion in America.

A few other criticisms:

On page 61, Beck paraphrases Barry Goldwater's quote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have," and doesn't even give the original mind credit.

On page 17, Beck paraphrases the well-known "You can't save the poor by destroying the rich" quote from Reverend William J. H. Boetcke and again doesn't give credit. Historians and English teachers call this plagiarism.

Finally, Beck writes a mere 111 pages, and then re-prints all of Paine's "Common Sense" which is in the public domain - and he charges $12.00 for the book. What a sham. I'm glad I checked it out of the library, but I hate that my library spent taxpayer funds on it. They should have waited until it was in the bargain bin for $.99

That's why Beck is disingenuous. He is a hack, and while I occasionally enjoyed some of his earlier work - I've read all three of his books - I am sadly disappointed in this mis-use of one of America's Founding Fathers. Beck says Americans do not know their history, but he is one of them, and with this book he is counting on their ignorance. Ultimately, he is

From what I know of American history, Thomas Paine would have been appalled by Beck associating their two ideologies, and he would have bitch-slapped Beck. And Beck would have deserved it.