Unlike many of their media peers, editors at the Washington Examiner issue no complaints about this week’s televised shouting match featuring President Trump, Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer, and House counterpart Nancy Pelosi.

Unfortunately, Pelosi didn’t seem to be enjoying the show she had done as much as anyone else to start. “I don’t think we should have a debate in front of the press,” the past and soon-to-be House speaker said. Later she added: “This is a most unfortunate thing … we came in here in good faith, and we’re entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view.”

But what’s unfortunate about this scene? What’s wrong with a little bit of civil but spirited public debate? No one threw any punches. There was no blood spilt.

Would it be better if all substantive conversations were held in smoky back rooms, the way they once were?

Not enough Americans have time to watch C-SPAN during the day. Perhaps it would be instructive to have Trump, Schumer, and Pelosi duke it out over the budget process and the merits of the border wall.

There are other countries where leaders don’t stoop to actually arguing with one another in front of cameras. This would never happen in China, for example, where those disagreeing with President Xi Jinping would simply be arrested on bogus corruption charges. But this is what democracy looks like.

Trump made a promise about building a wall, and the voters may punish him if he doesn’t keep it. Democrats promised to resist Trump, and they owe it to their constituents to keep their word. There are going to be fights, and confrontations among headstrong people, and eventually compromises. If you don’t like it — if you can’t handle the confrontation — then maybe democracy just isn’t your thing.