What power would you never give your opponent?

Imagine that the government you want gains a new power. It can act faster and faces less opposition. Perhaps that seems reasonable. At last, something might get done.

Now the government changes. The power remains. Would you trust the new majority with it too?

Change the people. Keep the circumstances.

This thought experiment starts with a simple question: what power would I allow my own side that I would deny its opponent?

The circumstances must remain the same. Different facts can justify a different judgment. A different party name alone is a weaker reason.

Take a specific proposal you support. What decision can the government make? Who can challenge it? Who can effectively limit it? Then change only the governing party and consider your answer again.

When the party’s name changes the judgment

In two US survey experiments by Claassen, Ensley and Ryan (2024), people assessed invented attempts to manipulate election arrangements for a party’s benefit. Judgments of the same tactic differed depending on which party was responsible. Supporters of both parties showed such differences; their strength also depended on the scenario.

This is evidence about those US scenarios, not a diagnosis of every individual. It does not equate real parties or their actual conduct. My thought experiment is therefore an invitation to examine ourselves, not a scientifically tested protection against partisan bias.

If changing the name changes your judgment, ask: am I thinking of a different fact? Or am I weighing the same conduct differently because it now benefits my side? The first answer may justify a distinction. The second needs a reason that goes beyond belonging to a group.

But checks can obstruct progress.

Yes. A check deserves criticism when it is arbitrary, inaccessible or poorly justified. We should explain what is wrong with it and how it could improve.

A second question remains: can the improved check also constrain my preferred government? If it should work only against the other side, I am testing allegiance rather than the rule.

My view

Good intentions are not enough to justify unlimited power. I want rules that hold when people I distrust are in charge. I want those rules to apply to my own side too.

This does not require treating political actors as equivalent. Different actions and dangers deserve different judgments. A shared standard is the starting point for examining them.

What limit should even your preferred government never be allowed to cross?

Written with support from generative AI. Editorial responsibility: Marcus Machon.