This political campaign season has perplexed even the most highly regarded pundits. With the rise of Trump and the Bernie campaign surpassing all expectations, commentators are rushing to explain how and why this “outsider” phenomenon has taken place. While Republican obstruction in Congress, heated political battles over debt-ceilings, and government shut downs might give the illusion that the two parties have become vastly different over recent years, thus producing candidates that are further from the base of the party, it is actually the opposite that explains the popularity of these candidates. The parties have become too similar. Or, more accurately, both are highly responsive to the interests of a small, powerful group.

The Republican Party bears the majority of the responsibility for the prominence of the reckless and offensive, Donald Trump. They have consistently turned a blind eye to racism and xenophobia among their most fervent supporters, and even with a “textbook definition of a racist comment” by their nominee many Republicans still can’t bring themselves to oppose him. With that being said, on economic matters, the Democratic Party has been shifting towards more pro-big business policy and away from taking strong positions in support of middle and working class Americans. What we’ve seen, beginning with the new style of Democratic administration introduced by Bill Clinton, is the party’s rejection of the legacy of the New Deal and a coddling of the country’s economic elite. In essence, the Democratic Party has moved more to the right on issues, and have adopted many of the same policies once introduced by the Republican Party.

One of the most seemingly obvious examples of this would be the Affordable Care Act. While a small step in the right direction, and a historic accomplishment of the Obama administration, the idea is practically a Republican idea, and even Romney and Obama have admitted this themselves. This shift to the right by the Democratic Party is indicative of both parties representing the same group of large-moneyed interests. In 2012, 60 percent of the money spent by Super PACs was given by a group of only 132 people.

The point is, ties to Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and others bind both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to policies that reflect the concerns of a group of corporate elitists. It is no wonder that 60 percent of Americans feel that the Republican and Democratic parties do a poor job of representing the views of Americans and that a third party is needed, according to a recent Gallup Poll. This explains the populist wave that has bolstered the campaigns of both Sen. Sanders and Donald Trump. While they have two distinct visions for the nation’s future, both are unafraid to speak out against their own party’s leaders, and that has resonated profoundly with voters. So much so, that being labeled as “establishment” has become political catastrophe for many candidates like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. It is the public’s discontent for what they perceive as inauthentic, dissimilar politicians attitudinizing in a two-party system democracy that explains much of the surprising and unimagined popularity of outsider candidates.

The amount of reform required to reverse the extensive influence of money in politics that has left the people without a party seems almost systematically implausible. Reform within the Democratic Party, however, is not. Bernie’s revolution may not have panned out the way many of his supporters wished, but it is still useful. It has engaged a huge portion of young voters and helped make economic inequality central to current political discourse. The best way forward is if Bernie and Hillary supporters work together to defeat Trump in the general election and both groups work together within the party to address the yearning for a party, and government, that represents the people. Now that the nominees for the general election have been established, it is time for liberals to face the reality that there are worse enemies than Clinton. A Trump presidency would dramatically decrease the opportunity for much of Bernie’s proposals to even be considered. He would pose serious national security threats given his wild and unpredictable nature. Moreover, there is a Supreme Court nomination on the line that would grant a huge degree of influence to Trump, and would make the prospect of overturning Citizen United improbable. It is clear that Hillary Clinton is not the candidate best-equipped to push for the major reform that is needed in our political system, but she is the best positioned to respond and implement, at least to some extent, the progressive ideas that Bernie and his supporters have been fighting for.