The Way They Argued
Recovering Courage in an Age of Cringe
Imagine stepping into a grand hall, the air thick with the weight of ideas, the echo of debate resonating off the marble walls.
Around you stand giants—Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison—deep in argument, their words sharpened by reason, their convictions rooted in something deeper than sentiment. This is the forum where nations are forged, where free men engage in the sacred duty of self-governance. And then, into this hallowed space, bursts a new voice:
"LOL. That’s cringe."
The room falls silent. The giants turn. But the newcomer has nothing more to add. No argument, no engagement, no substance—just a fleeting reaction, a slogan dressed as an opinion.
This is where we find ourselves today. The public square—once a battlefield of ideas—is now littered with weaponized memes and soundbites that masquerade as thought. Public discourse on fundamental issues—sexuality, immigration, religious liberty, the dignity of life—has largely descended into either blind ideological shouting matches or the evasive refuge of vague, feel-good platitudes. Those who dare to stake a claim in the realm of substantive moral reasoning are often met not with counterarguments but with denunciations: bigot, fascist, phobic, extremist. Meanwhile, others seek safety in ambiguity, speaking in tones so beige that no real position can be discerned at all.
Yet the very foundation of our constitutional republic, the extraordinary experiment that is the United States, was not built upon such vapid discourse. The men who drafted and defended the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights did not engage in vague gestures toward civility as an end in itself. They argued, debated, and fought—boldly, passionately, and with an intellectual rigor that is all but absent in today’s discourse. They did so because they understood something we seem to have forgotten: that truth is not a matter of preference or emotion, but of reason and reality, and that without it, conversation itself is absurd.
The Moral Compass of the Founders: A Republic Anchored in Truth
The Founding Fathers, despite their disagreements, were guided by a principle that transcended personal preference—the belief in natural law, that human rights and moral truths are not the inventions of men but are woven into the fabric of existence. This is why Thomas Jefferson could declare in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and endowed with “unalienable rights”—not by the state, not by popular opinion, but by their Creator.
John Adams, understanding the fragile nature of liberty divorced from morality, warned: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He did not suggest that mere procedural fairness was enough. A free people must be anchored to something beyond themselves, or else their freedom would become a license for chaos.
James Madison likewise recognized that democracy without moral foundations would quickly unravel. He observed: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.” The Constitution, he understood, was not a magic document that could sustain itself indefinitely. It required a citizenry willing to adhere to objective truths, to pursue justice not as a matter of shifting political winds but as a duty rooted in the very nature of man.
The Peril of Modern Discourse: Emotion vs. Reason
Compare this to our present age. Arguments over sexuality, marriage, immigration, racial justice, and economic policy are often settled not through rational engagement, but through the brute force of emotional manipulation. Consider the debate over marriage and human nature: the Founders did not shy away from difficult moral questions, nor did they pretend that every view of human flourishing was equally valid. They engaged with substance, drawing from philosophy, history, and theology. Today, however, positions on such topics are more often argued via tearful testimonials or scathing Twitter posts than through well-reasoned discourse.
Take immigration as another example. The Founders fiercely debated the nature of national sovereignty and the responsibilities of a free people toward newcomers. Alexander Hamilton, while recognizing the value of immigration, insisted: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country … would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.” He was not making an emotional appeal but stating a principle: that a nation must balance openness with order, charity with law.
And yet today, the conversation is often reduced to simplistic accusations—either you favor open borders because you “care,” or you support immigration laws because you are “hateful.” Gone is the nuance. Gone is the intellectual wrestling with how best to apply justice and prudence. Instead, we are left with slogans like “No human is illegal”—a phrase that may stir feelings but fails to engage the real question: what is the moral obligation of a nation toward those who seek to enter it?
A Call to Intellectual Courage and Substance
If the Founders could see our present discourse, they would recognize in it the seeds of self-destruction. A republic cannot be sustained on rhetorical manipulation, nor can it function when its citizens are afraid to speak the truth for fear of social condemnation. The Founders fought for a system in which ideas could contend openly, where reason, not coercion, would settle disputes. But such a system only works when the people engaging in it are willing to argue from solid foundations—not from raw emotion, but from an understanding of objective reality.
It is not enough to “care”—we must think. It is not enough to “listen”—we must seek truth. It is not enough to “be kind”—we must be just. As George Washington declared: “Truth will ultimately prevail where pains are taken to bring it to light.”
And that brings us back to the forum.
Are we still worthy of it?
The marketplace of ideas—the very foundation of our republic—requires more than voices; it requires minds shaped by something greater than slogans, hearts courageous enough to pursue truth, and intellects formed enough to handle the weight of real debate. Do we step into the great hall as worthy inheritors of the intellectual rigor of our Founding Fathers? Or do we merely lob slogans from the sidelines, hoping noise will substitute for argument?
The health of our republic depends upon our answer. If we wish to reclaim the substance and acumen of those who built this nation, we must once again anchor our conversations in reality, in reason, in principles that do not bend to popular sentiment. We must learn to speak boldly, with clarity and charity, knowing that disagreement is not the enemy—falsehood is.
We are, as the Founders were, beholden to a truth beyond ourselves. To abandon it is to make all conversation absurd. To reclaim it is to secure the future of our great experiment.
The choice is ours.
MY LATEST BOOK IS HERE!
"Twelve Roses is a poignant and transformative tale that deeply explores themes of faith, love, loss, and the boundless power of God's grace in our messy and often painful lives."
~ Mary Guilfoyle (Acts XXIX)
