Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate was a lesson for Republicans in how to conduct legitimate political discourse. The first of such events for the Democratic Party this election season, it felt like the adults had finally arrived on the scene to take over from the volatile teenagers playing politics. The five candidates participated in a serious discussion of policy differences, future agendas and addressed the concerns of the nation. Just because it was professional did not mean it was the ‘snoozefest’ predicted by Donald Trump. The night still had humour, surprises and a healthy dose of sparring – all key ingredients to a satisfying debate. Up to now the Republican race has dominated election coverage and the Democrats have been criticised for their lack of scheduled debates. However, Tuesday’s proceedings showed that the party is not in need of as much practice on the stage as their Republican counterparts.

Highlighting the stark contrasts in the debate styles of the two parties was the fact that the Republicans’ resident controversial mouthpiece Donald Trump was on hand to live-tweet the action. He told followers “I expect it to be a very boring two hours” and proceeded to criticise the lack of pizazz during the debate, concluding: “Sorry, there is no STAR on the stage tonight!” And herein lies the fatal misunderstanding. This is a presidential debate, not auditions for the 15^th series of The Apprentice. While the entertainment factor may be a priority for TV networks, at the heart of such events is the opportunity for potential political leaders to present their principles and policies to the electorate, thus enabling people to make informed decisions at the voting booth. We are living in the heyday of reality television but we must not let such influences cloud our judgement of key democratic processes. If you found last night’s proceedings boring, perhaps politics just isn’t your thing. Watching a bunch of media personalities throw insults at each other may be more entertaining, but that hardly means they are suitable candidates for the Presidency.

In what made for refreshing viewing, Democratic hopefuls were tough on one another without being trashy or vulgar. Voices were raised, fists were emphatically waved and tempers were riled, but arguments did not descend into exchanges of underhand remarks or personal insults. There were clear winners and losers. Bernie Sanders was impressive and inspiring when discussing economic inequality, although a little less convincing on foreign policy issues. Hillary Clinton was polished, self-assured and damn near presidential – granted, she was lucky to avoid too much of an interrogation on the controversies surrounding her campaign. Martin O’Malley was a pleasant surprise, gaining some kudos for his staunch gun control stance but perhaps not differentiating himself enough from the group to be a stand out candidate. Chafee and Webb were underwhelming and a little awkward. Jim Webb maintained the air of a disgruntled school principal and often wasted his segments complaining about his lack of airtime. Chafee was pleasant enough but not believable as a leader and somewhat naïve when he admitted to not thinking clearly when he voted on some major pieces of legislation.

With already two debates under their belt (plus two ‘pre-primetime debates’ for the individuals who couldn’t quite fit into the clown car) the Republican Party seems no closer to finding anyone convincingly presidential. The Democrats may only be committing to half the number of debates and offering up half as many candidates, but they are showing up with half the theatrics and none of the unnecessary pomp and pettiness.

Header image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr