As with Rush, this reads like a straightforward endorsement of some common understanding of what it means to “be informed.” But let’s look at the quotation in its full context. This quote comes from a letter Jefferson wrote in January 1789. He was writing to Richard Price, a British minister in London who supported the American Revolution, and their correspondence took place while Jefferson was serving a five-year stint as a diplomat in France. The quote above comes from a letter in which Jefferson is responding to Price’s praise for the American Constitution, which had been ratified by 11 of 13 states the previous year. Jefferson had only witnessed the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates from afar, mostly through letters from Madison. It was in this context that he said:

Our new constitution, of which you speak also, has succeeded beyond what I apprehended it would have done. I did not at first believe that 11. states out of 13. would have consented to a plan consolidating them so much into one. A change in their dispositions, which had taken place since I left them, had rendered this consolidation necessary, that is to say, had called for a federal government which could walk upon it’s [sic] own legs, without leaning for support on the state legislatures. A sense of this necessity, and a submission to it, is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

In context, then, Jefferson was referring to the American adoption of the Constitution in place of the previous Articles of Confederation, a change famously recommended by a Convention that arguably went far beyond its original assignment to modify the Articles. That convention, attended by 55 delegates, operated in complete secrecy from the outside world, far from the eyes and ears of any “well informed” public! Then followed Ratification, when “the people” of the various states had to decide if the new Constitution was something they really wanted.

In this excerpt Jefferson suggests that the states were right to ratify the Constitution. However, it’s unclear whether his confidence that the “well informed” who could “be trusted with their own government” referred mainly to (1) the state delegates from the ratifying states, (2) the segments of the population who could vote for those state delegates, or (3) the general population that engaged in public discussion and debate, whether or not they had a vote to cast. 

On even the most generous reading—that there’s no need to nitpick like this, because with a little good-faith updating it’s clear that the spirit of his words translates to the 21st century regardless of his particular context—we’re left with questions: What did he mean by “informed”? People who follow Constitutional debates? Who approve of “consolidation” when necessary? Who know the newspaper headlines? Who vote? Who engage in spirited debate? Who are persuaded by the right arguments? 

What if the so-called anti-federalists had won and the Constitution hadn’t been ratified—would that have meant the people were uninformed and not to be trusted with their own government, because they rejected his preference? 

And what does he mean when he says “they may be relied upon” but only “whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice”? Is he suggesting that an informed citizenry only needs to be alert to the most egregious wrongs, but doesn’t have to stay on top of things in the meantime? 

In any case, Jefferson’s letter seems to be relying on a different definition of “informed” than Rush was relying on just two years earlier. Where Rush emphasized morally upright, Christian citizens, Jefferson seems to be emphasizing a citizenry aware enough to spot egregious governmental wrongs of an unspecified type.

We could go on—Jefferson can be quoted to suggest that civil liberties, a free press, and informed people are critical to the functioning of the republic, and he can be quoted to suggest that the elite should rule and the press is a dishonest, attention-sucking business that is unworthy of your time, even actively harmful to your understanding. We could play a long game of “quote your Founder” to support a lot of things we want to believe.

But as we’ve seen, this kind of game doesn’t get us very close to a better understanding of what it means to “be informed” in the 21st century—indeed, it makes it harder to get close to a good understanding, since each new citation brings its own context and raises its own questions. 

Historian of early America Richard D. Brown puts it nicely: “The actual lesson of the historical record is that no precise meaning for an informed citizenry has ever been established” (Brown, 205).

So where do we go from here? My hope is that we can work from this starting point to construct a definition of “being informed” that is useful for a conscientious person in the 21st century. These are the tentative topics I hope you’ll follow me through:

• Post 2: What did “being informed” mean in the late 18th century? 

• Post 3: What role did the Founders envision for free speech and a free press in an “informed” society?

• Post 4: What did “being informed” come to mean during the Progressive Era? 

• Post 5: How did technological change disrupt what it means to “be informed”?

• Post 6: How should we think about “omnicompetence”?

• Post 7: How do contemporary civics books define “being informed”?

• Post 8: What does it mean to “be informed” in the 21st century?

Talk soon!

Schudson, Michael. The Rise of the Right to Know: Politics and the Culture of Transparency, 1945–1975. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2015.