The likeness of a schoolboy fight has turned into the actual 2016 presidential race.

I cannot accurately convey the panicked tone that accompanies that sentence.

The likeness of a schoolboy fight has turned into THE ACTUAL 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

Now, to be clear, this isn’t about the candidates — it’s about their words.

From “Make America Great Again” to free college, the words of politics can easily range from inspiring to dangerous. And this, my friends who have not yet gotten this far in English class, this use of words for influence or inspiration, is what you call rhetoric.

Rhetoric is nothing new, and is a great tool for a candidate to use to sway a voter’s mind. But, in light of the current presidential race, political rhetoric has seemed to evolve along with the rest of the world. What started out as a useful tool to inspire has turned into a tool with dangerous capabilities..

Fear Sells

Before this political rhetoric conversation can go on, it’s important to see how rhetoric shapes everyday life as covered by the mainstream news.

In that montage, Jon Stewart presents the media’s sensationalism from nuclear war to open-toed shoes. It’s no secret that fear and tragedy sell. A story about an ordinary person doing ordinary things has never been a best seller. So, because of this, the media has to feed into the viewer’s emotion — each large news corporation is concentrated on its specific niche. For example, it is widely regarded that MSNBC is the news source for liberals while FOX is on the opposite side, geared towards conservatives.

To be the successful news sources that these are, they tell their little niche what they want to hear. As seen in the video, Ed Schultz, an MSNBC host, told his viewers, liberals, that “republicans lie” while Glenn Beck, a FOX News host, told his viewers, conservatives, that “the left believes republicans are stupid.”

Because Schultz is not speaking to republicans, he’s preaching to the choir, and, frankly, not really achieving anything, rather only fueling the fire.

Now, this all feeds back into what presidential candidates have to do to get a vote in the current election, they have to tell their audience what they want to hear, often to the dismay of the other side of the spectrum.

Candidates bash their own party’s opponents and the other party’s contenders as well. And the irony is that these candidates later endorse those in their own party that they once condemned.

In this graphic, the stances of four candidates are discussed. Ohio Governor John Kasich is not listed, as he has not campaigned in Indiana in an attempt to help a Cruz victory.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Despite the assumed need to demonize contenders, there have been two obvious candidates in the 2016 presidential race who have, to their best abilities, stuck to what they call “a clean campaign.” Bernie Sanders has rarely used rhetoric to say Hillary’s a bad candidate for the nomination, in fact, he’s gone to the extent to supporting her and backing her up during a debate by saying, “I think the Secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about [her] damn emails!”

Republican candidate John Kasich has also tried to run a clean campaign, deciding, largely, not to make petty insults towards his conservative opponents. Kasich has spoken out against the frenzy that is the race for the GOP nomination, asking what has become of the Republican party. Moreover, with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump recently attacking each other’s wife, Kasich said in a town hall in Wisconsin, “I’m not taking the low road to the highest office in the land.”

But it has been clear that these two candidates have had trouble matching the traction their opposition has found, in Kasich’s case especially.

The problem with this presidential race, and many political races, is that a serious candidate absolutely and totally must conform to what their party’s platform typically stands for. Some of the most clear problems Bernie has faced are questions regarding his congressional voting record, specifically in relation to gun rights.

As a Vermont Representative and Senator, Bernie has, on more than one occasion, voted against gun control legislation or for pro-gun legislation. Given his very liberal base and following, this platform inconsistency can be worrying to potential voters. Bernie has been questioned about this and his response was rational.

Bernie explained that as a Vermont Representative/Senator, it was his duty to keep the Vermont citizens best wishes in mind. In December, he claimed “more than half of the people in Vermont are gun owners.” If this is true, it is rational that he would vote in a manner different to that of the democratic platform. Bernie is, of course, an Independant in Congress and has the job of representing his state’s people. The concept of a politician doing what they are elected to do shouldn’t be so ridiculous or revolu

tionary, for that matter.

Black-and-White

The fact that it is nearly necessary for a candidate to conform completely to their party’s platform to be a realistic presidential contender shows one of the truest problem with American politics: the political binary.

Of course, there are more parties in the United States than just Democrats and Republicans, but it would take a lot for any of these affiliates to be elected into the oval office. The stark division between Democrats and Republicans seems counterproductive to this nation’s name itself.

I’m not saying that we need to rewrite our political system, but the dichotomy has left a lot of people unsatisfied — according to fairvote.org, only 60% of eligible voters vote. And whether this is because they don’t think their vote matters, no candidate suits them, or because they’re turned off by the whole system, 40% of people aren’t exercising their responsibility to vote.

Indiana’s primary is today. Vote.