What’s Wrong with the World Today?
A Canadian political scientist and observer of the world, Alain Deneault, says the world is plagued by mediocrity. In his book, Mediocracy, Deneault argues that the world has experienced a “‘numbing revolution” and that the mediocre among us have power. He writes that mediocre leaders everywhere have entered the halls of power and have taken over the controls. (Source: “Lux Éditeur Rights List 2015,” Lux Éditeur, last accessed November 3, 2016.)
Perhaps this is how the current American presidential election has come to pass. People have realized that something is wrong, but they could not identify the cause and give it a name. In truth, the author of Mediocracy has merely exposed the issue in a more elegant manner. Indeed, the producers of the 2006 movie Idiocracy had already recognized and described the phenomenon of incompetence, and how it has crept into leadership. (Source: “Idiocracy (2006),” IMDb, last accessed November 3, 2016.)
Advertisement
Still, Deneault, has gone a little deeper. He has even identified where the trend of ever lower quality leaders began. It’s unclear whether Deneault is right, but his explanation has merit. Certainly, it could spark much-needed debate on the subject.
How did the mediocre come to control the world, and why could we not stop them? What Deneault calls the “numbing revolution” is an attitude. It can be likened to political correctness because it always tries to push us to the absolute center. This has the effect of stifling debate. In political and economic terms, it avoids leaders doing anything that might call into question the economic and social order. Everything must be standardized. The “middle way” has become the norm.
As it happens, Deneault argues that being mediocre doesn’t mean being incompetent. Or, rather, it’s the system that builds incompetence by avoiding the excessively competent and the totally incompetent. The smart ones challenge the status-quo too much while the incompetent are inefficient. Deneault says the mediocre who keep the system at large stagnant have useful skills, but their skills are not enough to shake the foundations of the system. They are there to play the game, not to change it. But what does “playing the game” mean?
Deneault writes that playing the game means to revel in the small compromises that serve to achieve short-term goals. It means shutting one’s eyes before unmentioned rules or to speak in generalities, when specifics are necessary. It is, ultimately, about adopting behaviors that are not compulsory, but which reflect a relationship of loyalty to an individual or a network or a specific group. In a word, it’s cronyism, the kind that has worked in Washington for some time. That’s why the two traditional political parties have been unable to make America great again.
