On reasonable standards

A quick thought on how Canadian pundits may want to evaluate how political parties do their jobs - which looks to be particularly relevant given the entirely justified criticisms being levelled at the Harper Cons.

In evaluating how a party handles any given issue, it might be worth taking a close look at what a party demands of its political opponents (either explicitly or implicitly), and asking whether that expectation can fit into a reasonable democratic system of government. If the answer is "no", then that serves as reason to question whether a party is participating as a good-faith actor in our political system - and if it's "yes", then it's worth avoiding lumping the party in with general systemic criticisms lest we end up with a false "they all do it" perception that only rewards the most unreasonable obstructionists.

And needless to say, the contrast this fall couldn't be much more stark.

The Cons have doubled down on demanding that the opposition parties cheerlead for them at every turn or be branded as anti-patriotic, while insisting that Parliament pass massive bills without debate or question. In contrast, the requests from opposition benches have generally been both modest and seemingly unobjectionable: enough time and information to meaningfully consider the effect of bills, and the occasional willingness to consider the legality and practical effect of particularly worrisome policies before ramming them down the public's throat.

So while it's worth pointing out that our political system is broken, it's also worth keeping the focus on the party determined to break it at every opportunity.