Locke as Subversive?
The Founding Fathers revered John Locke, the Whig philosopher and supporter of the Glorious Revolution. Classical liberal thought is founded on his political philosophy. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence is a summary of Locke's philosophy of natural rights. Both libertarians and conservatives held Locke in highest esteem, the latter seeking to conserve the founding principles of our republic. It would seem odd to find in the esteemed publication of the ISI the following limerick (page 17):
There once was a man named John Locke.The last sentence refers to William Buckley famous article in the first issue of National Review in 1955 when communism spread over half the world and modern liberalism was unchallenged. Was Locke a dangerous wooly-eye radical causing the downward spiral of his day? What's happened to the ISI (formerly known as Intercollegiate Society of Individualists)?
A fan of tradition he was not.
By rejecting his teaching,
ISI is preaching
How to stand athwart history and yell “stop!”
posted by Jason Pappas at 5:08 PM
3 Comments:
Both libertarians and conservatives held Locke in highest esteem, the latter seeking to conserve the founding principles of our republic.
I don't think this is true regarding true or original conservatism. Russel Kirk, Hilaire Belloc, Leo Strauss all hated classical liberalism and the Enlightenment. I think true conservatism is as much an enemy of classical liberalism as is Leftism. Most conservatives today are really more liberals (classical) then they are conservatives. But take a look at a guy like Santorum. He keeps stressing that "freedom entails responsibility" and that "freedom needs limits and restraints" and that individualism must be subordinated to society. Those are all original conservative sentiments.
The bottom line is that the reason why the Right has not been able to mount a real counter to the Left is that the right is held back by conservatism. Also, classical liberalism has been undermined by the subjectivist strains of libertarian thought (ie Ron Paul and the Rockwellians, and the Rothbardians for that matter). If you do a search of conservatism and John Locke you will find *many* conservatives who think that he was a mixed and flawed influence precisely because he placed too much stress on individualism and because his epistemological skepticism helped weaken the power of religion.
Jack
Quite accurate. I wonder how many conservatives know Kirk's hostility towards the concept of individual rights. And that hostility extends to the Declaration of Independence. I often hear conservatives quote Jefferson's famous words. I often wonder if the average conservative is aware of the hostility towards natural rights (and Enlightenment ideas) that exists in the traditional camp. This hostility, by implication, is a hostility to the core principles that animated our founding fathers.
I had forgotten that the ISI was in the anti-Locke camp. Of course, I should have remembered they published the debate Freedom and Virtue between trads and classical liberals. Naturally, the subjectivist libertarians confirm the "libertine" suspicions of the trads.
Your other points are excellent also. It's great to hear from you, Jack.
You have brought up a very excellent points, thankyou for the post.
Post a Comment
<< Home