When the United States took a deep dive into STEM fields, prioritizing them above everything else in education back in the 1950s, civics took a back, middle seat. All of the problems we have today, from affective polarization to young people thinking there is no significant difference between living in an authoritarian regime or a democratic regime, can be traced to this pivotal moment.

Luckily, the nation realizes the existential crisis it finds itself in and is seeking solutions. Unfortunately, the national conversation assumes a zero-sum understanding of civics, with both sides asserting their party’s agenda. This is a false dichotomy.

According to CivxNow, 38 states have pending civics education legislation. Last year in Utah, the legislature passed H.B. 381, which added a 3.5-credit social studies requirement to secondary education. They also passed S.B. 334, which established a Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University.

In the last five years, a number of bills and resolutions have passed, demonstrating a Republican-led legislature’s concern that civics be defined, among other things, as reading primary documents and explicitly not defined as civic engagement or action civics. A quick perusal of the same timeline in California demonstrates a Democratic-led legislature’s concern that civics be defined as civic engagement, with bills that require it as part of general education courses, among other things. In California, primary or founding documents are not even listed in recent bills.

Republicans are concerned that education has not taught the foundation of this country. The argument says that young people are not being taught civic knowledge — broadly defined as understanding the key founding documents, such as “The Federalist Papers,” or the important role of political institutions, processes, and actors in America.

Democrats are concerned that education has left people out of the story, so they focus on empowering the next generation to live the nation’s ideals. They want young people to be civically engaged — broadly defined as being able to solve problems through collaborative endeavors or voting.

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to friend Maria Cosway, Jefferson engages in a dialogue between his head and his heart. The head advises against emotional attachment, arguing that discipline is the better part of valor; the heart argues that connection and friendship is the point. When reflecting on his young country, Jefferson’s head weighed in the balance “wealth and numbers” and advised against revolution, while the heart “supplied enthusiasm against wealth and numbers.” His heart said, “We put our existence to the hazard, when the hazard seemed against us, and we saved our country.”

This personal letter is my favorite of Jefferson’s writings because it is unclear who won the argument. When I read it for the first time, I was sure the heart had won, but later in life, I was sure it was the head.

As I have been thinking about this national political fight over civics, this letter came to mind and I now believe that both won. Both are necessary. An active and engaged citizenry needs both civic engagement (enthusiasm) and civic knowledge (wealth and numbers). Civic engagement untethered from civic knowledge is just noise. Civic knowledge without civic engagement does not save our country.

A specific example is a recent fight over voter engagement. We find Republicans seeking to prevent civic education from registering young people to vote because they see voter engagement as a tool to mobilize more Democrats. For their part, Democrats have used voter registration numbers and voter turnout to claim success, without ever asking whether the young voters were prepared to make an informed decision.

Seeing civics through the lens of who will win the next election is the problem. Civics is not politically partisan; it is not mutually exclusive. This nation needs both its head and its heart.

We need citizens who have read the founding documents and understand the fundamental questions of democracy that James Madison and his colleagues grappled with because they are the same questions we are answering today. We also need citizens who have enthusiasm for candidates and issues and we need them to knock doors or sign petitions; we need them to register to vote and turn in their ballots.

We need citizens who understand that when the Supreme Court tells the president he cannot have all the tariffs he wants because Congress should be in charge of lawmaking, that those justices are not being disloyal. Regardless of how enthusiastic people are for their expectations of the president, the truth is that the founders intended that laws go through the legislative process. As Justice Neil Gorsuch said, knowledgeable citizens “will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

In short, we need both civic knowledge (the head) and civic engagement (the heart). At the individual level, they provide citizens the moderation of the soul necessary for our republic to thrive.

Leah Murray is a Brady Presidential Distinguished Professor of Political Science and the director of the Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service at Weber State University. This commentary is provided through a partnership with Weber State. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.