HellrotBill

Today I saw this post on Axios and it appears that the irony is lost on House Speaker Mike Johnson regarding the Appeal to Heaven flag.

The flag, originally commissioned by George Washington, references John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, where Locke argues that when no earthly authority can provide justice, the people have the right to “appeal to heaven” as a last resort against tyranny. The flag was a symbol of resistance to oppressive authority during the Revolutionary War.

Johnson’s use of the flag has been criticized for misinterpreting or oversimplifying its original meaning. While Locke’s phrase referred to justifiable rebellion against an oppressive government in extreme circumstances, Johnson’s association of the flag with modern Christian nationalism distorts its philosophical context. The flag has become a symbol for far-right and Christian nationalist movements, particularly after being linked to figures like Sarah Palin and the January 6th insurrectionists. These groups often interpret the flag as a call to restore a “Christian nation,” which diverges significantly from Locke’s political theory that emphasized individual rights and reason-based governance, not religious authoritarianism.

In the canon of Western political philosophy, there are few names more revered than John Locke. Often hailed as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke is credited with laying the philosophical foundations for much of modern political thought, especially in the realms of individual liberty, property rights, and the rule of law. Yet, as with most great thinkers, Locke’s ideas have been subjected to both idolization and, perhaps worse, deliberate misinterpretation. What we remember of him today is often a sanitized and commodified version of his thought, stripped of its radical context and revolutionary implications.

It’s high time we revisit Locke, not as a benign footnote in the history of political thought, but as a figure whose ideas remain as dangerous as they are enlightening.

Locke’s Radical Foundations

Locke was no armchair philosopher. He wrote during one of England’s most tumultuous periods—an age of civil war, regicide, and the dawn of constitutional monarchy. His Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689, was not a dry academic exercise but a direct challenge to the divine right of kings—a doctrine that held rulers accountable only to God, rather than the people they governed. In this climate, Locke’s assertion that all men are born free and equal was nothing short of revolutionary.

His rejection of absolute monarchy was grounded in a radical idea: consent. Government, Locke argued, must be based on the consent of the governed, and rulers derive their authority from the people, not from divine mandate or hereditary privilege. The sheer audacity of this idea was enough to get a man executed for treason in Locke’s time, but he pressed on, advocating that the people not only had a right to resist tyrannical governments—they had a duty to do so.

Life, Liberty, and Property: The Foundations of Modern Democracy

Of all Locke’s contributions, his theory of natural rights is the most enduring. He argued that all individuals possess certain inalienable rights by virtue of being human—namely, the rights to life, liberty, and property. These were not privileges bestowed by government; they were pre-political, existing prior to any form of social contract. In fact, the whole purpose of government, according to Locke, was to protect these rights. Should any government fail in this duty, the people had the right to revolt.

It’s impossible to overstate how influential this idea has been, not only in the development of liberal democratic theory but in the founding of modern republics, including the United States. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a Lockean document. The very notion that “all men are created equal” and “endowed with certain unalienable Rights” is lifted straight from Locke’s political thought, though Jefferson softened the concept of property into the more poetic (and less contentious) “pursuit of happiness.”

The Limits of Locke’s Liberalism

But before we rush to anoint Locke as a flawless champion of freedom, it’s essential to recognize the contradictions and limitations within his philosophy. For one, Locke’s conception of liberty was, in many ways, restricted to propertied white men. The right to property—central to his vision of liberty—was, in Locke’s world, largely the domain of the land-owning elite. His defense of private property, while innovative, also served to legitimize the inequalities of his time, a flaw that modern libertarians tend to gloss over.

Moreover, Locke was not immune to the moral failures of his age. While his writings inspired movements for liberty and justice, he himself was a shareholder in the Royal African Company, a business that profited from the transatlantic slave trade. Here, we find a striking dissonance: a philosopher who argued so passionately for the natural rights of man, while participating in an institution that violently denied those very rights to others. Locke’s blind spot on slavery remains one of the most glaring contradictions of his philosophy.

Locke and the Social Contract: Freedom or Obligation?

Locke’s political theory hinges on the idea of the social contract, a voluntary agreement among free individuals to form a society and establish a government to protect their natural rights. This is where Locke departs from his predecessors, most notably Thomas Hobbes. While Hobbes viewed the state of nature as a brutal war of “all against all,” requiring an authoritarian Leviathan to keep order, Locke’s vision was far more optimistic. In his view, the state of nature was one of relative peace and equality, where individuals could coexist freely and rationally.

However, Locke also understood that human beings, left unchecked, could easily fall into conflict—particularly over property. Thus, the social contract was necessary to establish a neutral authority, or government, to arbitrate disputes and safeguard individual rights. But here’s the rub: for Locke, this contract was never a blank check for government power. Should the state overreach—violating the very rights it was meant to protect—citizens had the right, and indeed the obligation, to rise up and overthrow it.

This is where Locke’s relevance in today’s political climate becomes glaringly obvious. In an age where governments frequently overreach, where surveillance, authoritarianism, and corporate oligarchy seem to thrive, Locke’s insistence on the supremacy of individual rights over the state is a clarion call for resistance. Locke demands that we remain ever vigilant against tyranny, regardless of whether it comes from kings, corporations, or politicians draped in the rhetoric of democracy.

The Legacy of Locke: Misunderstood and Co-opted

Despite his flaws, Locke’s ideas about governance, rights, and the role of the state remain as influential today as they were in the 17th century. Yet, like most great philosophers, his ideas have been selectively interpreted, twisted, and commodified to suit various political agendas. Libertarians, for instance, frequently cite Locke in their defense of property rights and minimal government, conveniently ignoring his insistence on the moral obligations of the state and his support for public goods like education. Meanwhile, those on the left tend to dismiss Locke as an apologist for inequality, overlooking the radical potential in his advocacy for individual liberty and resistance to tyranny.

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between. Locke’s philosophy is not a simple blueprint for modern liberalism but a complex, often contradictory framework that still offers profound insights for today’s political challenges. In an era marked by both state overreach and growing inequality, it’s worth revisiting Locke’s core principles, not as dogma but as a starting point for grappling with the perennial tension between liberty and authority.

Conclusion: Locke’s Call to Arms

John Locke’s political philosophy, with all its brilliance and contradictions, remains a vital resource for anyone concerned with the future of democracy and individual rights. His belief in the supremacy of reason, his insistence that power must always be justified by the consent of the governed, and his demand for the protection of individual liberty should serve as rallying cries in our own age of political turmoil.

But let us not fall into the trap of idealizing Locke. His ideas, while revolutionary, were also limited by the context of his time. To fully grasp his philosophy, we must not only acknowledge his insights but also reckon with his failings. If Locke teaches us anything, it is that the defense of liberty is never complete—it requires constant vigilance, intellectual honesty, and, above all, the courage to challenge power in all its forms.