Finally, the beginning of the 2016 presidential primaries is only a week away.

The race feels like it has gone on for an eternity already. Through all of the dramatic debates, the posturing and the pandering, the arguing and the name-calling, I have found reasons to feel both sad and optimistic.

I feel sad because this campaign has shown me sides of America that I naively hoped did not exist. I never would have thought that more than one-third of the members of one of our two major parties could support a candidate who shamelessly calls for banning Muslims from entering the United States and spews racially-charged misinformation on Twitter like Donald Trump. And, even in a society where news outlets seek profit through sensationalism, I never would have expected the media to give such buffoonery so much airtime and credit.

The general level of discourse has been appalling. I remember as a kid I always saw the news, full of serious talk and important-looking people, as “television for grownups.” During this campaign, listening to analysts discuss exactly what Donald Trump was insinuating about Megyn Kelly’s body or whether or not he was really mocking a reporter with limited mobility, I cannot help but think that the news has devolved into the type of reality show that, as a kid, I would never have considered “grownup TV.”  

But I am optimistic as well, encouraged that a candidate like Bernie Sanders can draw huge crowds and challenge an establishment candidate. Socialism, long misrepresented and derided in the United States as the antithesis to our national values, is no longer a dirty word and the influence of money on politics is receiving at least a bit of the attention it deserves. And, perhaps most importantly, this decidedly unique presidential election may represent the beginning of the end of the absurd two-party system that has gridlocked our political system.

President George Washington highlighted the dangers of “the spirit of party” in his farewell address, warning that, “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration…it agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another.” Over 200 years later, we are witnessing the problems that he predicted.  

The two main political parties as they currently exist do not just poison the political atmosphere of the country; they make no sense. The battle lines have been drawn and the parties have picked their determined stances on key issues, but those stances are often incongruent to the party’s supposed philosophies.

On its website, the Republican Party has compiled a “list of what it means to be a Republican,” based on public feedback. The list includes the idea that “families and communities should be strong and free from government intrusion.” Why then do conservatives continue to favor the criminalization of marijuana? That sounds to me like the government intruding on the community, imposing values and threatening the liberty of its citizens. Why do they also fight so strongly against abortion, as if, on certain issues, the government really does have every right to interfere?  Something does not add up.  

But during this race, the American public seems to be shattering the patch worked, issue-by-issue alliances that have had a hold on our national psyche for far too long. Trump is leading the Republican field despite constant complaints that he is not really even a conservative. His history of donating to Democratic candidates and supporting government healthcare give credence to these claims. He has also threatened a third-party candidacy if he is not “treated fairly.” Trump is not playing the party game and people are responding enthusiastically.

Sanders decided to seek the nomination as a Democrat, but he has long placed himself outside the two-party system. He is technically an independent in the Senate and only ran as a Democrat for practical reasons, such as not wanting to steal liberal voters and hand the election to “some right-wing Republican.” Sanders’ success within the two-party system demonstrates the public’s frustration with the party establishment and a dynamic that does not seem to be working.  

Now, former New York City mayor and media mogul Michael Bloomberg is considering a run in the general election as an Independent. Here we have another politician who refuses to connect the dots along partisan lines on major issues. He was a Democrat, then ran for mayor as a Republican, before eventually calling himself an Independent. He presided over an era of increasing inequality in New York, which will draw the ire of progressives, but he also supports gun control and endorsed President Barack Obama in 2012 for his stance on climate change. Bloomberg’s involvement in the race would only further the muddying of the bipartisan pond.  

So far this race has proven unpredictable and confounding. As serious candidates, we have one man who calls himself a socialist and another who some have labeled a fascist, potentially soon to be joined by an Independent whose values regularly cross party lines.

Whatever the results, this election cycle will represent a long-overdue shattering of a nonsensical status quo.  

Benjamin Clabault is a Collegian columnist and can be reached at [email protected].