Introduction

What is the foundation of John Locke's political philosophy? This question is controversial among scholars, to be sure, but it is also relevant for political life today. America's constitutional democracy was originally based on Locke's political teaching, but few would say that his teaching is sufficient to sustain a sound constitutional democracy. Conservatives such as Daniel Mahoney argue that the “principle” of American democracy is “the [Lockean] liberty and equality of human beings,” a principle that has become in our time “an unreflective dogma eroding the traditions, authoritative institutions, and spiritual presuppositions that allow human beings to live free, civilized, and decent lives.” Liberals follow the claim of Progressive-Era intellectuals such as Herbert Croly, who asserts that the “Jeffersonian principle” of individual rights has caused “the inequalities of power generated in the American economic and political system.” Scholars and public intellectuals of all persuasions are therefore constantly on the lookout for some non-Lockean doctrine as an adequate ground for political life in the twenty-first century. My essay is meant to revive a willingness to examine Locke as if he might be right. I do not commit the absurdity of claiming to have demonstrated the truth of Locke's teaching. But I will show that his theory is much more plausible than we have been led to believe.