[general_re]

That works as long as you equate rationalism with pure Cartesian philosophy. However, rationalism didn't begin and end with Descartes and Spinoza - consider the rational/empirical synthesis of Kant, where both reason and experience are complementary, and neither is a priori held in primacy over the other. Why shouldn't that brand of rationalism have a prime spot in political theory?

[inquest]

Well, if you go talking about rational/empirical syntheses, then I wouldn't call it rationalism; I'd call it rationalism/empiricism or something. I think that's different from what the author was getting at.

In any case, even reason and experience aren't always enough. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know is right, even if you can't put it into precise terms at a given moment. Ignoring that voice can win you a lifetime membership in the Jacobin Club.