Article content continued

Or rather, not our system, but the demented, leader-obsessed version of it to which we have too willingly surrendered.

We seem determined to miss this point. To the extent these accelerating daily executions of the erratic provoke comment, it is from premises that are unfailingly leader-centric.

Here or there, some express the concern that this increased intolerance for human frailty, coupled with the increased capacity, for those so inclined, to display it — not just in private among friends, but for all the world to see, in perpetuity — will make it harder to attract people into politics. Young people considering a political career are advised to be careful what they post online, for fear of its later implications.

Others, looking at it from the party’s view, cluck that parties have not been sufficiently diligent in screening out such potential electoral liabilities. But all accept — no, it does not get even that far: it does not occur to them that it needs accepting — that it is the leader’s prerogative to dispatch any candidates who prove displeasing to him, with barely a nod.

Whether their sympathies lie with the leader or the candidate, all of them look at it from the perspective of: what does this mean to the leader? How does this affect the leader’s brand? After all, that off-colour remark by a future candidate at her high-school prom in 2007 might taint the leader by association. That unpopular or off-message policy view, no matter how clearly stated as the candidate’s opinion, might nevertheless be attributed to the leader. This is what we have persuaded ourselves to believe.