Rational Thinking as a Civic Duty: An Examination of Classical Republican Principles During the Founding of the United States

Generated using Claude 4.5 Sonnet Extended Thinking and Gemini 2.5 Pro on 10.15-16.2025.
Factual claims verification and in-text revisions manually performed by Sean Smith, DefendTheDisabled.org

Authors Foreword:
The United States was founded upon a set of principles which seem largely absent from the rhetoric driven positions and agendas of today’s political Left and Right. The founding fathers warned of party-driven division compromising a republic’s government and working against the common good. The polarization between the parties of the Left and the Right, these factions, has grown extreme and become largely irrational, clearly dysfunctional, and demonstrably harmful. It seems like U.S. Citizens need to be reminded of their civic duties as citizens of a Republic as espoused by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Executive Summary

This report examines whether rational thinking constitutes a civic duty in American political philosophy by analyzing primary sources from the Founding era. Through direct examination of the Founders’ writings, we demonstrate that reason was understood not merely as a personal virtue but as an essential civic obligation—the very foundation upon which republican self-governance rests. The founding fathers of the United States of America extensively utilized rational thinking to construct the U.S. Constitution. Upholding the practice of rational thinking is logically a required part of upholding the U.S. Constitution. This analysis reveals that contemporary political discourse, characterized by tribal allegiance over rational inquiry, represents a fundamental departure from the principles that animated American constitutionalism.

I. Classical Republicanism and the American Founders

The Intellectual Foundation

The American Founders drew heavily from Classical Republican thought, particularly as transmitted through Enlightenment writers like Montesquieu, Locke, and the English opposition theorists. This tradition emphasized several key principles:

Civic Virtue as the Foundation of Liberty

Montesquieu, widely read by the Founders, wrote in The Spirit of the Laws (1748): “There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government: the force of laws, in one, and the prince’s arm, in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole: but, in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue…

When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community…. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the license of many.”

“[V]irtue is a self-renunciation, which is very arduous and painful.

This virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtues.”

John Adams explicitly embraced this view, writing in his letter to Mercy Warren (1776): “Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty: and this public Passion must be Superiour to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions and Interests, nay, their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they stand in Competition with the Rights of Society.”

The Corruption of Passion

The republican tradition viewed unrestrained passion as the enemy of stable governance. Adams warned in a letter to John Taylor (1814): “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”

II. Defining Rational Thinking

Before we examine what the Founders said about reason, we need to define what rational thinking actually means. This isn’t just an academic exercise. Today, almost everyone claims to be “thinking rationally,” but systematic errors and emotional reasoning dominate our politics. If rational thinking is truly a civic duty, we need a clear standard that everyone can understand and measure themselves against.

The Five Essential Skills of Rational Thinking

Rational thinking isn’t one single ability—it’s a set of learnable skills working together:

1. Using Logic Correctly

Logic is the foundation of rational thinking. It’s about drawing correct conclusions from the information you have.

If-then reasoning: If all your premises are true, your conclusion must follow. Example:

All citizens have the right to vote (premise)
Maria is a citizen (premise)
Therefore, Maria has the right to vote (conclusion)

Evidence-based reasoning: Drawing conclusions from observations. If you see the same pattern 100 times, you can reasonably conclude it will happen the 101st time—but you stay open to being wrong.

The key: Don’t claim more certainty than your evidence supports.

2. Understanding How We Know Things

Rational thinkers understand the difference between “I think,” “I believe,” and “I know for certain.”

Burden of proof: If you make a claim, you have to prove it. As the saying goes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Testable claims: A useful claim must be capable of being proven wrong. “This policy will reduce unemployment by 2%” is testable. “This policy is blessed by God” is not—it can’t be proven or disproven.

Match confidence to evidence: If you have weak evidence, say “I think.” Strong evidence, say “I’m confident.” Overwhelming evidence, say “I’m certain.” Don’t use certain language when you only have a hunch.

3. Recognizing Your Own Mental Traps

Science has proven that all humans have predictable biases that distort our thinking. Rational thinkers learn to spot and resist these:

Confirmation bias: We naturally seek information that confirms what we already believe and ignore information that challenges it. Fight this by actively looking for evidence that contradicts your position.

Motivated reasoning: We decide what we want to be true, then work backward to justify it. Be honest: did you examine the evidence first, or did you pick your side and then look for reasons?

Dunning-Kruger Effect: People who know the least about a topic often feel the most confident. Real expertise comes with recognizing how much you don’t know.

Tribal thinking: We automatically favor our own group (political party, religion, region) and distrust others. This is especially dangerous in politics.

The rational thinker doesn’t claim to be immune to these biases—nobody is. But they actively work to counteract them by seeking out opposing viewpoints and questioning their own reasoning.

4. Spotting Bad Arguments

Rational thinking means recognizing when someone is using flawed reasoning, even when it sounds persuasive. Common fallacies in political discourse:

Personal attacks: “Don’t listen to Senator X’s plan—he’s a terrible person!” This attacks the person, not the argument. Even bad people can have good ideas.

False choices: “You’re either with us or against us!” This eliminates middle ground when it often exists.

Emotional manipulation: Using fear or outrage instead of evidence. “If we don’t do this, everything will collapse!” Emotion isn’t evidence.

Misrepresenting opponents: “My opponent wants to destroy America!” Most people don’t hold the extreme positions they’re accused of holding.

Circular reasoning: “This policy is good because it’s beneficial.” That just says the same thing twice without proving anything.

Learn to spot these tricks—and refuse to use them yourself, even when they’d help you win an argument.

5. Being Willing to Change Your Mind

Perhaps most important: rational thinking means treating your beliefs as working theories, not as parts of your identity.

Intellectual humility: Admitting what you don’t know. As philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “The fundamental cause of trouble in the modern world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

Updating your views: When strong evidence contradicts your position, you change your position. Economist John Maynard Keynes put it simply: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Honest representation: Describing what your opponents actually believe, not a distorted version. This is called “steel-manning”—making the strongest version of their argument before critiquing it.

Separating truth from preference: Just because a fact is inconvenient doesn’t make it false. A policy that benefits you personally might still be bad for the country.

How These Skills Work Together

Real rational thinking uses all these skills at once:

Define the claim clearly: What exactly are we arguing about?
Identify what evidence would prove it true or false: Can this be tested?
Check for logical errors: Does the conclusion actually follow from the premises?
Watch for biases: Am I believing this because it’s true or because I want it to be true?
Consider the strongest counter-arguments: What would someone who disagrees say?
Match your confidence to the evidence: How certain should I actually be?
Stay open to being wrong: What would make me change my mind?

What Rational Thinking Is NOT

To be clear:

Not emotionless: Emotions matter. But don’t let feelings replace facts or override logic.
Not just being smart: Intelligent people can still reason badly, especially about topics they’re emotional about.
Not requiring total certainty: Being comfortable saying “I don’t know” or “probably” is rational. Demanding absolute proof of everything is not.
Not eliminating all disagreement: Two people can both think rationally and still disagree about priorities or values.

Why This Matters for Democracy

When the Founders talked about “reason,” this is what they meant—this specific, demanding set of skills. Political discourse that relies on logical fallacies, ignores evidence, exploits biases, and refuses to update beliefs isn’t just poor reasoning. It’s a betrayal of the very foundation that makes self-government possible.

A free people must be a thinking people. As we’ll see in the next section, the Founders staked everything on this principle.

III. Reason as Political Necessity: The Founders’ Explicit Statements

Thomas Jefferson: Reason as the Guardian of Liberty

Jefferson’s faith in reason was absolute and explicitly tied to democratic governance. In his Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XVII (1787), he wrote:

“Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error… They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only… If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged…

Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable?…Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”

His commitment to rational citizenship was further expressed in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820):

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Jefferson saw education as the cultivation of reason, and reason as the prerequisite for self-governance, it being his hope that education and reason would allow “for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.”.

James Madison: The Rational Filter Against Faction

Madison’s Federalist No. 10 (1787) contains the most systematic analysis of reason’s role in republican government. He defined faction as:

“…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Note the explicit pairing: “passion, or of interest”—both positioned against reason and the common good. Madison’s solution was a representative system where:

“[the] chosen body of citizens [the elected representatives’] wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen, that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose….”

The entire constitutional architecture was designed to filter passion through reason.

In Federalist No. 49, Madison reinforced this point:

“The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated… But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.”

John Adams: Laws, Not Men

Adams’s commitment to rational governance through law rather than personality was unequivocal. In Thoughts on Government (1776), he argued:

“…there is no good government but what is Republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a Republic, is “an Empire of Laws, and not of men.” That, as a Republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words that form of government, which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of Republics.”

This famous phrase encapsulates the republican ideal: laws represent codified reason, stable and impartial, while individual rulers are subject to passion, corruption, and error.

In his his letter to Thomas Jefferson (1815), Adams wrote:

“The fundamental Article of my political Creed is, that Despotism, or unlimited Sovereignty, or absolute Power is the same in a Majority of a popular Assembly, and Aristocratical Counsel, an Oligarchical Junto and a Single Emperor. Equally arbitrary cruel bloody and in every respect, diabolical.”

Adams further exploring the subject in his letter to Mercy Warren (1776):

“It is the Form of Government, which gives the decisive Colour to the Manners of the People, more than any other Thing. Under a well regulated Commonwealth, the People must be wise virtuous and cannot be otherwise. Under a Monarchy they may be as vicious and foolish as they please, nay they cannot but be vicious and foolish.”

John Adams understood that democracy without reason was simply majoritarianism—mob rule by another name. That for citizens to be wise and virtuous they must be rational thinkers. That the rationality of citizens and their representatives is the key to a stable Republic which does not devolve into cruelty, viciousness, and foolishness.

Benjamin Franklin: The Weight of Responsibility

Franklin’s response upon leaving the Constitutional Convention is often misquoted or misunderstood. When asked by Elizabeth Willing Powel, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

This was not pessimism but a charge of responsibility. Franklin elaborated on this theme at the Constitutional Convention of July 26, 1787, with James Madison’s notes attributing Franklin as having stated:

“In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them.”

The keeping of the republic requires constant vigilance—and that vigilance must be rational, not emotional.

Evidence of Rationality as a Core Principle Throughout the Founders’ Works

The Founders didn’t just advocate for rational thinking in theory—they practiced it rigorously in their own writing and debate. Examining how they constructed arguments reveals the specific rational thinking skills they considered essential. One particularly illuminating example comes from John Adams’s letter to John Taylor (1814), where Adams defends his earlier work against mischaracterization:

“In your fifth page You Say “Mr. Adams calls our Attention to hundreds of wise and virtuous Patricians, mangled and bleeding Victims of popular Fury.” and gravely counts up several Victims of democratic Rage as proofs that Democracy is more pernicious than Monarchy or Aristocracy.” Is this fair, sir? Do you deny any one of my Facts? I do not say that Democracy has been more pernicious, on the whole, and in the long run, than Monarchy or Aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as Aristocracy or Monarchy. But while it lasts it is more bloody than either. I beseech you, Sir to recollect, the time when my three Volumes of “Defence” were written and printed, in 1786, 1787 and 1788. The History of the University, had not then furnis[h]ed me with a document I have Since Seen; an Alphabetical Dictionary of the Names and Qualities of Persons “mangled and bleeding Victims of democratic rage and popular fury” in France during the Despotism of Democracy in that Country, which Napoleon ought to be immortalised for calling “Ideology.” This Work is in two printed Volumes in octavo as large as Johnson’s Dictionary and is in the Library of our late virtuous and excellent Vice President Elbridge Gerry where I hope it will be preserved with anxious care. An Edition of it ought to be printed in America. otherwise it will be forever supressed, France will never dare to look at it. The Democrats themselves could not bear the Sight of it. They prohibited it and suppressed it as far as they could. It contains an immense number of as great and good Men as France every produced. We curse the Inquisition, and the Jesuits and yet the Inquisition and the Jesuits are <is> restored. We curse religiously the Memory of Mary for burning good Men in Smithfield, when if England had the been democratical She would have burned many more, and We murder many more by the Guilotine, in the latter Years of the Eighteenth Century. We curse Guy Faulks for thinking of blowing Up Westminster Hall, Yet Ross blows up the Capitol, the Palace and the Library at Washington and would have done it With the same sang froid had Congress and the Presidents Family been within the Walls. Oh! my soul! I am weary of these dismal Contemplations! When will Mankind listen to reason, to nature or to Revelation?”

This single paragraph demonstrates nearly every element of rational thinking we defined in Section II:

1. Identifying and Correcting Misrepresentation

Adams begins by quoting Taylor’s exact characterization of his argument, then immediately asks: “Is this fair, sir?” This is the practice of “steel-manning”—accurately representing an opponent’s argument before responding. Adams recognizes that Taylor has misrepresented his position, transforming it from a nuanced historical observation into an absolute condemnation of democracy.

He then states his actual position with precision: “I do not say that Democracy has been more pernicious, on the whole, and in the long run, than Monarchy or Aristocracy.” Notice the careful qualifiers: “on the whole,” “in the long run.” Adams is using precise language to clarify exactly what he did and did not claim.

2. Making Specific, Testable Claims

Adams doesn’t retreat to vague generalities. Instead, he makes two specific empirical claims:

“Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as Aristocracy or Monarchy”
“But while it lasts it is more bloody than either”

These are testable historical assertions. One could examine the historical record to evaluate whether democracies have been less durable and more violent during their existence than other forms of government. Adams is not making unfalsifiable moral pronouncements; he’s making empirical claims subject to evidence.

3. Providing Concrete Evidence

Adams doesn’t ask Taylor to simply trust his judgment. He cites a specific source: “an Alphabetical Dictionary of the Names and Qualities of Persons ‘mangled and bleeding Victims of democratic rage and popular fury’ in France during the Despotism of Democracy.”

He provides verifiable details:

The work exists in “two printed Volumes in octavo as large as Johnson’s Dictionary”
It is located in “the Library of our late virtuous and excellent Vice President Elbridge Gerry”
He expresses hope it will be “preserved with anxious care”

This is the burden of proof in action. Adams is saying: “I’ve seen the evidence. Here’s where you can find it. Examine it yourself.”

4. Acknowledging the Limits of His Earlier Knowledge

Adams demonstrates intellectual honesty by admitting what he didn’t know when he wrote his earlier work: “I beseech you, Sir to recollect, the time when my three Volumes of ‘Defence’ were written and printed, in 1786, 1787 and 1788. The History of the University, had not then furnis[h]ed me with a document I have Since Seen.”

This is intellectual humility. Adams is acknowledging that his earlier arguments were made without access to certain evidence. He’s showing how a rational thinker updates their understanding as new information becomes available. He’s not pretending he always knew everything or that his earlier work was flawless.

5. Employing Comparative Historical Reasoning

Adams uses a series of historical comparisons to establish his point:

The Inquisition and its violence
Queen Mary burning Protestants at Smithfield
Guy Fawkes’s plot to blow up Parliament
General Ross burning Washington, D.C.

He’s not cherry-picking examples from one side. He’s demonstrating that violence occurs under different systems, but making a specific claim about the particular character of democratic violence. This is inductive reasoning: examining multiple cases to identify a pattern.

6. Recognizing Bias and Motivated Reasoning in Others

Adams notes that the French document about democratic violence was “prohibited” and “suppressed as far as they could” by democrats themselves, who “could not bear the Sight of it.”

This shows Adams’s awareness that people will suppress evidence that contradicts their preferred beliefs—exactly the confirmation bias and motivated reasoning we discussed in Section II. He’s not assuming good faith actors who objectively evaluate evidence; he understands that partisan identity leads people to hide inconvenient facts.

7. Proportional Claims and Nuanced Conclusions

Throughout the letter, Adams avoids absolute language. He doesn’t say democracy is evil or always wrong. He makes qualified, comparative claims: democracy is “more bloody” while it lasts but not necessarily “more pernicious on the whole and in the long run.”

This is matching confidence to evidence. Adams has evidence about the violent episodes of democratic movements, so he makes claims about violence. He doesn’t extend those claims beyond what his evidence supports.

8. Placing the Burden of Proof on His Opponent

Adams challenges Taylor directly: “Do you deny any one of my Facts?”

This is crucial. Adams isn’t just making claims; he’s demanding that if Taylor disputes them, Taylor must provide counter-evidence. Adams has done his homework, cited his sources, and now asks: “Which specific fact are you disputing?”

9. Emotional Restraint and Rational Reflection

Even as Adams expresses weariness—”Oh! my soul! I am weary of these dismal Contemplations!”—he doesn’t allow emotion to replace argument. The emotional expression comes after the evidence and reasoning. He concludes with a plea: “When will Mankind listen to reason, to NATURE or to Revelation?”

Notice what he asks people to listen to: reason first, then nature (empirical observation), then revelation. Even in a moment of frustration, Adams prioritizes rational discourse.

What This Example Teaches Us

This letter demonstrates that rational thinking was not abstract philosophy for the Founders—it was their working method. Adams shows us how to:

Represent opponents’ arguments accurately before critiquing them
Make specific, testable claims rather than vague assertions
Cite concrete evidence that others can verify
Admit the limits of our knowledge
Use comparative reasoning across multiple cases
Recognize bias in ourselves and others
Match the strength of our claims to our evidence
Place the burden of proof where it belongs

When Adams asks “When will Mankind listen to reason?” he’s not making a rhetorical flourish. He’s expressing genuine frustration that political discourse too often abandons these practices in favor of emotional appeals and tribal loyalty.

IV. The Founders on Education and the Cultivation of Reason

The Necessity of Informed Citizenship

The Founders understood that rational citizenship required education. Their writings are filled with plans and pleas for educational systems.

Thomas Jefferson proposed a comprehensive system of public education in Virginia, arguing in A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge:

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:”

In an August 13th 1786 letter to George Wythe Jefferson wrote:

“Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”

James Madison wrote to W.T. Barry (1822):

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

John Adams advocated for publicly funded education in the Massachusetts Constitution (1780), which he drafted:

“Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties…”

These were not abstract philosophical musings. The Founders saw education—the cultivation of reason—as a structural necessity for republican government.

V. The Contemporary Crisis: Faction Over Reason

Madison’s Warning Realized

When we examine contemporary political discourse through the lens of Founding principles, we see a near-perfect manifestation of Madison’s fears. Modern political identity has become tribal, with allegiance to party overriding commitment to truth or the common good.

Consider Madison’s definition of faction again: “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to… the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

The modern phenomenon of partisan media ecosystems, where different groups literally perceive different sets of “facts,” represents the corruption of reason Madison feared. When citizens argue over which set of lies is the truth, they have already abandoned the rational inquiry the Founders deemed essential.

The Abdication of Civic Duty

The Founders would view our current political climate as a failure of civic virtue. Adams warned in Notes for an Oration at Braintree (1772):

“There is Danger from all Men. The only Maxim of a free Government, ought to be to trust no Man living, with Power to endanger the public Liberty.”

Adams recognized that the threat to liberty comes not only from tyrannical rulers but from the failure of citizens themselves to maintain rational discourse and civic virtue. His warning in a letter to John Taylor (1814) was even more dire:

“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Thomas Jefferson articulated a similar concern in his letter to Edward Carrington (1788):

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Without active, rational citizenship, power inevitably encroaches upon freedom. Jefferson’s faith in self-governance was predicated on enlightened citizens capable of rational inquiry. As he wrote to David Hartley (1787):

“I have no fear but that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved, I should conclude either that there is no God, or that he is a malevolent being.”

Jefferson’s faith in humanity was a faith in human reason. When that reason is abandoned—when citizens prioritize tribal loyalty over truth, when they accept convenient lies over inconvenient facts—the entire republican experiment is threatened.

VI. The Case for Rational Leadership

The Founders on Qualifications for Office

Did the Founders believe anyone could lead? The documentary record is clear: they did not.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68 regarding the Electoral College:

“It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it… to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

The system was designed to ensure that leaders possessed exceptional qualities, particularly the wisdom and judgment necessary for circumspect deliberations and investigations of complicated matters—these qualities being the products of reason and logic; of rationality.

James Madison in Federalist No. 57 described the expected qualities of representatives:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

Madison’s formulation is unequivocal. The primary goal of the American constitutional system is not merely to facilitate elections, but to create a mechanism for selecting rulers who demonstrate the capacity for rational judgment (“wisdom to discern”) and an unwavering commitment to the public welfare (“virtue to pursue the common good”). This establishes a clear standard for leadership, where the ability to think rationally is the essential qualification for public office.

The Modern Standard

When contemporary politicians openly embrace conspiracy theories, deny demonstrable facts, promote misinformation, or prioritize partisan loyalty over empirical truth, they violate the most fundamental expectation the Founders had for leadership.

Jefferson’s standard was explicit. In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (1800), he wrote:

“I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

This includes the tyranny of willful ignorance, of partisan dogma, of emotional manipulation. A leader who trades in these tools is, by Founding standards, unfit for office.

VII. A Non-Partisan Framework

The Universal Obligation

Critically, the duty of reason transcends partisan identity. The Founders themselves represented diverse viewpoints—from Hamilton’s strong central government to Jefferson’s agrarian democracy. Yet they shared a commitment to rational discourse.

George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) warned against the dangers of partisan faction:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Washington’s warning was prophetic. When reason gives way to faction, liberty gives way to tyranny, divisiveness propagates amongst the people, and special interests gain influence and spread corruption throughout the government.

A Shared Standard

The duty of rational thinking provides a framework that cuts across ideological lines. It allows us to ask of any leader, any policy, any argument:

Is this claim supported by verifiable evidence?
Does this policy serve the long-term common good or merely a factional interest?
Is this discourse designed to provoke thought or to manipulate emotion?
Does this leader demonstrate commitment to truth over tribal loyalty?

These questions are not liberal or conservative. They are republican—in the classical sense.

VIII. Patriotism as an Allegiance to Virtuous Rationality

To fully grasp the civic duty of rational thinking, we must examine how the Founders defined patriotism itself. For them, patriotism was not blind nationalism or unquestioning loyalty to the government of the day. Instead, it was an active and demanding allegiance to the principles of the republic: liberty, justice, and self-governance. This perspective transforms patriotism from a passive sentiment into a profound civic responsibility—one that is impossible to fulfill without the rigorous application of rational thought, guided by civic virtue.

Allegiance to Principle Requires Virtuous Rational Evaluation

The Founders consistently argued that a patriot’s primary loyalty was to the cause of liberty itself, not to a specific place or ruler. Benjamin Franklin encapsulated this view by defining his country by its ideals, stating, “Where liberty dwells, there is my country” (Letter to B. Vaughan, March 14, 1783). This is not a statement of emotional convenience; it is a declaration that sets a standard. To know if “liberty dwells,” a citizen cannot rely on passion or tribal affiliation. They must engage in a constant, rational evaluation of their society and government. This requires applying reason and logic to ask critical questions: Are the rights of the people being protected? Is justice being served? Is the government operating within its constitutional limits? This intellectual process, however, was not seen as a cold calculation; it was to be driven by a virtuous commitment to the principles being evaluated.

Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man, argued that the true measure of a country was the well-being of its people and the justice of its society, setting a clear, evidence-based standard: “When it shall be said in any country in the world, ‘My poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive…’ — when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government” (The Rights of Man, Part II, 1792). A patriot guided by virtuous rationality must assess the actual outcomes of policy, not just the rhetoric of leaders. They must prioritize empirical reality over partisan promises, fulfilling the duty of evidence-based reasoning.

Vigilance and Resistance Must Be Guided by Wisdom

A core tenet of the Founders’ patriotism was a duty to remain vigilant against government overreach and to resist tyranny. Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants” is a call for this ultimate vigilance.

However, this “spirit of resistance” is only legitimate when it is guided by wisdom—the product of reason and logic tempered by virtue. Without this moral guidance, patriotism degrades into the very factionalism Madison warned against—a “common impulse of passion… adverse to the rights of other citizens.” A wise patriot does not resist based on rumor, conspiracy, or emotional outrage. Their resistance stems from a careful, principled analysis of government actions measured against founding principles. Virtuous rational vigilance means distinguishing between legitimate threats to liberty and partisan fear-mongering. It requires the ability to spot flawed arguments and emotional manipulation, ensuring that resistance serves the republic rather than a faction.

An Informed Citizenry: The Fusion of Patriotism and Virtuous Rationality

The Founders saw patriotism as an active, not a passive, concept. This activity centered on the obligation to be an informed and engaged citizen. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, identified national unity as the bedrock of patriotism and warned that internal divisions were the greatest threat. Maintaining this unity requires citizens who can deliberate on the common good, a task that demands virtuous rationality over factional animosity.

This connects directly to Jefferson’s unshakeable belief that a self-governing people must be educated. When he stated that the remedy for a populace not “enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion” is “to inform their discretion by education,” he was defining the central patriotic duty. For the Founders, “informing their discretion” was the essence of cultivating a virtuous and rational citizenry. An informed citizenry does not merely consume information; it analyzes it critically, applying reason and logic. Crucially, the Founders understood that these intellectual tools alone were insufficient. They had to be guided by civic virtue—a commitment to justice, the common good, and republican principles—to produce wisdom. A truly informed citizenry, therefore, is one that discerns truth from falsehood and makes wise decisions for the nation, tempering its analysis with moral character.

Thus, in the Founders’ framework, patriotism and rational thought are inextricably linked. Patriotism provides the why—a virtuous love for the principles of liberty and justice. Rational thinking provides the how—the intellectual discipline, vigilance, and commitment to truth, guided by virtue, required to defend those principles for future generations.

VIII. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Founding Vision

The evidence from primary sources is overwhelming: the American Founders understood reason not as an optional virtue but as the essential foundation of self-governance. They built a system explicitly designed to filter passion through deliberation, to elevate wisdom over demagoguery, to make civic virtue—particularly the virtue of rational inquiry—the price of liberty.

Adams summarized the stakes in his VII. An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power (1807):

“No simple Form of Government, can possibly secure Men against the Violences of Power. Simple Monarchy will soon mould itself into Despotism, Aristocracy will soon commence an Oligarchy, and Democracy, will soon degenerate into an Anarchy, such an Anarchy that every Man will do what is right in his own Eyes, and no Mans life or Property or Reputation or Liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral Virtues, and Intellectual Abilities, all the Powers of Wealth, Beauty, Wit, and Science, to the wanton Pleasures, the capricious Will, and the execrable Cruelty of one or a very few.”

Jefferson offered the solution in his first inaugural address (1801):

“…error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

The preservation of the American republic depends on citizens reclaiming their fundamental duty: to think rationally, to pursue truth over tribe, to elevate the common good above factional gain. This is not a call for intellectual elitism but for intellectual responsibility—the burden every citizen bears in a self-governing society.

The Founders gave us a republic. Whether we can keep it depends on whether we honor the duty they considered most essential: the exercise of reason in service of the common good.