Hobbes’s Leviathan and the Patriot Act: Apparent Contradictions

Political theories have shaped the culture of politics in the west for centuries. From the time of the Greeks to the present day, these theories have impacted how societies have been established and governed. Among the different nations of the world, the United States is a unique case. Unlike many other nations, the U.S. has, at its core, traces of several different political theories that have been used to establish society and politics. One of the most important is the political theory found in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, also known as The Matter, Form and Power of a Common Wealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. In the text, published in 1651, Hobbes introduces the social contract theory. This theory has had a major influence, not just in the United States, but in Western political philosophy in general. Due to the great influence this theory has had, it is worth studying; however, for a better understanding of this theory, two things must be done: the theory itself must be examined, and an example of this theory being used should also be examined. The following will look at this theory, and its relation to the USA PATRIOT Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.

In Leviathan, Hobbes offers the idea that there is a definite need for law and order in society. Governmental entities are responsible for ensuring these things. The text suggests that this is due to the given nature of people. According to Hobbes, “It is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Hobbes, 1651, n.p.). Common law and governing institutions established based on this common law are what helps to curbs man’s natural inclinations. Hobbes continues:

The covenant, it is to be understood they are not obliged by former covenant to anything repugnant hereunto. And consequently they that have already instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgments of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude. (Hobbes, 1651, n.p.)

According to Hobbes, keeping this covenant arrangement is imperative to maintain order within a society. Although it seems as though Hobbes is pointing to an authoritarian government, where the citizenry or subjects blindly follow the leader they select, the text holds a clearer picture. One theorist points out this very important subtext, “Hobbes claims that subjects in a commonwealth retain a right of self-defense… his conception of the right to disobey, or resist the sovereign goes far beyond the oft- recognized right to defend oneself against an imminent, deadly threat” (Sreedhar, 2010, p. 2). When the selected government authority stops meeting the obligations it has to the subjects, as agreed by the terms of the social contract, the people (subjects) can resist. This perspective leaves a puzzling question with the ideas Hobbes presented about a patriarchal form of government.

In the article, “Intending (Political) Obligation: Hobbes on the Voluntary Basis of Society” by political science professor Gordon Schochet, the author discusses the obligatory role that government should have in the lives of those under its leadership, but also the role that those under the leadership have in the society in which they live. The author’s most important concept taken from Leviathan was the idea of gratitude. In the article published in 1990, Schochet emphasizes the important role that gratitude plays in political obligation. According to the author, Hobbes is centrally engaged in constituting the social contract as “the mutual relation between Protection and Obedience” (Schochet, 1990, n.p.). This idea found in Leviathan supports the idea of Patriarchalism in government. In other words, the government has to take a father-like role and care for its citizens as a father, but as a child is obligated to respect and appreciate his or her father, citizens are obligated to their society and government. Schochet takes it further by saying that the two factions “in effect enter into reciprocal agreements, the subjects remain loyal and obedient and the government (or monarch) spares their lives in return for obedience” (Schochet, 1990, n.p.). Therefore, from the subjects’ standpoint, they should have gratitude to the government for sparing and protecting their lives. This gives governmental institutions justified authority to do what needs to be done under the terms of the social contract. When these two juxtaposed ideas found in Leviathan are examined in United States public policy, the lines become more blurred.

A strong example of this blurring can be found in the USA PATRIOT Act. USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The intent of this legislation is to do exactly what the acronym suggests: the United States government has the power to do whatever is necessary to thwart and prevent terrorism. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “the Patriot Act has played a key part, often the leading role, in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life” (USDOJ, 2014, n.p.). Within these boundaries, the U.S. government has taken many steps in the war on terrorism. Post-September 11th, 2001, there was an almost unspoken, but clearly understood, Leviathan social contract between the American people and the government. If the citizens of the nation remain loyal and obedient, the government would protect them and prevent this from happening again, by any means necessary, like a father would protect their child. However, political theorists and United States citizens question the far reach of the PATRIOT ACT. According to Tralau:

It has often been argued that, notwithstanding his commitment to the authoritarian state, Thomas Hobbes is a champion of the "minimal" version of liberty of conscience: namely, the freedom of citizens to think whatever they like as long as they obey the law…however in today’s society Hobbes’s theory as it relates to the USA PATRIOT ACT and other measures prove inconsistent (2011, p. 58)

For the American people, who accept the social contract theory that Hobbes presents, there is a resistance to total patriarchal (or monarchal) rule and/or protection. Tseggai suggests that: Liberal ideologies such as that of the United States have their fountainhead in the defiance and rebellion of the masses against absolutism that saw itself as having divine rights to rule and write the rules of ruling and succession. In other words they were not willing to submit to absolutism and monarchism” (Tseggai, 2003, p. 141)

Many citizens have found the overreaching authority, such as surveillance, drone usage, etc., to be too extreme, even to prevent terrorism. The government has made provisions within the law to protect the rights of the citizens; however, as Henderson puts it “the provisions do not reduce the likelihood that innocent citizens will have their real-time conversations intercepted while roving surveillance is being conducted” (2002, p. 207). This further highlights the blur between the two ideas that Hobbes presented. In fact, the PATRIOT Act adds even more confusion to Hobbes’s theory.

Although well intended, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan is a political theory (or philosophy) that is full of contradictions. One is found in the relationship between those ruling and their subjects; the main theme of the work suggests that there is a social contract between the ruling and the ruled. Subjects give their loyalty and obedience to the government in return for protection. However, if the government steps outside of the terms of the contract, then the subjects have the right to resistance. Herein lies the confusion that is apparent in the United States policy of the USA PATRIOT Act. This leaves one question to be answered: how does one determine if the government has gone too far with protecting its citizens, and has there been a breach of the social contract?

References

Hobbes, T. (1651). Experts from Leviathan. In J. Losco and L. Williams, Political Theory: Classic and contemporary readings: Machiavelli to Rawls, (Vol. II): New York: Oxford University Press.

Henderson, N. (2002). The Patriot Act’s impact on the government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance of ongoing domestic communications. Duke Law Journal, 5(1), pp. 179-209.

Schochet, G. J. (1990). Intending (Political) Obligation: Hobbes and the Voluntary Basis of Society. In J. Losco and L. Williams, Political Theory: Classic and contemporary readings: Machiavelli to Rawls, (Vol. II): New York: Oxford University Press.

Sreedhar, S. (2010). Hobbes on Resistance: Defying the Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tralau, J. (2011). Hobbes contra liberty of conscience. Political Theory, Vol. 39(1), pp. 58-84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23036034.

Tseggai, I. (2003). Political culture: What inspires and what despairs terrorism. Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies. Issue 3 (November), 134-153.

United States Department of Justice. (2014). USA PATRIOT ACT of 2002. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm.