This is a great article by Corey Robin, one of the rare left-wing academics who treats the opposing side with some seriousness, and worth reading in its entirety:
What makes it particularly interesting is that the tendencies the author detects in Hobbes, some of which I've highlighted below, are not limited to him but appear time and time again in other counter-revolutionaries. It also has the added benefit of placing Hobbes in the proper context.
Note how the description of Hobbes in Robin's article matches the complaints of the blogger, especially in the charge that de Maistre is saturated in the revolutionary's own ideas. Robin makes that points that 1) the right is frequently the left's best student and 2) the right is intrinsically a modern movement, despite its appeals to a pre-modern past. What the blogger fails to understand is that counter-revolutionaries, and the political right more broadly, are not and never have been "traditionalists" or "conservatives" in the strict dictionary sense of those terms. de Maistre, Donoso Cortés, and many of the other Catholic right-wing thinkers, facing the same exigencies as Hobbes, have often broken with Catholic tradition in profound ways. And while the differences should not be brushed aside, ultimately they share more in common with atheists like Maurras and Nietzsche than with the Doctors of the Church (off the top of my head, the only major conservative thinker of the nineteenth century who took Thomism seriously was Jaime Balmes). Even aspects of Nietzsche's attacks on Christianity can be found in embryonic form in de Maistre's tirades against Protestantism.
Unfortunately, confusion arises when self-identified "conservatives" rely too much upon second hand accounts of what a given author said and not enough on primary texts, and so you have people coming up with their own arbitrary definitions of what a "conservative" is based on their own preferences. In my opinion, the terms "conservative" and "traditionalist" are misleading and perhaps should be jettisoned altogether, because a "conservative" or "traditional" right doesn't really exist, and never has. There is only a radical right with varying degrees of radicalism.
While we're on the topic of definitions, I'd like to also state that I've always disliked the habit of many Throne and Altar types to claim that they represent the only "true" right. The first objection is etymological: right-of-center currents were present as early as the 1820s among the Doctrinaires and the Orléanists, so if we allow that the left/right division emerged in 1789, why would a period of mere few decades give Ultras and Legitimists and their brethren a monopoly on the term? The second objection is philosophical: I think you do find many of the same impulses and propensities in the more moderate rightists such as Tocqueville, and it's not surprising that these moderates gravitate further towards the right when push comes to shove (as happened in Tocqueville's case in 1848).
For the record, I've always thought the real liberal of the English Civil War period was not Hobbes, but John Milton. There is very little in John Locke, who basically recapitulated a century's worth of intellectual and political developments, that is not already in Milton's political pamphlets and essays.