Weaknesses of Kirk:

Kirk rejects the idea that late 17th century English philosopher John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” had any influence on the Founding Fathers. This assertion by itself negates any claims that Kirk is a good historian. Locke had a tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers. Any cursory reading of speeches by revolutionary preachers will show direct influences of Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” Read the Declaration of Independence and then read the “Second Treatise of Government.” The connection is there.

The “Second Treatise of Government” is a document that advocates revolution and the idea that a “state of nature” existed. This is why cultural conservatives like Kirk find it so “dangerous.”

Locke uses the abstract idea of the “state of nature” as a means of showing when revolution is appropriate, property rights evolved etc.... So Locke argues that people form governments to protect their property and lives because the state of nature is to dangerous to live in. Locke argues that people formed governments from the abstract “state of nature” whereas Kirk argues society evolved through thousands of years and traditions.

So what’s the difference?

Locke argues that the state is the most powerful entity in existence. That the awesome power of the state has no match. Locke would rather exist in the state of nature where he would face 100,000 non-state actors than face a tyrannical government that has 100,000 soldiers at its disposal.

A subtle difference but an important one when we consider the 4GW emphasis on the destruction of the state and state’s loss on the monopoly of the use of force.

The Lockean perspective is that the citizenry never gives up its right to the use of force. It only loans it to the government. The government never has a “monopoly on the use of force.” When the government becomes tyrannical and reduces the people’s rights, they regain their right to the use of force. At this point the people have the right to overthrow the tyrannical government that oppresses them.

Conservatives like Kirk and Leo Strauss (the supposed paragon of the neo-conservatives) dismissed authors like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke. And in doing so they missed another equation in the development of American republicanism, political thought and traditions. The fact is, Locke’s ideas became part of the English government traditions that Burke and Kirk love so dearly.