In 1968, at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Ill., the upheaval that the country witnessed over a four-night period on television was emblematic of the frayed social fabric that existed in the nation itself.

Not quite a teenager, I was mesmerized and frightened by the seeming unsolvable divisiveness exhibited in protest inside and outside of the International Amphitheatre that week. I remember asking my World War II veteran father why people were so angry. He replied that some people want to safeguard America by fighting the Vietnam War, while others want to risk the communists taking over the world. I did not perceive that explanation sufficient then, and I do not think that understanding is encompassing enough now. The mayhem then was generated by a more complex set of problems than one wedge issue, despite its gravity.

The civil unrest of the 1960s was a complex mix of several changes in the perception of what America’s social mores should be and what our global-political standpoints ought to be. In that context, the turmoil that the country was enduring was not so different from what we are grappling with today.

Back then, we were wondering whether the Truman Doctrine of containing communism was too costly to us in Indochina. Today we are wondering what scope of intervention we should commit to in order to stop ISIS and Islamic terrorism.

Back then, we were contending with the implementation of the Great Society programs and whether an unfair advantage should be provided for minorities through affirmative action. In the modern era, we are questioning whether those preferences are constitutional. The Supreme Court is examining whether minority-centered programs should be abolished, much to the chagrin of African American activists.

Back then, rioters were questioning whether blacks were receiving fair treatment from the police. Now, the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrates about that very same complaint.

Back then, the women’s movement was struggling for equal rights and pushing to achieve passage of the Equal Rights Amendment through Congress. Today, the Democrats are constantly expressing their dismay about the pay gap between men and women, in which a woman earns 77 percent of a man’s salary on average nationally.

Back then, we were debating immigration policy in the wake of the Hart-Cellar Act (1965), which abolished restrictive quotas to new immigrants and opened the floodgates to newcomers reliant on our social service networks. Today, we are debating the fate of approximately 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders.

Now, as it was then, we are searching for leadership in government reflective of our individual values and supportive of the principles we aspire for our nation to embody. Whether or not any of the candidates on either side meet that standard of forthrightness is questionable. However, Republican Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders are touting extreme measures to cure what they believe are society’s ills. All we can do is examine the evidence of their personal histories and deduce whether or not their assertions on the stump seem truthful and plausible.

At that 1968 Democratic convention, the participants and demonstrators were reeling, as was the whole of the country, from the recent deaths of civil rights leader Martin Luther King and New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. The Vietnam War malingered and incensed young people who were at risk of being drafted. Peace candidate Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy was currying favor with those young people. While Vice President Hubert Humphrey sought to unify a disparate party, demonstrators and independent voters were searching for some out of the ordinary political savior.

Back then, people’s lack of confidence in the government propelled them to seek the inordinate and extreme, which promoted riotous action.

Similarly, as we have seen at recent Trump rallies, public unrest within our society is manifesting into burgeoning demonstrations of anger.

On March 11, at the University of Illinois Arena, fights broke out between Trump enthusiasts and liberal and minority interests. These ruckuses caused Trump to cancel the rally one half-hour before its start. At rallies prior over the past few weeks, tensions have been escalating. Trump’s security staff and Secret Service agents have aggressively contained disruptors who feel that Trump’s popularity is a real danger to the future to the country. Trump’s rhetoric has been divisive on issues that draw an eerie parallel to 48 years ago. Plus he directly goads his followers to strike others with lines like, “punch him in the face, I’ll cover the legal fees” in regard to an anti-Trump protestor. He has warned of free riders in our nation and told an African American protestor to “go get a job,” an obvious example of subtle bigotry.

Trump’s assertions regarding so many vital issues are incendiary – the diminishment of the concerns of Black Lives Matter movement, the treatment of Muslims and the prospective restraining of religious pluralism in the United States, the intention to initiate a more aggressive commitment of our military in the Middle East, the onerous disposition of approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in our nation, the proposed protectionism of American trade. Also, he consistently depicts all Washington beltway officials as stupid. All these pugnacious proclamations are antithetical to democracy and are akin to hurling a match on a societal tinderbox.

On the other side, Sanders holds Wall Street universally blameworthy for our nation’s problems, but his rallies are peaceful and non-combatant by comparison.

Witnessing the potential of further mounting divisiveness and tumult, Trump tried to explain away the impending direness of the situation. Trump told MSNBC: “You have much anger in the country, it’s much anger in the country, and I don’t think it’s directed at me or anything. It’s just directed at what’s been going on for years.” Indeed, unrest has occurred for years, but when a major party candidate galvanizes angst and anger and adds to the divides in our society through incendiary speech, he sounds more like a totalitarian or fascist rather than a candidate for the presidency of our democracy.

In response, Sanders stated: “I hope that we are not in a moment in American history where people are going to be intimidated and roughed up and frightened about going to a political rally. I hope Trump speaks out forcefully and tells his supporters that that is not what the American political process is about.” We are still waiting for such a statement, senator.

Republican candidate Gov. John Kasich said: “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.” And: “Some let their opposition to his views slip beyond protest into violence, but we can never let that happen. I urge people to resist that temptation and rise to a higher level.”

I wish the governor’s sentiments were honored, but when Trump tries to incite followers to physically attack protestors and taunts protestors by questioning their intelligence, then the likelihood that rallies will “slip into violence” is great.

Similarly, in a news conference at Rolling Meadow, Ill., Texas Sen. Ted Cruz expressed his theory about who is truly culpable when he stated the following: “The responsibility for that lies with protestors, who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign, responsibility starts at the top.” And: “Any candidate is responsible for the culture of a campaign … when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.”

Cruz was referring to the manhandling of Breitbart News Network reporter Michelle Fields, which not only damaged her physically but emotionally.

Additionally, Democrat Hillary Clinton stated at a Saint Louis rally the following: “The ugly, divisive rhetoric we are hearing from Donald Trump and the encouragement of violence and aggression is wrong and it’s dangerous.” And: “If you play with matches you are going to start a fire you can’t control.”

Clinton has a point. In Chicago in 1968, a fire was set that raged out of control and required an army of authority to suppress. In Chicago last Thursday, we fortunately avoided a melee of that magnitude. However, if Trump continues to stir the pot of discontent, if he continues to incite battling ideologies, if he continues to order the manhandling of press and protestors, if he continues to promote fisticuffs, the worst could erupt.

Simply, Trump is a dangerous triggering mechanism to the bomb of societal unrest.

Election seasons should be monuments to discourse and debate, not catalysts for animalistic action. Hopefully, we will prove ourselves to be a more mature nation than we were 48 years ago.