Most articles you’ll find about why Bernie Sanders shouldn’t be President, are almost universally terrible. They either cite his “democratic socialism,” “Utopianism” or lack of passed legislation. Now, these three arguments are almost as reductive as they are wrong.

First off, Sanders is not a real socialist. Socialists advocate for the public takeover of private industry and property to foster equality among men. Last time I checked, Sanders isn’t looking to turn AIG into a government subsidiary. Secondly, most of his plans revolve around expanding the social safety net, reforming large industries and the wealthy, or liberalizing old laws, not introducing a wild Orwellian police state. The third argument is the most effective, but reductive in ignoring Sanders’ appeal to republicans and the current political atmosphere. Sanders’ weaknesses as a candidate and politician emerge out of the populistic outrage that supersedes reality in order to maintain the increasingly lacking “progressive narrative.”

Banking regulation is a key demonstration of when populistic rage overcomes sensible reform. Bernie loves to say that he will “break up the banks,” but how or why is a confusing question he doesn’t address very well. As to how, he regards the old Glass-Steagull Act as the key provision to weaken the mass condensing of banks over the past thirty years, which helped worsen the financial crisis.

Glass-Steagull would effectively divide investment banks (those that issue bonds and stocks) from their more stable cousins — commercial banks (those that offer private loans and hold money). While Glass-Steagull is a good idea, it wouldn’t reduce the overall size of the major banking companies in the US nor would it introduce a greater degree of financial stability.

In 2008, most of the problems were due to the failings of scores of commercial mortgage loans sold to people who couldn’t afford them, not the combination of investment and commercial banks. Also, most of the larger mega-banks were some of the few to be able to withstand the financial crisis. Smaller banks were washed away. The other way he would break up the banks is by limiting their size, which is both absurd and incredibly difficult.

The United State Government has never arbitrary set a ceiling on the size a firm can grow. The only restriction is if a firm subsumes an entire industry (a monopoly), which is a direct violation of free trade. Also, what size bank would be allowed? What’s the cap? Once again, the populistic mantra extends outside of any real idea of reform.

Populistic rage can also be felt in his foreign policy recommendations, ominously named “War and Piece” on his website. This rage extends from the Bush Crusades and the deterioration of civil rights at the hands of large security organizations such as the TSA or the NSA. In response, the Senator calls for increased “diplomacy” and “multilateralism,” since both have been so effective at restoring peace across the globe (snark snark). This appeal to pacifism is as broad as it is uncomfortable.

Allowing for international powers such as Russia and others to partake in our new “multilateral” world would further sever American interests by giving our opponents (enemies is a nationalistic word) greater reign to influence international operations and actively oppose our interests. In terms of “diplomacy,” what does he specifically mean by that? Are we to negotiate with everyone who wrongs us now?

Another big drawer to Sanders’ agenda is the infamous “free college” program, where Sanders would use Federal Money to pay for public school tuitions. However, the free tuition is bad not because “it’s a privilege,” as one of my very esteemed colleagues argued. Free tuition is bad because it doesn’t address the inherent causes of rising educational costs. Massive subsidization, expansion and strength of college administrators focused on profit, increased need to spend massive amounts on marketing to fill each new class, unnecessary renovations and costly installments, the cost disease of personal services (which argues prices for personal services increase due to a lack on innovation due to the nature of the job), and et cetera. Instead of working to solve all of these horrible issues, Sanders and company are more content with an expensive inefficient stop gap that will only increase prices and bloat.

The 2016 Presidential Election has been one in which demagoguery has sprouted as an infection quickly throwing both of America’s major political parties into chaos. However, it is easy to blame the disenfranchised those who have little choice but to rally around the leaders that justify their fears and advocate for their interests. Any society must recognize the discontent and discomfort that produce populism and demagoguery and effectively treat it before those very forces destroy us.