Introduction
Shortly after arriving in America, Thomas Paine persuaded the American people to fight for independence against the 18th century’s super power. Not just any war, but a war that, by all accounts, could not be won. The circulation of Common Sense is estimated at 500,000 copies, and one-fifth of pre-war America was exposed to it. By today’s standards, Common Sense is still the nation’s best-seller. No other book has influenced a nation as strongly as Paine influenced America. Prior to his pamphlet, most Americans supported the British crown and did not wish to separate from their monarch. Paine converted them to the revolutionary cause with simple, straightforward prose that was tailored for the most common American. By presenting other philosopher’s beliefs in an accessible way, he spread the ideals of Locke and Rousseau much farther than ever before. Most importantly, he gave voice to an entire nation’s grievances and inspired them to believe they could govern themselves. As a result, the rhetoric of Thomas Paine built America’s national identity and intertwined the concept of common sense–a self-evident truth–with democracy. Today, politicians and citizens alike invoke common sense in political debate.
Description of Sources
The sources have a wide variety of publication dates. The oldest being Harry Hayden Clark’s Thomas Paine’s Theories of Rhetoric, which was published in 1933. Conversely, the newest is the 2012 publication of Denae Brack’s Daniel Hannan, Thomas Paine, and the Rhetoric of Outrage. However, seven of these sources were written after the year 2000. This suggests that while more than two hundred years have passed since Common Sense was published, scholars are still interested in how and why Thomas Paine is considered such an effective rhetor. By far the most encompassing sources are Robert Ferguson’s The Commonalities of Common Sense, which looks at both the literary effects of Paine’s prose as well as what Paine’s persuasion of Americans reveals about democracy itself, and David Hoffman’s Paine and Prejudice: Rhetorical Leadership Through Perceptual Framing in Common Sense, which looks at how Paine framed his argument.
These sources rarely oppose each other, but rather highlight more in-depth elements that other scholars neglected or considered of little consequence. For instance, while a great many of these sources consider Paine’s use of biblical scriptures to be nothing more than a device of audience analysis to win Protestant Americans to the cause and therefore only briefly speak of the text’s religious connotations, Bernard Vincent filled that gap by providing a more in-depth perspective on why Paine approached biblical scriptures in a somewhat insincere way but emphasized that not all his religious connotations were insincere. In fact, a good deal of these sources overlap each other and quote much of the same research.
Findings
Since there are many in-depth interpretations on the causes and effects Paine’s mastery of rhetoric and influence on both American citizens and America as a nation, the first section will focus on the rhetorical framing and devices of Common Sense and the external factors which led to its success. The next sections will focus on the effect of Common Sense and The Rights of Man on America’s national identity, as well as democracy. The last section will discuss the technical elements of Paine’s prose and the reasons scholars feel it was effective. Much of this research overlaps and it will be hard to completely separate the three from each other.
Paine’s Rhetorical Devices and Framing
David Hoffman illustrates that the external factors surrounding Common Sense’s success are timing and place of publication. He argues against the older rhetorical scholars who have placed heavy emphasis on these external factors and have painted Paine as a lucky rhetor. Common Sense was released the day news of King George III’s speech reached the colonies. This speech declared that the colonies were in open rebellion, which appalled the colonists due to the extreme measures they had taken to convince to the crown that they were not rebelling against him. Additionally, Common Sense was published in Philadelphia, the printing hub of the thirteen colonies, which ensured a wide-distribution network.
Hoffman next asserts that the success of Common Sense is largely owed to Paine’s own rhetorical framing of the word prejudice, his created ethos as a self-reliant, straightforward individualist, and his symbolic killing of King George III. Hoffman argues that Paine employs the word prejudice as a rhetorical device. Paine throws off historical traditions and claims that anyone who feels bound to custom and habit needs to open their minds beyond their current prejudices. Paine’s ethos was an important rhetorical device as well because it put faith in the order of nature. Paine conveyed a faith in self-reliance that gave the colonists faith they could govern themselves.
Hoffman and Jeffrey Walker both reference the rhetorical importance of symbolically killing King George III. Walker asserts that Paine’s rhetoric utilized an implied syllogism: all kings are despicable, and George III is a king.
Beyond this syllogism, Walker attributes Paine’s use of enthymemic anger, a pathos-theory, as a source of Common Sense’s success. Walker maintains that Paine does not speak in a voice of rage but rather inspires rage in the reader. Paine begins by presenting indignation in the reader and slowly building upon this emotion until the colonists were forced to choose between living in shame under the monarchy or fighting against it. But instead of leaving the audience angry, Paine presents the last section of Common Sense as a source of hope. He speaks of how the new government will function as if they’ve already won the war. This rhetorical device has the effect of both inspiring hatred toward living under the crown and hope toward living without it. Walker believes this is a rare pathos-based device that doesn’t reduce the rhetor to a caricature.
Furthermore, Rosenfeld highlights how Paine uses common sense itself as a rhetorical device–for the first time in history, though it has been invoked by Americans ever since. Instead of using common sense with its traditional connotation, he uses the term to place himself outside popular opinion and shocks the audience into seeing his own view. Where before common sense was a term rooted in mass behavior and general consent, Paine now uses it as if he was the only one with common sense, and to have this common sense, the reader had to convert their way of thinking to his. This revelation dovetails nicely with the next section.
Thomas Paine’s Lasting Legacy on American Identity
Robert Ferguson points out that much of our national terminology, including the term “United States of America,” was first seen in the writing of Thomas Paine. He outlines the ways Paine’s rhetorical patterns have become embedded in our national identity and our political language. For instance, he describes Common Sense as a dualistic form of rhetoric that challenges the institutions of government while simultaneously commending a democratic government. Ferguson believes that this duality is indicative of a manic-depressive undertone that is present in current political rhetoric as well. Additionally, Ferguson specifies that what made Paine’s rhetoric more successful than other works espousing the same beliefs was that Paine recognized the economic concerns of the state would be boring. To up the drama, Paine presented the conflict steeped in crisis, which added a sense of urgency to his words. And ironically, Paine juxtaposes this crisis with the claim that his intended purpose is to present only facts and rational argument.
Like all scholars who’ve studied Common Sense, Robert Dennehy, Sandra Morgan, and Pauline Assenza Common Sense consider the pamphlet to be an agent of change within America. They claim Common Sense provides a narrative identity for both Americans and democracy and point to its rhetorical devices as examples of effective communication strategies to illicit change. This research begins to bring Common Sense beyond the scope of its effect on America and into the sphere of an effect on democracy in general.
Thomas Paine’s Prose Style
Harry Hayden Clark outlines Paine’s preference for seven literary techniques: clear and efficient prose, boldness, wit, pathos, the balance of judgment and reason, writing in the way the common people spoke, and rhetorical arrangement. The most important factor in Paine’s stylistic success was that, by writing the way that was naturally spoken, he embodied the ideals he was celebrating. This was an intentional shaking off of the classical language style, which was highly stylized, associated with the aristocracy, and difficult for the uneducated to understand.
Clark also believes Paine was heavily influenced by the simple (and well-educated) writing of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. He believes that, though Paine’s own poetic impulses were repressed through his interaction with these men, those very devices echoed throughout Paine’s powerful delivery of cadence and contributed to its success.
John Turner illustrates how Paine used Lockean principles of writing transparent language. This is a deliberate writing mechanism that never draws attention to writing itself. Instead, the focus is on the ideas, and the ideas are rooted in the rational, scientific order of nature. Furthermore, Paine followed the Lockean tradition of using words as the basic meaning of language instead of classical tradition of sentences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while some nineteenth and twentieth century scholars credit the success of Common Sense on Paine’s simple and clear prose style, the majority of sources from the 1970s up to today believe he employed several rhetorical devices. Scholars of the previous two centuries believed Paine ignorant of rhetoric in general, which perhaps makes his success and employment of such powerful rhetorical devices all the more striking. However, Clark pointed out that the air in the colonies was heavy with educated concepts, and while Paine may not have studied them himself, he likely absorbed many of these philosophical influences.
The drama inherent in Common Sense reveals a lot about the political landscape today. Politicians and the media frequently frame mundane and trivial matters on a much more conflict-filled stage. It worked for Common Sense, and while many of us roll our eyes at it now, many within the masses are still enchanted and driven by this rhetorical creation of urgency and fear.
Hogan, Michael J. and Glen Williams. Republican Charisma and the American Revolution: the Textual Persona of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86:1 (2000): 1-18. University of Texas Library. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
Hogan and Williams, both Speech Communication professors, claim that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense shaped both the American Revolution and a new language of rhetoric (8).
Problem, Cost, Change
While the phenomenon of Common Sense can still be viewed as an enigma and despite that some scholars have written it off as an emotional appeal to the masses, theses authors argue that Paine textually embodied the ideals he was advocating for (3).
Proof
First, the authors assert that though Paine had failed at quite a few things and probably wasn’t considered charismatic in his own right, his plain and simple prose style spoke to, and perfectly captured, the “ideological ethos of Revolutionary America” (7). They illustrate that this pamphlet created a new style of rhetoric that became the basis of republican ethos by rejecting the classical rhetorical traditions of “highly stylized and artificial rhetorical forms” (8). They state that this new style of rhetoric questioned Aristotle and Cicero’s rhetorical beliefs and aimed to write in the way that was naturally spoken (8).
Synthesis
This argument brings a new perspective on the success of Common Sense. While many scholars point to its simple and straightforward style, and most of all how Paine captured the people’s emotions and gave them a voice to rally behind, Hogan and Williams argument fits the conversational mold of Common Sense while also presenting a new element.
So what?
This source helped with my research question in two ways: first, they provide a new perspective on the rhetorical success of Common Sense, and, second, they present evidence that Paine’s rhetorical style became the ethos of the republic. Therefore, this source has illustrate how Paine has affected American culture.
Ferguson, Robert A. The Commonalities of Common Sense. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 57, No. 3 (2000): 465-504. St. Edward’s Library. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
Robert Ferguson, a Professor of Literature and Criticism and Professor of Law at Columbia University, claims that Common Sense is an accurate gauge of American national identity. Additionally, Ferguson believes the ways Common Sense succeeded in persuading Americans explains a great deal of the inner-workings of modern democracy (465).
Problem, Cost, Change
Ferguson wants to address how American absorbed Common Sense into its “collective national identity,” as he believes it an “untold” story among rhetorical scholars (465). His aim is to describe exactly how Paine’s rhetoric set the rhetorical stage for discourse in our democracy.
Proof
To illustrate this point, Ferguson examines Paine’s rhetorical patterns that brought him more widespread success than the other works of the time which espoused the same philosophical beliefs. He points out that Paine used the literary elements of “tone, style, form, and metaphor” combined with the collectively-felt negative sentiments of “fear, betrayal, anger, and self-righteousness” to persuade Americans to support American Independence (471-472).
Synthesis
This source sets the conversation on Paine’s success by analyzing its literary mechanisms, while providing an additional rhetorical analysis of how his writing shaped American political discourse.
So what?
Ferguson is an important resource in defining exactly how Paine’s rhetoric set the tone for how American politicians use discourse to persuade Americans to support them.
Vincent, Bernard. The Transatlantic Republican: Thomas Paine and the Age of Revolutions. Amsterdam: Rodopi (2005): 137-151. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
Bernard Vincent claims that Paine’s rhetoric contains a religious connotation, and while some of its purpose is to “win over believers and church goers,” that doesn’t negate the instances in Paine’s rhetoric that espouses a “genuine religious approach to reality” (145,146). Furthermore, Vincent believes that one of the reasons for Paine’s success was the “religious overtones and messianic force” of his rhetoric (146).Problem, Cost, Change
Vincent seeks to change the perception that Paine’s use of religion in Common Sense was purely “rhetorical and insincere,” as is commonly viewed among rhetoricians (145).Proof
To illustrate this claim, Vincent first points to Paine’s passages that condemn the monarchy as those who defy the Creator by “presenting themselves as bestowers of human rights” (147). Next, he contends that while Paine may have used biblical scriptures in an insincere way, the reason for doing so was that Paine believed the bible, not God, was “an immoral piece of writing” that heralded “a history of assassinations, treachery and wars” (150). Finally, Vincent proposes that Paine was so unhappy with man-made religions that he came up with his own system “the pure and moral religion of Deism” (151).Synthesis
This source definitely sticks out from the typical conversation on Paine’s rhetoric. Most rhetoricians describe his use of biblical scriptures as a device of audience analysis.So what?
This source doesn’t really help my research question very much. He does present a more encompassing view of how Paine used biblical scriptures to win over a largely Protestant audience.
Brack, Denae. “Daniel Hannan, Thomas Paine, and the Rhetoric of Outrage” (2012): 8-28; 36-51; 77-93. Master Theses. Paper 242. Digital Commons Liberty University. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
Ms. Brack claims that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is the “most significant example of protest rhetoric in American history, and that its subsequent effect on American identity is a national “rebellious spirit” which values protest rhetoric (8).
Problem, Cost, Change
With this argument, Brack seeks to connect Common Sense to the how “the rhetoric of social protest” shapes “our perceptions of reality and invite us to act” (7). Furthermore, she wishes to define why protest rhetoric, and her own sub-genre outrage rhetoric, are successful (16).
Proof
To illustrate this claim, Brack first points to the rhetorical analyses of both Hoffman, Ferguson, and Hogan and Williams, who are featured on this bibliography. Brack also points to Paine’s (and other protest rhetorician’s) use of the archetypal metaphor as the rhetorical device that moves the rhetorician’s proposed vision into reality. She believes this archetypal metaphor is what makes protest rhetoric so inspiring (12).
Synthesis
This source definitely ties in with the overall conversation on Paine’s rhetoric. In fact, she mostly relies on the other sources featured in this bibliography to prove her claim.So what?
As this source primarily regurgitates other sources featured on this bibliography, it hasn’t been the most helpful in figuring out more reasons for the success of Common Sense. However, it does somewhat help with my “so-what” question, which seeks to connect Paine’s rhetoric to the American identity: Americans do love both protest rhetoric and the action of protest.
Turner, John. Burke, Paine, and the Nature of Language. The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 19, The French Revolution in English Literature and Art Special Number (1989): 36-53. Modern Humanities Research Association. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
John Turner asserts that the “paradoxical differences” (and the difference in rhetorical success) between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine lies within the philosophy of John Locke. He claims that Burke, while subscribing to Lockean principles ultimately failed to use language in the Lockean manner, and Paine successfully emulated Locke’s principle of language transparency (39).Problem, Cost, Change
Turner wishes to address the controversy that occurred between Burke and Paine and offer explanations for Paine’s more marked success.Proof
First, Turner defines Locke’s goal to utilize language which served the scientific order of nature and used “words rather than sentences” as the “basic units of meaning” in language (36-37). He details Burke’s deviation from Lockean principles by using figurative language over “the solid ground of reason” (47). Finally, he describes how Paine never uses “language that draws attention to itself” and therefore always abided by Lockean principles (49).Synthesis
This source fills a hole in the commonly-found conversation on Paine’s rhetoric. Paine and Burke spent a great deal of time arguing via pamphlet with each other, with Paine ever the victor.So what?
This source has provided additional details on the Lockean background principles of language and rationality that drove Paine’s rhetoric. It has helped me understand another dimension of why Paine was successful.
Epstein, James A. The Constitutional Idiom: Radical Reasoning, Rhetoric and Action in Early Nineteenth-Century England. Journal of Social History, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1990): 553-574. Oxford University Press. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
James Epstein claims that there is an important relationship between political rhetoric and the actions it produces (554). Epstein believes Paine was a successful rhetorician due to his denunciation of “historical precedent” and his encouragement to put faith in the rational “natural rights theory” instead of the historical tradition of monarchy (555).Problem, Cost, Change
Epstein has set out to prove why Paine was more successful than Edmund Burke in revolutionary rhetoric. Furthermore, Epstein wishes to draw attention to Paine’s contribution to the “popular radical language and action” in England at the turn of the 19th century (555).Proof
To illustrate the connection between constitutional rhetoric and action, Epstein first points to the methods of mobilization: “the mass petition, the demonstration and platform agitation, the convening of a convention” (558). Next he describes the mass-arming of the people, in which they believed their right to arms was a “legitimate resistance to tyranny” (560). He also explains that a central tenet of “Paineite strategy” was a democratically-elected convention (562).Synthesis
This source fits in the established conversation on how Paine’s rhetoric shaped America, but goes on to describe how it affected England itself.So what?
This source has helped me understand the effects between rhetoric and action and has never me another perspective on how Paine shaped America. It focuses more on action than on rhetoric, and for that reason, probably isn’t my most valued source.
Rosenfeld, Sophia. Tom Paine’s Common Sense and Ours. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Oct., 2008): 633-668. JSTOR. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
Rosenfeld claims that Paine’s use of common sense as a “form of evidence” was the first marked time it was used as a rhetorical device (634). Furthermore, she asserts that since that first use as form of rhetoric, the meaning of common sense, as Paine used it, has become embedded in today’s politics (635).
Problem, Cost, Change
Rosenfeld has set out to shine light on how the term common sense was originally viewed before it came to be the rhetorical device we know today (636). She believes scholars haven’t explored the “intellectual roots” of Paine’s version of common sense (640).
Proof
Rosenfeld first defines the mid-eighteenth century term of common sense as carrying three different and simultaneous meanings: the ability to think critically and make everyday judgements; a collective wisdom of sensible people; and a “sense of the public good” (641). She connects some of Paine’s uses of common sense to the same use of Scottish philosophers like Locke, but notes that Paine deviates from that use rooted “in mass behavior, common usage, [and] general consent” by placing himself outside popular opinion and using shock to bring others to his own “common sense” (653). Therefore, Rosenfeld concludes that Paine, for the first time, invokes common sense to undermine the status quo (653).
Synthesis
While many scholars focus on the key elements of Paine’s prose style, which embodied the very ideals he was idealizing, as the main source of its success, Rosenfeld instead focuses on his revolutionary use of common sense as a rhetorical device, a device she argues is crucial to the success of the pamphlet Common Sense.
So what?
This article supports the so-what of my research question. Thomas Paine not only shaped the rhetoric of the revolution and America but also democracy. Politicians invoke common sense as a rhetorical device to “win” debates, sometimes when they have no proof of their argument.
Hoffman, David C. Paine and Prejudice: Rhetorical Leadership Through Perceptual Framing in Common Sense. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2006): 373-410. St. Edward’s Library. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Major Claim
David Hoffman asserts, that along with Paine’s “style and ethos,” the “psychology and ideology” used, and the “time and place” of publication, that Common Sense was so successful due to Paine’s framing of the word “prejudice.” He illustrates that Paine framed the American colonists favorable view of the British monarchy and their unfavorable view of American independence as a prejudice of “habit and custom” (373).
Problem, Cost, Change
In this article, Hoffman sets out to add an important element to the already existing explanation of the success of Common Sense. Additionally, Hoffman wishes to “explore the relationship between perceptual framing and rhetorical leadership” (374).
Proof
Hoffman first proves that Common Sense was an integral part of the American Revolution due to its unprecedented distribution– scholars estimate the circulation at 500,000 copies with an exposure to one in five Americans (374-375). Then he analyzes the existing reasons scholars attribute to its success: timing and place of publication; Paine’s “textual craftsmanship” that defined American’s views; the seven “rhetorical values” of clear and efficient prose, boldness, wit, “appeal to feeling and reason,” a harmony of “judgement and imagination,” language of the common people, and rhetorical arrangement; Paine’s rhetorical ethos as a “self-reliant, straightforward, and daring individualist,” and Paine’s symbolic killing of King George III (377, 379, 381-383). Lastly, he sets out to prove that Paine used prejudice as rhetorical frame that effectively sealed Common Sense from any refuting arguments (374, 385).
Synthesis
Hoffman’s argument accentuates the already existing conversation on the merits and success of Common Sense.
So what?
This source is the most helpful and all-encompassing of all my sources in figuring out why Common Sense was so successful. Beyond offering a new reason for its success, Hoffman ultimately helped me understand some of my other sources, in particular Harry Hayden Clark, whom I found both flowery in language and difficult to follow.
Clark, Harry Hayden. “Thomas Paine’s Theories of Rhetoric.” The University of Wisconsin-Madison Library (1933): 308-339. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Major Claim
Clark claims that while many rhetoricians point to Paine’s simple and effective prose style for the success of Common Sense and The Rights of Man among the American people, other important factors to its success include his deductive reasoning, his reliance on the scientific method, and his religious connotations, which appealed to his Protestant audience (307-309). Furthermore, Clark believes that Paine grasped the advanced literary technique of the “organic relation” between author and character, and that “the literary creation of man” reveals “its human creator” (332).
Problem, Cost, Change
With this argument, Clark seeks to prove Paine employed more literary theories than simple prose alone. He believes that other scholars have inadequately interpreted Paine’s prose and have sought to portray him as a somewhat uneducated man (315).
Proof
To illustrate this claim, Clark points out that Paine knew of many literary theories but did not employ them due to their association with the aristocracy. In fact, he asserts that Paine sought to prove the study of nature, which was accessible to everyone over the study of books, which were available only to the educated and wealthy (312). Additionally, Clark points to other learned-men of the Revolution and their influence on Paine’s writing: specifically Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who looked down upon stylized writing and non-didactic and non-historical writing. Clark believes that while Jefferson and Franklin’s literary influence repressed Paine’s own poetic whims, those whims punctuated his style with a very effective cadence (310, 314, 324-325).
Synthesis
This source sticks out somewhat from the others by insisting that Paine is a learned man who employed then-contemporary literary techniques in an understated manner (315). Most of the other sources focus on how radical and new his approach to writing was.
So what?
This source defines other figures from the Revolution who helped Paine shape the rhetoric of the revolution. This is important in understanding how Common Sense was successful.
Walker, Jeffrey. “Enthymemes of Anger in Cicero and Thomas Paine.” Constructing Rhetorical Education (1992): 357- 378. St. Edward’s Library. E-book. 24 Mar. 2014.
Major Claim
Jeffrey Walker claims that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is an example of “Aristotelian pathos-theory,” and that Paine’s rhetoric cannot be fully understood apart from Aristotle’s “enthymemic structure of anger” (358, 366).
Problem, Cost, Change
Walker seeks to provide a more thoughtful analysis of a pathos argument because he feels most rhetoricians view pathos an as insincere and irrational form of rhetoric (358).
Proof
Walker begins first by defining anger as a “pained feeling of desire for revenge” where revenge is both possible and pleasurable (360). Walker maintains that Paine does not speak in a voice of rage, but rather inspires rage in the reader by gradually building upon their indignation until his readers were angry and realized the injustice of being governed by a monarch. Furthermore, Walker asserts that Paine leaves the reader with hope by discussing the future after the war as if victory is a foregone conclusion (368, 372).
Synthesis
While most scholars only briefly describe Paine’s emotional appeals, and usually under somewhat negative connotations, Walker believes Common Sense to be a shining example of pathos theory.
So what?
This is an important source for understanding Common Sense’s success from a perspective many scholars seem too embarrassed to visit. It has helped me understand why Paine’s emotional appeals worked.
Dennehy, Robert F., Sandra Morgan, and Pauline Assenza. "Thomas Paine: Creating The New Story For A New Nation." TAMARA: Journal Of Critical Postmodern Organization Science 5.3/4 (2006): 183-192. Business Source Complete. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Major Claim
Robert Dennehy, Sandra Morgan, and Pauline Assenza claim that Thomas Paine’s pamphlets helped shape the image of America and its resulting political language (183).
Problem, Cost, Change
The authors intend to use Paine’s rhetoric to illustrate how large-scale change is brought to fruition (184). Using Common Sense as an example, they are interested in proving which communication strategies are an effective catalyst for social change (185).
Proof
To illustrate this claim, Dennehy, Morgan, and Assenza first raise the question of which communication strategies are most effective in producing change. Thee authors point to Paine’s “transformational rhetoric” as the agent of change within pre-Revolutionary America and claim that his “rhetorical patterns” are still invoked across all political parties in the United States today (183, 185).
Synthesis
This article exists outside the conversation of which rhetorical strategies Paine used that contributed to the success of Common Sense. However, the authors add a dynamic perspective to the conversation by detailing how Paine’s rhetoric has shaped the political language of democracy.
So what?
This article is helpful to my research question because it provides proof that Thomas Paine’s rhetoric shaped both the revolution and its resulting democracy. Our national identity is ultimately tied to democracy, and, therefore, specifically Paine’s rhetoric in Common Sense.