establish popular government. A tension, in tact, exists betweenrnLocke’s rights to life, libert}-, and propert}’ and the majoritarianrndemocracv that he CAokes in his political pamphlets. As Ashcraftrnsuggests, this tension can be resolved as easih’ in the direction ofrndemocratic collectivism, based on presumed individual consent,rnas it can b affirming the inviolabilitv of propcrh’.rnIn the world of possessive individualism conceived b thisrnlate 17th-centur}- Whig pamphleteer, the state comes into existencernto ensure the individual’s right to material gratification. Ifrnthe people see fit, the Lockean regime can achieve its pvirposernas plausibK b’ redistributing earnings and handing out entitlementsrnas it can by protecting entrepreneurial profit. It can alsornenforce claims beyond the ones Locke fancied, if the majorih’rncomes to consider such claims as natural rights. Whv limitrnrights to the short list Locke drew up when he was tning to dislodgernthe Stuart mouarehs? It makes good Lockean sense tornhave the modern state guarantee claims that are more relevantrntoday: e.g., a right to self-esteem or protection against insensifivernwhite males, who don’t seem to mind being jerked around b-rndie thought police. There is no Lockean requirement thatrnrulers uphold natural rights in the form in which they existedrnbefore the ri.se of civil societv’. “Rights” mean what the majority’rntakes to be a tolerable understanding of them on the part ofrnthose who rule. On this point, the late Willmoore Kendall, onrnthe populist right, and John Rawls and Richard Ashcraft, on thernsocialist left, hae interpreted Locke quite accuratel).rnLocke’s contribufions to political theorv’ can still be read w ithrnprofit, particidarly his strictures on the limits of politicalrncoNcnants. His critical observations concerning RobertrnFilmer’s defense of divine-right monarch} in the First Treatisernon Civil Government make a brilliant polemic, even if Locke oftenrnmisrepresents his opponent. But Locke’s contractualism isrna slippcn,’ slope which leads to the polifical culture that dominatesrnus; the connections beh een the two are too obvious to bernmissed. On balance, I agree with the thoughtful counterreolutionar)’rnJoseph de Maistre, who both admired and fearedrnLocke’s imaginative energies: “l£ dehiit du discemement c’est krnmefi de jean Locke.” crndy^SXSisrnJacobins—and Jacobinsrn”Ye Are of Your Father, the Devil”rnby Aaron D. WolfrnAt the dawn of the 21st centur)-, few of today’s public (or private)rnschool students would argue with vou if }’ou toldrnthem that die United States of America was founded upon thernprinciple, proclaimed in the Declarafion of Independence, diatrn”all men are created equal.” The}’ would offer no argument,rnperhaps, except that they thought that statement was in thernConstitution, not the Declaration.rnIf Alan Keyes, considered by many conservatives to be theirrnparagon, vere teaching vour son’s histon’ class, he would encouragernthis particular confusion, preciseh’ because the platformrnof his “Declarafion Foundafion ” states that the Constitutionrnis properly interpreted through the lens of the Declaration.rnP”or the average American, conserafivc or liberal, that makesrnsense. However, for the tiny reninant still familiar with the debatesrnsurrounding our republic’s founding, fiiat makes as muchrnsense as saving that the Torah can onlv properly be seenrnthrough the lens of Elijah’s rants before the prophets of Baal.rnHow exactly do we read the Consfitufion objecfiveK in thernlight of onr greatest propaganda document, the Declarafion ofrnIndependence, wifiiout reading in our own interests? There arcrnthose who believe that the federal govcrnnient should exert absoluterncontrol over every abortion because our nation wasrnfounded upon fiic principle of the “right to life.” There are alsornfiiosc who believe that the federal government should exertrnabsolute control over aborfion, guaranteeing its safch’, legalih’,rnand frec|ucucy, because our nation was founded upon a “rightrnto the pursuit of happiness.” Chrisfian conservafives remind everyonernthat the Founding Fafiicrs claimed it was none otherrnthan God Who endowed us with fiiose rights. Liberals thenrnAaron D. Wolf is the assistant editor of Chronicles.rncounter w itli the odd notion of “separation of Church andrnState” allegedlv held by fiiosc same Founding Fathers.rnWhen we observe this and other facets of our quadrennial nationalrnconversation, we arc witnessing file triumph of Jacobinismrnin America. The threefold principle of the French Revolufionrn—”libcrtv, equalitv’, and fra tern it}”—has been beaten intornfile consciousness of Americans for so long that it has poHutedrnthe enfire pond of American politics and culture. Neither thern”liberal” r)eiiiocrats nor the “compassionate” conservativesrn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn