the imaginative conservative logo

The mediocre man perhaps takes comfort from the fact that there will never be a monument erected in his honor. He has taken great pains to do nothing extraordinary to merit such an action…

As the violent Statue War now rages, a nervous man scornfully watches from a distance. He doesn’t understand what the uproar is all about. After all, the bronze figures vanishing in the night represent characters that are long dead. He wishes the whole affair would likewise go away in the darkness.

The man takes great pride in the fact that he has never involved himself in these issues. All his life, he has neither categorically affirmed nor denied anything. He has never cried out for any rights, nor protested against any injustice. His life is marked by just being ordinary. He might properly be labeled the mediocre man.

The mediocre man only wants to keep the peace at all costs. He raises up moderation as the supreme (yet not too supreme) rule of thinking. He values common sense above all else. There is no principle that cannot be circumvented, (or statue taken down) in the interest of getting along with others.

The mediocre man hates things that make people reflect. He does not value crystalline logic and definition but prefers the muddy comfort of the swamp. He would rather take the middle ground by claiming there is a bit of good and bad in everything. However, he is quick to see more bad in the good while taking great pains to find the least good in the bad. Generally, he feels uncomfortable with the terms “good” and “bad,” which he judges judgmental.

That is why when something like the Statue War breaks out, the mediocre man is truly troubled. The dispute stirs up the pseudo-tranquil waters of the swamp. People cannot make money or enjoy life when these issues take center stage. He will not enter into the core of the debate but simply argues that it is best to put the past behind and go on to bigger and better things.

Of course, he will decry radical activism when violence strikes. Abrupt actions of any sort violate his sense of moderation. However, it does not take too much to perceive that his real sympathies lie with the statue topplers, however violent they might be. The statue defenders are too rigid and categorical. The topplers appeal to his emotions and feelings of wanting everyone to get along.

Indeed, historically the mediocre man has always sided with the revolutionaries in the hopes that he might live unperturbed should a revolution come. He soon finds out that he is usually their first victim.

Thus, as the present debate rages, the mediocre man plays a major role. His inaction facilitates the statue topplers by failing to help rouse a wave of outrage against these acts of historical revisionism. His hidden sympathies for the protesters provide cover for cowardly politicians and businessmen who grovel to the politically correct narrative that decrees the statues be removed and history be erased. The mass media presents the “commonsensical” demands of the protesters to appeal to the mediocre man.

When statues are toppled, a good part of the blame can be laid upon the mediocre man that gave in without even debating the principles involved.

The mediocre man perhaps takes comfort from the fact that there will never be a monument erected in his honor. He has taken great pains to do nothing extraordinary to merit such an action. Ironically, there can be no better expression of the mediocre man than the empty pedestals that he helped create. They now stand in parks nationwide as a monument to his inaction.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative BookstoreThe Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
4 replies to this post
  1. Would you topple a statue oif Stalin? Lenin? Sanger? Would you vote to remove such statues from the town square to a museum? That is the simple aim of this confedoclast.

    Read the cornerstone speech of the confederacy. See how their regime was to extend the permanent black gulag. The confederate statues themselves, many of them over the top apotheosizing, are revisionist.

    The reason many are so attached to them is because they have been brought up to look up to them in the town square. A vicious cycle.

    Those confederate statues in the town square have a peculiar provenance, and, uniquely, should never have been placed. They deserve to be treated as would a statue of Hitler.

    • I’m sorry, but comparing Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Hitler is just ridiculous. It reminded me of when (radio host) Medved equated Lee to Benedict Arnold.

  2. Hmm… What if the “mediocre man” is merely a rational skeptic?

    What if he’s simply the kind of person who rejects the politician’s logic of “a) Something must be done. b) This is something. c) Therefore this must be done.”?

    What if the mediocre man rationally calculates what value the statues have for him and his life, and then rationally decides that it isn’t worth expending resources to fight their removal?

    Mediocrity, in this essay, seems to be defined as “someone who does not value as highly the things that I value very highly”….

  3. Compellingly written. I’m not sure how much we can draw from how strongly a person feels about statues. But perhaps those specific reasons are not the issue; perhaps the issue is whether we really are growing too apathetic and sensible to stand and fight for anything. We have noticed the “passionate intensity” of some turning to hate and bitterness; is it also true that “the best lack all conviction”? In 1886 Nietzsche railed against “the proper, modest, unobtrusive, equalizing attitude and the mediocrity of desires” he claimed had infected Europe. Is this something real, and if so, has it always been true, or is it a growing trend that should worry us?

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: