I’ll first make the disclaimer that this is not some “Bernie or Bust” protest masquerading as a crappy political analysis. As a staunch believer in renovating the political system, I have nothing but the highest respect for Bernie or Bust-ers. However, this is not about that. Rather, it’s about the importance of keeping a critical eye open in this important election, especially for Bernie-to-Hillary transplants who feel the need to preach on their soapbox about how intelligent they are for knowing how the political system works.

There has been an overwhelming generational shift in political ideologies. Socially, most of the country leans left — or “liberal” as we tend to colloquially use incorrectly. Hillary Clinton throughout the course of her campaign and political career has increasingly moved the Democratic party back and forth, left to right, up and down the entire political spectrum. The Trump campaign has been driven by sensationalism, hysteria, and nationalism that many believe is too representative of Hitler for their own comfort. Bernie or Bust-ers have been told the only option is Hillary at this point. Why? Because the only reason she’s qualified is because she’s “not Trump.”

Although Trump is struggling to find support from his own party outside his niche constituency of conservatives tired of career politicians, erasing the shady political campaign praxis of Clinton in exchange for a non-Trump presidency begins to make her the candidate you vote for out of fear. If this is truly the case, congrats — the Democrats have now replicated the Trump camp in sensationalist politics. It’s a disappointment in the long haul for a party that prides itself on “progressivism.” There’s nothing progressive about leaked evidence of corruption, RE: Debbie Wasserman Schultz rigging (for lack of a better term) the Democratic primary in favor of Clinton.

However, much of the liberal/progressive ideology is rooted in idealism. The reality is — albeit, shitty — our anachronistic two-party system exists. Americans are accustomed to voting for a candidate they hate the least, rather than confidence in a candidate that holistically represents American plurality. Our plurality, though, is a joint-force operation of anyone who is either themselves a corporation or can be bought out by corporations.

Americans seek to be represented by someone of the people — this is why Trump grew increasingly popular amongst non-establishment conservatives. The Tea Party became the GOP’s swan song; Hillary is just malleable enough to avoid being the swan song of the Democrats, but we need her flip-flopping flexibility to achieve anything with the same gusto as a Sanders presidency. Maybe I’m brash, but it’s unrealistic as voters to ignore the toxicity of the Hillary camp.

Anti-establishment leftists are doing everything in their power to unite the Democrats by ignoring the ‘yuge divide within the party; it’s nearly reminiscent of the 2000 election, but within the same party. By no means should we divide and conquer in such trivial times, but it once again reinforces liberal idealism that is blindsided by the living nightmare of a “President Trump.”

There’s no true right or wrong — it’s important to maintain the cadence of the political revolution brought on by Sanders and his constituency while accepting the reality of Clinton as the Democratic nominee. It’s disheartening as a progressive to assimilate into a culture I’ve never fully accepted anyway, as our political system has proven to be a breeding ground for corruption. But once again, my views are my views, not anyone else’s, and now American individualism is lost in a weak attempt to unite a party with a history of divisiveness.

Clinton represents much of what is wrong with the Democratic party. Some political analysts as well as Green Party candidate, Jill Stein have even accused Clinton of giving us the threat of a Trump presidency, as her neoliberal, pseudo-right wing policies (as well as Clinton’s friendship with Trump during her husband’s tenure) spawned the tangerine demagogue. The New York Times has even called her out for demonstrating more of an “appetite for military engagement” than Trump and Ted Cruz. More Republicans are stepping up and supporting her, which should be a red flag for anyone on the left concerned with a merger of the right and what is now considered the “left,” AKA the party of Clinton.

The Democratic party is stuck between a rock and a traffic cone — the appeal of vying for third party options is more of a pipe dream than a reality of reinforcing American individualism our Constitution so eloquently alludes to. But for any Bernie-to-Hillary transplants feeling queasy about their decision, remaining critical keeps the Democratic party in check.

Trump and Clinton supporters, as well as high-horse’d Bernie-to-Hillary transplants continue to fear-monger on the basis of one not being the other — unfortunately in these times, they’re correct. But, for those interested in transforming progressivism into something holistic and not the party of Clinton neoliberalism, advocating during midterm elections for a restoration in sanity rather than breeding our fears can start. Defense of the two-party system as the connection of American realism and idealism is simply unjust and negates the forward-thinking approach of the American future.