The first liberal democrat: Locke's popular government

Review of Politics

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 5-39

  Faulkner, Robert ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005585988     PISSN: 00346705     EISSN: 17486858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0034670500030503     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. This historical blurring goes back at least to Alexander Campbell Fraser's Locke (1890: reprint ed. port washington, ny and london: kennikat press, 1970), p. 100;
2. cf. frederick Pollock, an introduction to the history of the science of politics (1911; reprint ed. Boston: beacon press, 1960), p. 79.
3. C. B. Macpherson, Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University press, 1962) p. 196.
4. cf. john plamenatz: "locke of course was no democrat," and iF HIS ARGUMENT HAD DEMOCRATIC IMPLICATIONS, "NEITHER HE NOR HIS CONTEMPORARIES DREW THEM." "liberalism," in dictionary of the history of ideas, ed. philip p. weiner (new york: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), vol.4, p. 40. I owe these references to Sanford Lakoff.
5. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1964). all citations to two treatises are from this edition by section number.
6. Peter Laslett, "Introduction," Two Treatises of Government, pp. 116-119
7. On Locke as majoritarian, see willmoore kendall, john locke and the doctrine of majority rule (urbana, Il: university of illinois press, 1965)), pp. 132-36. richard ashcraft has shown locke's involvements with a leveling movement (revolutionary politics & locke's "two treatises of government" [princeton: princeton university press, 1986]).
8. This is a summary of the mutilated books 7 and 8 of Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; see the author's Richard Hooker and the Politics of a Christian England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), chaps. 10,11.
9. W. B. Gwyn, The Meaning of the Separation of Powers (New Orleans: Tulane University, 1965), pp. 28-67.
10. Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power (New York: The Free Press, 1989), pp. 161-164
11. The comparison is elaborated in the author's Francis Bacon and the Politics of Progress (Lanham, MD.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993), pp. 146- 149, chaps. 9 and 10, esp. 184-86, 202-202, 209-224.
12. Locke praised the "great Lord sVerulam" for imagining how "learning" might be advanced. Of the Conduct of the Understanding, in The Works of John Locke (London: C. and J. Rivington, etc., 1824), II: 324-325
13. Neal Wood has investigated "Locke's Commitment to Baconian Science," in The Politics of Locke's Philosophy (Berkeley: Universitsy of California Press, 1983), p. 5.
14. Mansfield, Taming the Prince, pp. 181-211.
15. "Message to Congress in Special Session," 4 July 1861;
16. Cf. Alexander Hamilton's remark that it is by an improved "political science" that the American republic might escape "the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage" that overwhelmed "the petty republics of Greece and Italy" (The Federalist, No. 9).
17. Otto Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, trans, and intro. Ernest Barker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), p. 357.
18. See also M. J. C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 60-64.
19. Emphasis added.
20. Noted by Laslett, Two Treatises, p. 154.
21. A (doctored) quotation from Livy, on the title page; included by Laslett in Two Treatises, p. 154.
22. Quoted by Kendall, John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule, p. 97;
23. Locke's was "a much more democratic rule of government than whigs have ever been inclined to adopt" (Henry Richard Fox Bourne, The Life of John Locke [1876; reprint ed. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen 1969], 2:178) reprint ed. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1969], 2:178).
24. See Nathan Tarcov, "Locke's Second Treatise and 'The Best Fence Against Rebellion/" Review of Politics 43 (1981): 211.
25. See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "The Modern Doctrine of Executive Power," Presidential Studies Quarterly 17 (1987): 237-252
26. Consider Leo Strauss's discussion of "natural public law" inNatural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 190-196
27. Fraser, Locke, pp. 98-99.
28. Barker, commenting on Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, p. 358.
29. James R. Stoner, Jr., Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes and the Origins of American Constitutionalism (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1992), p. 150.
30. G. N. Clark, The Later Stuarts, 1660-1714, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 13;
31. Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), pp. 15-18, 21-22, 30-38.
32. As to England's "powerful governing class" after the Restoration and the Settlement of 1688
33. see Clark, The Later Stuarts, 1660-1714, pp. 10-17
34. Richard Ashcraft noted Locke's tendency to define membership in the commonwealth (and thus representation in the legislative) without reference to "differential class membership" and Williams, Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760, pp. 22-27. Richard Ashcraft noted Locke's tendency to define membership in the commonwealth (and thus representation in the legislative) without reference to "differential class membership"
35. (Locke's Two Treatises of Government [London: Unwin Hyman, 1989], pp. 164-82).
36. Mansfield, Taming the Prince, pp. 181-211
37. Mansfield, Taming the Prince,Ibid., pp. 1-20.
38. Ibid., p. 200.
39. Quoted by Robert Scigliano, "The War Powers Resolution and the War Powers," in The Presidency sin the Constitutional Order, ed. Joseph W. Bessette and Jeffrey Tulis (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State sUniversity Press, 1981), p. 136.
40. Mansfield, Taming the Prince, pp. 202-203.
41. Mansfield, Taming the Prince,Ibid., pp. 190-192
42. Compare Thomas L. Pangle, "Executive Energy and Popular Spirit in Lockean Constitutionalism," Presidential Studies Quarterly 7 (1987): 259;
43. Mansfield, "The Modern Doctrine of Executive Power," p. 245.
44. But see Fox Bourne, Life of Locke, 2: 177: the legislature may delegate the executive power to some "person or persons/' and any so-called king "can never be more than the agent of the legislature."