Editorial: Was Theresa May really a compelling perspective?

“Compelling Perspectives” is a recently erected Lehigh-sponsored forum that brings speakers to engage with different worldly topics of “critical and societal importance.” 

Theresa May, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom and current member of parliament, was brought to campus as part of the series to offer her perspective on national security in a global context. 

Several members of The Brown and White Editorial Board attended both an intimate question-and-answer session led by Provost Nathan Urban and the publicly open discussion moderated by President Joseph Helble. 

We were unimpressed by both. 

The goals of Compelling Perspectives are virtuous and commendable — it’s worthwhile to promote critical thinking in the truest of senses, even, and especially, when we disagree. 

And with that, let’s not allow a veil of impartiality to conceal our assessment that May was not a compelling perspective. 

As an active politician, it’s hard to imagine she would say anything particularly controversial or self-critical. But May succeeded in the thing politicians are touted for doing: taking part of a question and transforming it into a part of the book she wrote. 

For that we praise her. Her ability to speak with confidence and dignity is profound considering her legacy as prime minister is nothing short of chaotic. 

May’s poor handling of Brexit and the holding of a snap election in 2017 are the most common failures pointed to in arguments about her weak leadership. In part due to the ensuing problems these events created, May resigned as prime minister in 2019. 

Not to mention that conservatives in the U.K., the party she lays claims to, are responsible for pushing a nationalist agenda that has ultimately made the country less secure.  

Brexit, which May initially opposed, was barely acknowledged in the conversation and there was no reconciliation with the fact that the European Union is less stable or cooperative since the U.K.’s departure. 

Instead, the students were met with vague, grandiose statements about the importance of political balance and the willingness to compromise. But May herself is an isolated, unliked figure on both sides of the political aisle. 

Absolutism, as she described in her main presentation, is currently overtaking societal discourse because it separates people as either being entirely with or against someone. 

The word “absolutist” was brought into conversation five times throughout the night. The word “extremist” was mentioned only once. 

While absolutism is the mechanism that perpetuates extremism, it’s an extremist right wing driving politics upside down all over the world. May’s disillusionment of the conservative party and willingness to appeal to various sides of it ended in disaster. 

On the note of rhetoric, May drew emphasis on several odd talking points. 

One was that there’s an important difference between refugees and economic migrants and that resources and policies should address them separately. Another was about the success of the Modern Slavery Act. 

And an even stranger one was about internet safety in the era of social media where she recounted a story about meeting a father whose son committed suicide after being influenced by a website. 

The night ended on a bitter note when several students at the end of the event used the Q&A forum to press May about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

May mostly aligned herself with the “Israel has a right to defend itself” mantra as a blanket response to the conflict and, though she supported a two-state solution, offered no real insight into how it would be possible. 

Without a disruption to the status quo, an analytical eye toward current events or a willingness to stand by her own opinions, it was hard to see May as being all that compelling. 

We see May as a flashy, British and controversial conservative on a book tour. We’re not sure she was even a fit to be discussing national security. 

We agree that accounting for a variety of perspectives is valuable in provoking thought that extends well beyond the walls of Baker Hall, but we’re not sure May was the one to do that. But at least we started somewhere and beg for something more compelling here on out.