teacher’s imposing desk, the vouth in the corner holding hisrnchair ont in front ol^ him b its hind legs and blubbering (thernTrinit}’ of my day wouldn’t have included him in a calendar, either).rnIn their place were teachers dressed like college kids,rncoatless and tieless; students garbed as junior versions of theirrninstructors; casual arrangements of tables to form mini-classroomsrnpromoting fuzziness in feeling and in thought, hi additionrnto the Episcopal service (Trinity, founded in 1709, vasrnoriginally the scholastic appendage of Trinity Church on WallrnStreet), there are now Jewish Chapel and Kwanza Chapel. Thernschool, which shuts down for Rosh Hashanah and Kwanza asrnwell as for Christmas and Easter, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dayrnas well as Winter Vacation, etc., is apparently closed more thanrnit is open to accommodate the sensibilities of a multiculturalrnstudent body. The school went coed shortly after my graduation,rnand the incidence of non-Western faces has since greatlyrnincreased.rnEle.xibilit)- in facing the vicissitudes of life is one thing, unlearningrnyour upbringing another—a thing principled peoplernwouldn’t do even if the- could. Trinity School, having educatedrngenerations of .students for life in the Old America, has—forrnthe past 30 vears—been cooperating enthusiastically in thernwork of destroving that America and displacing those it oncerntrained to operate and inhabit it. All right: We arc becomingrnstrangers in our own country.rnwhat to do? hi addition to the foregoing list, I add seeralrnfurther suggestions. Be true to our forebears, and to the culturernthey created and—for nearlv four centuries—su.stained. Wearrna coat and neckhe in polite socieh’, even on an airplane. Speakrnout] Make ourself heard as loud and as strong as your lungs,rnand the co-opted press and electronic frequencies, permit.rnKeep your sense of humor, ALWAYS…. Go to Church. crn(vQOvsrnDistrusting John Lockernby Paul GottfriedrnI ohn Locke has been interpreted in various ways that appealrnI to conservatives—e.g., as a Christian, albeit a materialist andrnanti-Trinitarian, or as a qualified defender of private properh—rnbut there is a general drift to his thought that should offend traditionalists.rnHis view of human beings as thinking matter withoutrnthe capacity for innate ideas, his unmistakable faith inrnsexual egalitarianism, and his eonstruetivist theor’of ciil societ’rnare all fundamentally anh-conservative. The point is notrnwhether anv of these positions is theoretically defensible butrnwhether conservatives (or historically minded classical liberals)rnshould want to identify themselves as Loekeans. The clear answerrnis no.rnIt is simply untrue that those loyal to the foundations of thernAmerican polit)’ must be deotees of Locke. While some passagesrnin the Declaration of Independence were adapted fromrnLocke’s Second Treatise, Ceorge Carcv, Forrest McDonald,rnand M.E. Bradford have all made ho self-eident points: Mostrnof the Declaration consists of a bill of grievances that came outrnof English parliamentary tradihon but not necessarily Locke’srnwritings; and the founding political document of the Americanrnnation was the Constituhon, not the Declaration. In any case,rnas shown exhaustively by McDonald, the Framers, in constructingrnthe federal union, drew on such a multitude of ancientrnand modern authors that it would be difficult to awardrnLocke pride of place among their sources.rnOne of the sources for the Constitution was Scottish philosopherrnDavid Hume, to whose achievements Donald Ln ingstonrnhas devoted two erudite books. According to Livingston,rnHume’s concepHon of the social good as grounded in customrnand tradihon was partly a reachon to the fiction of Locke’s socialrncontract. In the “Original Contract” and other essavs, Humernexpressed astonishment that a serious thinker could bcliec thatrnPaul Gottfried is a professor of humanities at KlizahethtownrnCollege in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, and the author, mostrnrecently, o/.After Liberalism: Mass Deniocrac- in thernManagerial State (Princeton).rnindi iduals left a “state of nature” and entered civil societ}’ byrnway of a contract. Hume v’ondered how one could build a politicalrntheory on a situation that neither he nor his acquaintancesrnhad cer encountered. He was also amused by the notionrnof “natural right,” a concept of entitlement that wasrnsupposed to be natural and inborn but which most of the humanrnrace knew nothing of If natural right should seem axiomatic,rnHume asked, why did individuals throughout thernv’orld live “in subordiuaHon to each other” without a sense ofrnbeing depried of rights? Hume was not defending oppressionrnbut insishng that subjects of a limited monarchy should noterntheir historical blessings and advantageous customs instead ofrninventing bogus rights and chimerical states of nature.rnBut Loekean eontractualism has graver flaws than its bizarrernanthropolog). It is not coincidental that socialist John Rawls andrnmainstream welfare statists find it appealing. Although Lockerntreats propert)’ as a natmal right that civil societ) might be requiredrnto defend, his defense of properh^ perse was radier c|ualified.rnAs the closing sections of the Seco/7c/ ‘ireatise and the scholarshi]rn3 of Richard Asheraft indicate, Locke was an embattledrnadoeate of “the People” when it set out to overthrow tTann’ andrnlANUARY 2001/15rnrnrn