Letter: In Reply to McManus—Misunderstanding Brexit

“These are the facts and historical context that any fair-minded and rational critic should consider before lambasting the majority of Brits who chose to forgo membership in the European Union.”

Editor’s Note: It has been brought to our attention that this letter contains an error. Plato, in the words of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, believed that, “The best form of government, which he advances in the Republic, is a philosophical aristocracy or monarchy, but that which he proposes in his last dialogue the Laws is a traditional polity: the mixed or composite constitution that reconciles different partisan interests and includes aristocratic, oligarchic, and democratic elements.”

Letter Published July 24th

Thank you for the offer to write a response to the criticism of my letter “In Reply to McManus—Misunderstanding Brexit.” Each time I put my fingers to my keyboard I realized that I might be in danger of doing more harm than good—of further propagating the discord that permeates political discourse today. If Professor McManus and company are more obsessed with my interpretation of Plato’s writings from 2,500 years ago than they are with the central theme of my piece (that in politics there is no right or wrong, just different principles and perspectives), then perhaps I was just wasting my time? This is especially true given that as commentators, we are participating in a discourse platform whose mission is to create “a new and independent voice to the current media landscape, which has become too partisan and polarizing.”

It’s a shame and deeply ironic that, far from encouraging writers to embrace the principle that there are “few dangers more pernicious than the urge to become an obedient, unthinking member of a one-size-fits-all ideology,” platforms like Merion West can be subject to the axiom of unintended consequences: that a commendable and bold venture can be misappropriated as a platform for writers who, far from embracing the founding principle, actively seek to defend or propagate their dogmas?

This is disheartening for a platform that actively encourages its contributors to have an open mind. Surely now is the time for thought leaders and influencers to move beyond the traditional framework of “left and right,” “capitalism and socialism,” “conservative and progressive.”