There are many reasons why I think that a parliamentary system is superior to our own separation of powers. The House of Lords’ ceremonial status, the party in power having the ability and right to enact its agenda, the drama and coalitions and opportunities for minor parties to have a real impact. But above all, Prime Minister’s Questions – a piece of democratic theater that is part confrontational comedic pantomime, part transparent, accountable government.

Of course, the PM in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere in the Commonwealth is also an MP, so he or she is not just the head of government, but also a colleague. Prime Minister’s Questions is as entertaining as it is informative. Above all, it can show and bring out policy distinctions in an intelligent way.

Now, to be sure, the theatrical part of PMQ means that oftentimes backbenchers are simply trying to embarrass or stump the PM.

We have no such tradition. We have no equivalent. I recall during the runup to the Iraq war, Bush would give speeches about it that were as horribly delivered, as they were pretty much substantive garbage. On the other hand, one could watch Tony Blair address Parliament and be quite persuasive indeed.

Even the staged, predictable speechifying in Presidential debates was merely an opportunity to spout talking points, rather than an opportunity to engage in deep, meaningful dialogue about the country.

So we turn to yesterday’s astonishing 90-minute colloquy in Baltimore, where Republican members of the House were given an opportunity to ask pointed, deep, meaningful questions to the President. And the President gave deep and meaningful answers.

It was funny, it was contentious, it was informative, it was like watching two feuding sides of a family begin a reconciliation process.

It was the most important reality show shown on American television, ever.

I’d like to think it’s no accident that it took place the day after Andrew Breitbart reduced political “discussion” to its lowest common denominator. It was almost as if Washington saw that, was appalled, saw itself in it, and decided to just stop it. I know that’s not what happened, but the timing was coincidental.

As an aside, on the night of the State of the Union, I was paying attention to what people on Twitter whom I follow were saying about it. When I saw people who I thought were somewhat intelligent or even minimally open-minded write, “Obama = asshole. Fuck him” and calling him a “jerk off” before the speech even began, I was pretty disappointed and then disgusted. I’m happy to follow intelligent or insightful conservative or Republican voices, but I’m done following the right-wing equivalents of bandanna-clad G20 protesters, hurling Molotov cocktails through the windows of evil corporations. Seriously? I feel sorry for people like that – just like I feel sorry for a bunch of lefty people I saw on Facebook have a type-y conniption fit on the night Scott Brown won in Massachusetts.

Your hatred does nothing but make you petty, inflexible, and insignificant. Time to put on our big-boy pants. Unfollow.

The Republicans in the House, who consider themselves to be under the dictatorial thumb of Nancy Pelosi (and frankly there’s some truth to that and perhaps part of the process of reconciliation is to find a Speaker who might be more open-minded), wanted Obama to admit that they did have “ideas”. And he did admit that.

But more importantly, he reminded them that everyone has to mellow out on the tone. Yes, they had ideas. Yes, he had read them. But if the Republicans wanted to see their ideas considered or implemented, it hardly did them any favors to accuse Obama of being a dangerous Kenyan who was out to destroy the country. As Obama rightly reminded them, that hardly gives them any room to make deals.

How can you make deals with the Bolshevik anti-Christ?

Both sides, it seems, came out of that dialogue feeling better about things. Democrats enjoyed watching an intelligent, detailed discussion whereby Obama was able to rebut a lot of silly and untrue Republican talking points. Republicans enjoyed watching their representatives getting the President to concede that they had ideas, and that they got to confront him on some of the missed opportunities for openness.

I can’t stress enough that discussions such as the one held yesterday is critically important for this country at this point in its history. We are trying to end two wars. We are trying to pull out of a horrific recession. We are trying to save and create jobs. We are trying to fix a broken health insurance system. We are trying to make sure that states and municipalities don’t have to hike taxes to maintain basic services. We are trying to fight and protect our country from terrorists. In order to properly address these pressing issues, we can’t further cleave the country into its own warring factions.

Most often, we see the President (whoever he is) answering questions from the press. Oftentimes, these questions have to do with process rather than substance, and they’re designed to make the questioner the star, regardless of the answer. Screw that.

From now on, Presidential “press conferences” should be held in front of a set of 20 members of the House and Senate from each party. The attendees are selected randomly, and the President must select questions equally from both sides. This should happen every couple of months, and be carried live on TV. It doesn’t have to pre-empt “Medium”, “American Idol” or other programming of critical importance to the Republic, but it’d be swell if C-Span and the cable news channels carried it.

We need more grown-up discussions so we can get past the insults and the sound bites. Perhaps some of you will comment that I’m one to talk. Perhaps you’re right. I hope yesterday’s extraordinary event becomes quite ordinary indeed.