Non-traditional Choices

The Canadian electorate has made non-traditional choices in our leadership since the '60s.

First, 20 years after the successful conclusion of WWII, we elected as prime minister a guy who contrived to avoid military service during that war. That wasn't too shocking at the time since we had on hand an influx of draft dodgers from across the border hiding out in Canada.

And having made that curious decision, we broke with the tradition for the post of Governor General of Canada. Instead of selecting someone with a solid record of service to the British Empire, or of some real significance to Canada, the powers -that-be began to offer us more non-traditional, marginally-significant people with mysterious credentials for such public posts.

Clearly, the appointments had taken on a non-traditional aura. We ordinary working people were mystified by some of the choices, but were actually too busy to ask questions and did nothing as these things were sneaked past us.

And, as a matter of fact, that is still being done. Many of those appointments are still mysterious.

We were first with a prime minister in the form of a female. While easier to look at, she turned out to be clearly a poor choice for the job at hand as events quickly showed.

It might be assumed, with some accuracy, that the Canadian electorate was kept in the dark on the choice of candidates for many of these posts. We also have to assume those choices were made by behind-the-scenes committees comprising manipulative individuals of politically-correct, all-inclusive, non-traditional headspace, making full use of electronic advances to spread their propaganda to condition the electorate.

Unimpeded by a formalized and largely unnecessary Charter of Rights and Privileges, our US neighbors carried on as usual for a while. Eventually, they succumbed to the new social order and elected a not-quite-white president. In the absence of other visible attributes, it is easy to assume that the colour of his epidermis was taken into account.

Now it seems they are polishing up a white female for that role. Hilary Clinton is making strong waves in the left-leaning media. It is possible her proponents see her as potential material largely because she is a female, the wife of a former president.

In our current social consciousness, female is in, white male is out. The white male's historically recorded past achievements are forgotten and all of society's ills are attributed to him.

Years of media sloganeering with such terms as pro-active and affirmative action are bearing results.

In Canada, the liberal party is fielding for the post of prime minister the son of a previous prime minister despite the fact he has zero political experience and shows few qualifications that might be viewed as what's needed. (Oh, yeah. He's a pretty good boxer.)

Obviously, fielding this guy shows that the liberals have enough confidence in the Canadian electorate's collective lack of good judgement to actually elect someone with such qualifications.

Wouldn't our North American voters who have been led to fall for the politically correct, non-traditional, all-inclusive sloganeering be better off if they were offered candidates who are at once (1)sexually indeterminate, (2)with multi-colored skin, (3)judgement-impaired (4)of unevolved ethnicity, and (5)physically handicapped? 

Since our democracies are at stake here, would that not get this painful, drawn-out process of politically correct, none-traditional all-inclusiveness out of the way all at once so that we could return to fielding candidates with actual qualifications for the job at hand?

Just asking.