Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

If you are an American who feels in your gut that something is wrong in our country, but you can't quite put your finger on it, and you want to make sense out of your 'gut feelings', then this book is where to start your journey of discovery. It's easy to read, easy to understand, written using layman's terms, and has a listing of sources, should you choose to follow-up on anything contained within it's pages. This book is non-partisan, it was written for all Americans, no matter their political inclination.

I like to think of myself as an independent thinker. This book does a great job of breaking down some pretty big problems with government and society. If you are a parent or younger than 40, I finished the book with a bit of different perspective. I actually am not a fan of Mr. Beck, never seen his show. However he does seem to make some very valid points, especially about the economic troubles facing our nation. So, it's a fast read and if you are open minded, it's interesting and does make common sense.

Common Sense is a very timely book which high lights so much of what is wrong with our government. Our founding fathers gave us a perfect blue print for our nation's government, based on freedom, liberty, and a limited Federal government. This book is a modern-day version of Thomas Paine's book, which inspired so many to fight the revolutionary war. Kudos to Glenn Beck on a excellent book, with an easy to read format.

Very informative, easy read. Beck provides ample references supporting his somewhat disconcerting claims. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and fully agree with the premise that it is time for a return to common sense. It is time for "we the people" to demand it.

In many ways Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" is the antithesis of Robert Reich's "Supercapitalism." Both look at the same issue of government spending, and both lobby for a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Reich does it by laying out dozens of radical but doable reforms of Congress and business, to sever the ties between those two which impel career politicians to act on behalf of their financial contributors, to insure their own re-election rather than serving the people who elect them. His reasoning is clear, logical, compelling and common sense.

And because Congress would have to enact them, Reich's suggestions are entirely fantasy -- especially now that the activist Supreme Court has bestowed human rights on corporations.

Beck on the other hand pretends to lobby for smaller government, greater citizen involvement and fiscal conservatism -- but what his real agenda is, is lower taxes for the ultra-wealthy like himself. There is a shell-game underway by popular right-wing "opinion entertainers" who are telling their largely-unschooled listeners that taxes must be lowered. They don't mean taxes on their listeners of course. They mean their own.

Unlike Reich, Beck has never served in government and does not understand how it works. In fact, reading "Common Sense" (if ever quote marks were appropriate, here is the place) one gets a bewildering mish-mash of populist rhetoric and illogical jumps. He never once approaches a viable diagnosis, much less coming up with any solutions to the problems he misidentifies and fails to understand. His screed is pure vitriol against "out-of-control government" without feeling the slightest obligation to identify what is out of control or what might be cut without harm.

On page 12 he states "There's no one on television offering the 'right thing' to do whose advice you can accept unconditionally -- and that includes me." Of course television is the only medium he recognizes, because serious intellectual discourse is beyond his ken. The bubble world he and his other Fox pundits inhabit is one where soundbites and sloganeering take precedence over rational thought, where the consequences of working up a torch-and-pitchfork bearing crowd never occurs to those enamored of the sound of their own voices.

Unfortunately, unlike Reich the armed revolution that Beck foments is not entirely fantastic.

It is always easier to criticize those in power than to offer workable alternatives. Reich understands this, and his medicine is strong and powerful (however unlikely). Beck does not, and his book offers only homilies and ad hominems to bolster his own ego.

In his new book, "Glenn Beck's Common Sense, The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, by Glenn Beck with Joseph Kerry, Mr. Beck chooses as a rallying cry the thoughts of some or our greatest founding fathers and the best political thinkers of all time -- at least with regard to the appropriate governance of a republic. If you are alive in the US today the rallying cry that our Government has failed us is an easy criticism to make. Taking to the streets as interested citizens and banding together for the common good as political advocates for change should resonate with everyone.

Yet Beck doesn't write for everyone though he could have. Take for example his opening line, "I think I know who you are". He goes on to list about 32 characteristics of a person in the general population who is upset and would like to see political change. I counted about 32 characteristics of this person and found I have only eight. That's about 25% percent. So Mr. Beck doesn't know me as well as he thinks he does. That's a problem, but not a big problem, because one my characteristics, one he does not mention, is the ability to hold, as F. Scott Fitzgerald has said, "...two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." So I continued to read. Whereas he did not win me at hello, and he lost me occasionally at places where, for instance, he says in the context that our Social Security and Medicare obligations are upside down that, "...you many want to rethink your current family situation and have more kids." A stultifying statement if he seriously believes it. Yet I read on.

His agenda, tired and well trod, includes bashing any claim that climate change is actually occurring , standing up for our right to own handguns, and railing against the cancer, as he call it, of progressivism. Yet somehow, deep within the bowels of the book, not too deep it's only about a hundred pages long, and I can tell you specifically, "Chapter IV, the Perks and Privileges of the Political Class", he hits pay dirt. He's got about 15 pages of money here, no pun intended.

So in a book where he's got me pegged about 25% he's got a chapter with 100% of what I think. In addition he's got it right with regard to our two political parties not giving us sufficient options to truly be governed by ourselves. His call for change here is highly appropriate. But since all of these book reviews are more about politics and less about the particular book, I will close with a counter quote to his call to revolution, even a revolution of ideas, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" as a chilling reminder of what happens when we cannot reach a solution. The source of this quote is left to the reader.

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 agree with the basic libertarian message of this book and I do enjoy the current information he provides on how politicians are basically ruining our nation with their pork spending and SELF entitlement programs. But Revolution by Ron Paul achieves the same in a much more sophisticated and aggressive manner.

I do believe that Beck's pacifist spin at the beginning of the book is also a bit too much (he doesn't need to convince everyone about his good intentions, since ANY book can theoretical incite violence and you would have a right to write it anyway in a 'free country').

If we should see it as a manifesto that somehow compares to the original one from Thomas Paine (Beck's laudable intention), it indeed falls a short (which I bet that he honestly can admit).

Nonetheless, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with the intention of the book, and if you are new to political thought and are just finding out that all governments are sleazy (wow if you do!), then this work is for you. If you are, on the other hand, a seasoned student of political theory, and have also a copy of Revolution by Ron Paul (which is also a very basic book but much better), then you can skip Beck and still fight for the same principles (with a bit more information).

In the end, I do hope this book continues on the top, since the basic ideals of Beck are better than the ones any politicians advocates in Washington.

Glenn Beck piggybacks on a famous pamphlet ("Common Sense" by Thomas Paine) in order to inspire like minded folks to action. This book is part of his successful 9/12 project and details 9 principles and 12 values and further reading that Beck feels would put America "back on course." (p.110)

Beck's book is intended to be a primer for those new to politics. For those of us who have been paying attention all along, there is little new here but it can be interesting reading just to see what Beck focuses on and how he states his positions.

Many of his points should be alarming to all Americans, including:

a) an out of control national debt (he rips on Bush and Obama with equal venom), a tax code that seems designed to dole out favors to political supporters rather than raise revenue (especially good on pages 39-41);

b) a Congress that exempts itself from its own workplace laws (p. 48);

c) gerrymandered districts that guarantee that there'll be little competition in the general elections (pp. 50-6);

d) the abuse of Eminent Domain (pp. 81-2).

What Beck cannot equal is the carefully-worded, powerful rhetoric of Paine ("These are the times that try men's souls..."). Beck's concerns about the International Rights of the Child treaty and the Americorps program are so weak when compared to the other issues that Beck's texts sort of tapers off to a grumpy monologue rather than rallying the troops with wonderful logic and thundering words like Paine's "Common Sense" did.

If you are interested in skipping Beck's comments completely and just want to know more about the original "Common Sense" I recommend 46 Pages by Scott Liell.

I find it interesting that Glenn Beck uses Thomas Paine as a hero for his book considering Paine would reject nearly everything Beck stands for.

After all, Paine rejected Christianity:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

He also wrote An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805), about the Bible being allegorical myth describing astrology:

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun."

Paine argues against private property, saying that it should be equally distributed or reimbursed:

"In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity . . . [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

And Beck would consider Paine a Marxist today because he believed in disintegrating property rights and giving assets equally to all. He was against inheritance and thought that it created a society of perpetual inequality.

It seems ironic to me that Beck would name his book after (and include a copy of a work) a person who he would consider an anti-Christian, Marxist, Socialist. I think that perhaps he should do a little research before he champions someone that would be against everything he pushes.