Spencer Schneier
   News Editor

n Sunday, Bernie Sanders delivered a speech at the Greensboro Coliseum to a crowd of over 9,000 people, outlining his platform in a passionate speech touching on things from racial inequality to health care reform.

Many of his solutions are outlandish; some of them are probably too socialist to ever be viable in the U.S. political climate, but all of them seem to resonate with a voter base that is sick of the status quo. Of the many people I talked to in line, all of them seemed to share a similar sentiment: establishment politics needs to go.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Sanders or not, it is telling that the senator from Vermont has been able to compete with Hillary Clinton and her donor list that includes Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs, doing so while refusing any Super PAC money.

While many would compare his run to that of Ron Paul a few years ago, but the only real similarity between the two other than age is that they are both tapping into a vein of the country that is fed up with the status quo.

Sanders talks much of making health care accessible to all, and making higher public education free by taxing “Wall Street speculation.” While these ideas are certainly questionable in their possible effectiveness, it is clear that they would represent a shift in the government’s role from industry’s friend to something much more hostile.

The Sanders’ campaign does not shy away from such verbiage, referring to itself as a “political revolution.” This revolution of sorts extends past the Democratic primary, and in perhaps a more extreme way, to the Republican party. The Republicans are currently being paced by Donald Trump, a reality-show performer, and Ben Carson, a former neurosurgeon. Establishment candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are lagging behind in the polls.

In spite of their differences as candidates–Trump is a reality-show performer; Sanders is a United States Senator–they both are tapping into the same frustrations.

The American people are looking for genuine, honest and outside-the-box candidates as they consider who to support in 2016 — whether it’s the conservative mutation of this, which includes extreme reforms on immigration and trade, or the liberal mutation, which supports free higher education and health care.

While those on both sides will discuss the merits of the others’ proposal, both are extreme.

The American people are right to be frustrated with the establishment, but they must be careful in selecting possible solutions. Change for the sake of change is not inherently good, as any change must be measured as otherwise one risks digging a deeper hole. For example, free higher education sounds great, particularly by taxing Wall Street transactions.

However, the runaway inflation that would surely result from free higher education could have a devastating impact on the hard-working students who have earned a four-year degree.

Skeptical about that conclusion? Look at Europe, where free education roughly equivalent to community college in the U.S. has led to a devaluation of the undergraduate degree, forcing many students to have to obtain master’s degrees.

Even if Sanders were to make undergraduate education free, that would not account for the needed tax raises and added education that students will have to pay for to acquire the same value.

Without getting caught up in the specifics of one example, the point stands that Americans must be careful in selecting their anti-establishment positions. A wall between the United States and Mexico would certainly not be something the current administration would support, but boy that sure doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.