Fear is a powerful word. In fact, it represents an intense human motivator. When misdirected, it can breed inequality, racism, sexism, and violence. At its best, it retains the power to distort rational thinking.

The potency of fear is something that current politicians use as an active tool to promote personal and party agendas. Because of this, it is absolutely crucial for voters to be aware of the type of fear-inciting rhetoric that politicians are using in order to twist truths, misrepresent opposing views, and develop “strong” arguments to support their policies. In order to do that, we must be impartially informed and able to recognize the intention and the consequences of rhetorical choices made by these political figures.

Here are a few examples of some obviously fear-inciting statements made by our two 2016 primary presidential candidates:

Donald Trump:

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine…Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Donald Trump released this statement in December 2015, calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. Don’t be fooled, though! This statement accomplishes more than just representing Trump’s stance on immigration policy.

Notice a few key words that Trump chooses to use: “hatred,” “dangerous threat,” “victims.” These words are carefully calculated, placed throughout this short speech. Their effect? Fear. Fear of Muslims, fear of Jihad, fear of terrorist acts, and, ultimately, fear of death.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of immigration, it’s important to understand the consequences of these rhetorical choices. Trump isn’t logically laying out an implementable plan to fight terrorism; instead, he is playing into a common American fear in order to manipulate voters’ opinions. And so far, it’s working.

Here's another example:

“We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination. But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly. If we don't get tough, and we don't get smart – and fast – we're not going to have a country anymore – there will be nothing left.”

Trump made this statement in a speech, responding to the mass shooting at the night club in Orlando, FL. While addressing terrorism, Trump makes a few rhetorical choices in this statement. First off, notice the low level of vocabulary used in his recommendations for preventative measures: “tough,” “smart,” “fast.” These are words universally recognized, regardless of education level.

Because Trump trades specificity for universality, he compensates with a nearly threatening statement, implying that if the U.S. does not begin to implement his policies, “there will be nothing left.” Sounds like a scary future, right? Exactly.

Trump’s word choices here are clearly geared toward targeting a particular fear of the end of the free world as we know it. This rhetorical tactic, though, shouldn’t be celebrated! Voters need to recognize the method that is being used here, understand its separation from the reality of policy issues, and reject it as propaganda and fear-inciting rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton:

When addressing the problem on gun violence and the necessity for further restrictions on gun ownership, Clinton made the following claim:

“90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. That's 33,000 people a year.”

While avoiding Trump’s detrimentally vague rhetorical practices, Clinton actually twists the truth in this statement. While it is technically true that 33,000 people die from guns in a year, it’s important to note that 21,175 of these result from suicides. 11,208 result from homicide and 505 from gun-related accidents.

Clinton manipulates fact in this statement in order to artificially produce a feeling of urgency in passing gun regulations. In doing so, she inspires fear in her audience, which creates more approval of both her policy recommendation and her candidacy.

In different ways, both Clinton and Trump are utilizing fear-inciting rhetoric in order to promote their agendas and persuade voters. They aren’t the only ones, though! Rhetoric is created through our political system, distributed widely via social media and news networks, and is perpetually repeated in everyday interactions. Without regard for the truth, these policies and recommendations rely on the human motivator of fear rather than beneficial, progressive reform methods. This is slowing down our progress as a nation and making it more and more difficult to distinguish between myth and reality.

Regardless of whether you’re a Clinton, Trump, or third candidate supporter in the 2016 election, it is absolutely vital to separate rhetoric from fact, and fear-inciting speech from genuine concern. When we can distinguish between the two, we are that much closer to choosing a better presidential candidate and implementing practical, reliable public policy.