The historical fiction of Irrational Conservatism

Submitted by Tom Rossman (United States), Aug 3, 2018 at 11:30

Their theory is little known because it is a complete work of fiction, not history and as usual it is littered with factual errors.

When John Locke, building on the works of Thomas Hobbes, began writing the Two Treatises of Government, the ruling paradigm in England was the divine right of Kings. As Charles II began to re-assert royal prerogatives over will of parliament and the massive failure of Cromwell's Protectorate, a new framework had to be created that went far beyond the narrow, one-dimensional thinking of conservatives.

Locke accomplished this by first destroying the Divine Right in Treatise I. then outlining an approach that would enshrine vital principles such as 'consent of the governed' in Treatise II. His ideas on the 'state of nature' were a thought experiment, as very little was actually known about ancient primitive societies in the 17th century. He carefully published his assumptions, as any competent theorist would do, so that if new discoveries were made, adjustments to his theory would naturally follow.

This fact alone blows their theory apart. It took a complete repudiation of their described 'conservatism' and, in their words, the rationalism of Treatise II to usher in the modern democracy.

If this historic revolution in human understanding that provided the foundation for success in Britain and America was a product of 'pure fantasy' , then we need more fantasy in our lives and less backward, retrograde thinking of this bizarre, disproved christian nationalism.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".