The recent decision by voters in Great Britain to leave the European Union has provoked some probing questions about the virtues of democracy among writers and editors at various mainstream publications like the Financial Times, The Economist, The Times of London, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and many other like-minded newspapers and magazines. Are voters really capable of making decisions about issues as complex and far-reaching as whether Britain should leave or stay in the European Union? Should a decision of this complexity and magnitude ever be turned over to voters to decide in a national referendum? Is it possible in any case to discern what voters were trying to express when they cast those ballots to leave the European Union? Might the blunt results of the referendum be overturned by Parliament or by some official body whose members truly understand the issues at stake? Democracy, they seemed to be saying, is generally a good thing, but it is also a blunt instrument in need of being checked or refined by institutions that reflect a more sophisticated understanding of the common good. In this case, they agreed, majority rule yielded a result that contradicted the views of experts and was likely to do great damage to Britain’s standing in the world.

Little did these critics realize that their skeptical views about democracy and majority rule are not much different from those expressed by philosophers and statesmen through the ages