Hobbes in the US?

I was recently writing a paper on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and started thinking about modern day society's that resembles their political views on how the perfect society should look. I almost instantly draw a line between the American government and Hobbes ideas about the social contract. This contract is agreed upon by the individuals, and by giving up some of their rights and freedoms to one single ruler, the society gain is stability and becomes safer for the citizens of said society. So, giving up parts of your freedom to gain security? Made me think of the Patriots Act straight away, though I must admit that I have not read the document myself, so I might be a bit off. Anyway, from what I've understood, the document gives the government the right to deny the citizens some of their rights in order to make life safer and more stable in the country. This also means that the citizens have to believe that their government will do only just that, work towards safety and stability, since it would be just as easy for them to work towards other goals as well. It's essentially a matter of control, the people give some of their control for safety, which means the government is given more control, which can also be used to restrict the control of the people further. What I'm getting at is basically that no government should be unrestricted in it's actions, even if the people made these actions possible. A government that works for itself and not it's people is no longer the peoples government. But would it work the other way around then? If we take my country, Sweden, as an example... We have a coalition government, consisting of several different political parties, which is mainly the case because of our political system. The problem with a government such as this, is that it does not have the same kind of power as the American government has. On the upside is the fact that this government is restricted because of the fact that the people have more control over it, but this might not be a very valid comparison because of the difference in size between the two country's. After all it also affect the size of the government in itself, but also how close most people can get to the government. If a majority of the people in a country is politically active it decrees' the possibility of the government to get too much control. If there is a an uninterested attitude towards politics, the government can do pretty much what it pleases, as long as it keeps the people happy. As you might suspect by now, I'm more in favor of Locke than Hobbes, though there is of course good and bad things with both their views... As there usually is in life.