Author’s note: I wrote this column last weekend, shortly before the news of yet another assassination attempt on Donald Trump. My central message in the column is that the American political process is perilously dysfunctional. Then, on Sunday, we saw once again just how perilous it is. The unmistakable reality is that the violence that the left keeps telling us is intolerable is seeded by their own over-the-top rhetoric — such as the nonsensical notion that the reelection of the former president would somehow destroy democracy. It must stop.

As I think about it, last week’s debate was a 90-minute capsule version of the entire 2024 presidential race. It was like a one-act play with only four players. On stage were Donald Trump, former president and Republican presidential candidate; Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat candidate; and the ABC tag team of David Muir and Linsey Davis, representing the mainstream media. It was great theater — all four delivered Tony Award-quality performances — but at the same time, it was frighteningly real and very depressing.

What tens of millions of viewers saw: The Republican and Democrat nominees detest one another and will do or say virtually anything to win the election. Meanwhile, the supposedly neutral media is openly hostile to one side and slavishly supportive of the other. Is it any wonder our nation is so deeply divided?

Debates are important. We don’t select presidents because they are skilled debaters. But we do expect our president to be able to stand up to withering pressure, to think on his (or her) feet, and the debate venue offers glimpses of the candidates’ capability in that respect, unfiltered by campaign packaging. So, let’s be debate critics and take stock.

First, Kamala Harris. Yes, her fans were thrilled — they’re calling her performance a masterclass in debating (funny how low expectations can do that). But if so, her masterclass consisted primarily of deftly dodging questions. Instead, Harris used the bulk of her airtime to convince her audience that her opponent, a former U.S. president, is a truly awful human being and, in fact, a threat to our sacred democracy. While doing so — and seemingly oblivious to the glaring contradiction — she pitched earnest pledges to “pull us together” and “turn the page” nestled among contemptuous assertions about her political opponent.

In those 90 minutes, she offered no hint of explanation of how she came around to reversing her long-held positions on many issues of great concern to the American electorate. She also didn’t provide any but the sketchiest detail about what, exactly, is her “new way forward.”

By comparison, Donald Trump’s debate performance was a disappointment to his supporters primarily because they anticipated rigorous pursuit of his opponent’s wholly lackluster record as vice president, her implicit ownership of the obvious failures of the Biden-Harris regime (notably inflation and illegal immigration), and her many reported changes of heart on key policy matters. He missed a bundle of opportunities to press Harris on those points, instead wasting time to rehash matters of little importance to prospective voters.

Throughout, Trump was visibly angry, provoked by Harris’s relentless derision, and progressively more so over the course of the debate. Her successful manipulation of Trump’s mood and his responses was a clear win for Harris on debating points. On the other hand, what we saw was pure, vintage Donald Trump. Unlike the well-rehearsed posturing by Kamala Harris — replete with a full portfolio of mirthless grins, quizzical looks, and chin-on-hand poses — Trump’s reaction was not staged. Admirable or not, it was 100% authentic.

As an aside, Trump’s dour demeanor raises a provocative question: Does he still want to be president? Has the blizzard of lawfare and its financial and legal baggage taken its toll? Or the trauma of two near-miss assassination attempts? Or the composite of those items, on the heels of a presidential term saddled by the Russia collusion hoax, two impeachments, and a contentious election? We’ve been awed by Trump’s superhuman resilience, but surely it has its limits. If so, that is tragic and one more piece of evidence of a dysfunctional political process.

And now, the moderators. It’s generally agreed that blaming the refs is a sure sign that you’re losing. But by any objective standard, the ABC crew was a disgrace, with no semblance of journalism. They fired loaded questions at Trump and then “fact-checked” (not always accurately) his answers, while simultaneously ignoring whopper after whopper from Harris.

So now, with the curtain down, what’s our verdict? The debate shined a light on our flawed and deteriorating political system, which for the future of our nation we must address. But for now, it’s decision time.

Every four years, American citizens select our next president. I think it’s fair to say that many in the electorate do not think that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are the two best candidates our country has to offer. Surely, the Democrats should have come to grips earlier with their Joe Biden problem in time for meaningful competition for the 2024 nomination; similarly, Republicans should not have zeroed in on Trump so quickly.

But at this point, that doesn’t matter. Absent a completely unforeseen circumstance, either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States in a world that is more dangerous than ever. It’s time to choose, and we’d best choose wisely.

For my money, the choice between Trump and Harris is not particularly difficult. We’ve seen them both in action, Trump as president and Harris as vice president. Those years in office are infinitely more telling than 90 minutes in a poorly moderated debate. Trump has proven capable and effective, even facing fierce headwinds. Harris has been notably unimpressive, wire to wire.

Decide for yourself, but don’t be unduly swayed by a not-so-great debate.