Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) were 17th-century English philosophers who developed social contract theories. Both believed that government is not natural or divinely ordained, but created by people for specific purposes and forms a social contract with obligations and authority.

Hobbes (on the left) believed people are naturally selfish, fearful, and competitive. In his view, life without government would be chaotic and violent, so people give strong power to a ruler to keep order and prevent “war of all against all.” Hobbes thought we need an absolutely powerful government to control us.

Locke had a more optimistic view. He believed people are generally rational and capable of living together with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Government exists to protect those rights, and if it fails, people have the right to replace it. Locke thought government should be limited and exist to protect individual rights.

Let’s imagine how Hobbes and Locke would judge the administration of Donald Trump, with their different ideas about power and rights:

Does this leadership maintain order and prevent chaos?

Hobbes cared most about order and stability. If he believed that Trump’s leadership, maintained control, prevented chaos, and kept the state functioning, he would likely support strong executive actions, even if they seemed harsh or expanded presidential power. However, if he thought Trump’s rhetoric or actions increased division, unrest, or threatened stability (for example, disputes over elections, public disorder, or killing innocent citizens). Hobbes would be critical, since avoiding instability is his top priority.

Does this leadership protect rights and stay within limits?

Locke would judge the administration based on whether it protected natural rights life, liberty, and property and respected the rule of law. He would likely be concerned about anything that appeared to overreach executive power, undermine legal norms, or weaken democratic institutions, like declaring war or persecuting political oponents. At the same time, he might support policies he saw as protecting property rights or individual freedoms. If he believed the government was violating rights or failing its duties, Locke would argue that citizens are justified in resisting or replacing it.

Assessments of the Trump administration vary widely. Hobbes and Locke could each be used to argue for and against it, depending on your sense of chaos and liberty. Decide for yourself. I think both would be horrified, although Hobbes might be more inclined to accept Trump’s authoritarian pretensions.