Article content continued

Most observers will reply that there would be nothing to gain from such a move. Social democrats would feel abandoned. Canadians would be robbed of an important political voice. Who would possibly benefit, other than the hated Liberals?

At this spot in the argument we can probably expect some moralizing about the NDP’s superior ethical compass and its higher commitment to policy and principle. Of course, none of that was on display in the last election as Mulcair urged his party to be pragmatic and compete for power. And haven’t we heard for a decade now that the NDP has grown up? That it’s no longer satisfied to just be Parliament’s third wheel?

When pressed hard, the rationale most supporters produce for preserving the federal NDP boils down to this: Unlike the Liberals, they’re not unaccustomed to being in third place. It stinks. It’s not where they had hoped to be. But for New Democrats, it’s just an embarrassing retreat back to what they’ve always known. Unpleasant, but definitely not cause for euthanasia.

But where does that logic take you? Is it not an implicit confession that the party will always be content to slip into third place if winning seems out of reach? And won’t winning always remain out of reach, if that’s the prevailing mentality?

This is why a flat-out existential debate would actually serve the NDP well. It would help the party get past the relatively uninspired argument about who it wants as leader and help clarify the more vital issue of what it wants to be.