“Cynicism is worse than outrage.”

It stuck out like a sore thumb in my local newspaper's election section. To paraphrase: cynics set the bar so low for politicians that Americans are willing to elect people who two-thirds of the country don't trust. cynicism convinces us all individually that we're in on the joke that is politics. As far as reasons why democracy is failing, I'd say cynicism is right up there with Pokemon Go and Chipotle's food safety practices.

cyn·i·cism:

"an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism."

Labeling cynicism as a threat implies quite a few things:

1. that the cynicism isn't well-placed. As if we should blindly trust in politicians rather than vetting them tirelessly since they are meant to lead the free world.

2. that cynicism is squarely in the place of “cause” rather than “effect.” It assumes that cynicism is the reason why untrustworthy people are presidential candidates. Rather it be the two-party system, the mainstream media, wealth inequality, or tumultuous foreign affairs - blame lies within a system that affects voters initially, not in the voters themselves. Untrustworthy candidates being successful can cause cynicism, not just validate its existence.

3. that people will just roll over and silently pat themselves on the back over understanding the interests of politicians. It's degrading and simplistic. Occupy, #BlackLivesMatter, the Tea Party, the alt-Right, #BernieorBust, etc. are all movements over the past decade, just the past year if we're including spin-off's like Occupy the Media, which saw the interests of politicians and sought establishment accountability. They sought platforms. They sought change.

4. that this is a recent phenomenon. Somehow, only supporters of Hillary and Donald have been settlers. Yes, there is #neverTrump and #neverHillary, but the message can be new for the same old feelings.

The two-party system has steadfastly set up an "us vs. them" mentality. We must win at any costs. Anything our party has to offer must be better than who they want! This is particularly evident in the mainstream media, which pumps us up with apocalyptic scenarios; i.e.

“If Drumpf wins he's personally going to lobotomize all your lesbian friends and keep Mexicans in a private prison that only serves saltine crackers with ketchup! If Killary wins Texas will become New Syria and women will be required to get abortions before they can vote!”

There are people who read the above and find one of the statements plausible. I remember how Obama was supposed to make the Koran required reading in public school and younger Millennials can only imagine what rumors swirled around Bush's election and re-election. They were just as colorful.

The doomsday scenarios also have the amazing bonus of shutting out third-party candidates (aka - arguably the more trustworthy individuals). Due to the “A vote for 'X' is a vote against 'Y'” mentality.

Spoiler alert: a vote for X is not always a vote against Y because we have an electoral college system. Sometimes a vote for X is just as much of a waste.

When was the last time third parties had relevance, 2000? How about before that? It's incredibly hard for third-party candidates to enter the race. Duverger's Law, "first past the post," and various social norms, like blaming Nader for George W. Bush's win in 2000, make it virtually impossible for candidates outside the red and blue to get the publicity they need. If they do get publicity, rest assured that it will be to show how on-the-fringe their ideology is or why they don't have the intellect for the job.

Cynicism, the two-party system and #neverTheOtherCandidate have been around for decades, in various forms.

5. that nationalism isn't something that we're willing to settle for. In the same article I read, among reasons why this cycle has had a populist backlash against elites is “the frightening messiness of foreign affairs”.

Nothing makes for a great doomsday scenario like drama abroad.

I don't think it's outlandish to say Americans are willing to elect people they don't trust because they are afraid of what's happening around the world. “They can get the job done”, is a phrase that I've heard attributed to both Trump and Clinton since the beginning of this election cycle. If foreign affairs weren't so pressing, would we be so willing to toss aside our apprehension about the current front-runners?

6. that there are not honest politicians, and/or the American people will not recognize when they see an honest one. Bernie Sanders was seen by many as the most trustworthy candidate, even if his push for social democracy fell on deaf ears among older and some minority Democrats.

Despite many polls showing that he would have a decisive win over Trump, Sanders didn't win over several age and race brackets. If we were all cynics, wouldn't he be the victor in a “lesser-of-two-evils” scenario?

I think cynicism played little to no part in his electability. Bernie Sanders was a virtual unknown despite being a career politician; his popularity soared once people knew who he was. He hit a wall because he couldn't shake the fact that his voter base was young, white, middle-class Americans, among other reasons involving the DNC which I won't discuss in this piece.

The Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, was given a field day by various outlets on not knowing where Aleppo is, when a media giant like the New York Times couldn't correctly identify it, twice. It felt like a throwback to that one poll where a decent amount of Americans would find Agrabah, from Disney's beloved Aladdin fame as an agreeable place to bomb. In fairness, the average US citizen isn't too keen on the names of the areas we're bombing. Instead of discussing how Johnson's foreign policy split from Trump and Clinton, voters were given 24/7 coverage of a media gaffe that they could have made at any time. The decision to cover a mistake the average citizen would make rather than the fact that we have a candidate who doesn't want to carpet-bomb Syria, frankly, did not seem democratic enough to me.

Cynicism is not the biggest threat to democracy. I don't think that there is one. Democracy is assaulted on all sides at all times by many things: fear, apathy, ignorance, corruption, stale institutions, to name a few.

The American people do not simply need to raise their standards to avoid a Trump vs. Clinton situation. This is not just a crisis of confidence; it's a crisis of politics.