I’m going to skip right past the question of whether Sen. Bernie Sanders or Hillary Rodham Clinton “won” Tuesday night’s debate, for two reasons: First, because no one can seem to agree what the criteria are for “winning.” Second, because it would only matter if the result were dramatic enough to change the overall dynamic of the campaign, which in this case rather obviously did not happen. Whether you’re feeling the Bern or ready for Hillary, you probably feel the same way now that you did before the debate.

So let’s table the horserace angle for now and take a closer look at one of the key exchanges of the debate instead. The back-and-forth was primarily between Clinton and Sanders, and it concerned their respective understandings of what the word “capitalism” really means. While I believe it would be a mistake to treat the moment as a Rosetta Stone for understanding the contest, I also think the New Republic’s Elizabeth Bruenig is right to say that the disagreement between Clinton and Sanders mirrors “a major fault line on the left.”

ADVERTISING

Before we start exploring that schism, though, here’s a recap for those who missed the debate. Responding to moderator Anderson Cooper’s question about whether he is a capitalist, Sanders said, “Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process, by which so few have so much and so many have so little; by which Wall Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t.” It was a strong, unapologetic, feisty answer; a great representation of why Sanders has become so adored by much of the American left.

It was also, however, an opportunity for Clinton to burnish her moderate bona fides. And she did. “When I think about capitalism,” Clinton said, “I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that, and [to] make a good living for themselves and their families.” She granted that “every so often” policymakers must “save capitalism from itself.” But she cautioned against “confusing” capitalism’s excesses with capitalism in general.

Sanders insisted he and Clinton were “in agreement” concerning “small and medium-size businesses.” But he added that “you can have all of the growth that you want,” but “if all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent,” it doesn’t matter. Cooper then let the debate move onto a new topic, which was unfortunate. Because in just a few words, Clinton and Sanders had each shared a very different worldview. Not only about the economy, but also politics. And voters deserve to have the choice before them made more explicit.

As Vox’s Ezra Klein notes, the disagreement between Clinton and Sanders has much to do with the role they envision for big business. Sanders’ politics are largely (but not exclusively) defined by “a deep and abiding skepticism of the role large corporations play in American life.” He “believes their most crucial innovations often simply free-ride on publicly funded research” and he “worries that their massive profits allow them to buy off politicians and rig the system.” Individuals within corporations may mean well, but corporations themselves are, to democracy, an inherent threat.

Clinton, on the other hand, is less inclined to generalize about big business. She’s fond of so-called public/private partnerships, served on the board of the Ã¼ber-corporation Walmart, and raised tens of millions of dollars from corporate CEOs andWall Street executives. As her resistance to reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act has shown, she sees no problem with bigness, in itself. Quite the opposite, in fact, since large corporations tend to reap the largest profits — which, in theory, leads to better funding for the safety net.