If you believe that the government can pass laws that make the country better, you are probably more likely to take public policy debates seriously than if you do not. In that sense, Democrats are probably more ‘serious’ than Republicans. This is a variation on the observation that if you are skeptical about any legitimate role for the federal government then you are probably going to be lousy at running the federal government.
But there is downside to taking the common wisdom of Washington DC groupthink about policy seriously. You can easily build a box that defines what is practical and possible, and then find your options constrained by the box. I do not get the sense that the Republicans are guilty of making this mistake. They constantly make the most outlandish statements and adopt the most radical talking points to refute the common wisdom in Washington. For example, they simply refuse to accept that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Their all-of-the-above energy policy is based on burning more fossil fuels.
They are going to use the recess to hold energy summits in their districts that will argue for the merits of drilling and burning our way out of our energy crisis. That strategy may be effective, but it bears no relationship to ‘serious’ debate about climate change. It’s easy to ignore real solutions if you are simply opposed to change of any type.
The Democrats often operate at a disadvantage because they seem to restrict themselves to debating policies that might actually become law. This avoids looking like a muttering loon, but it also lets the Republicans move the Overton Window way too far to the right.
