I am tired of listening to our political candidates talk about healing our nation, bringing the country back together again, and being a president for all Americans “regardless of political party.” Fixing our political process is not about emotional healing, or subscribing to murky, watered-down, ethically noncommittal policies. It is about the time-honored slugfest of concrete political compromise. And this task requires political bravery.

Kamala Harris is the candidate we need to lead that slugfest. After watching Tuesday night’s presidential debate, I concluded: 1) she has the vision to diagnose the nation’s urgent problems, 2) she has a plan to tackle them, and 3) she cares. Right now, I think a coalition of Democrats and sane Republicans could do a lot of good with some realistic, adaptable, and presidential leadership—without compromising anyone’s integrity. That is key, because otherwise legislators face political costs that far outweigh the benefits. Specifically, immigration policy, the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and addressing the high cost of living are all fertile grounds for solutions-based politics.

So here lies the crucial question: can Harris govern from ground zero? Can she wrest authority from the partisans and return it to the center? Can she reset the political reality in Washington, forge common ground in meaningful ways, create an environment in government where policies of revenge do not replace policies for the people, where political compromise gets us somewhere, instead of stepping us back into the mire?

I think she can, and I hope she will.

The political power struggles that dominated the 1980s and ‘90s: Reaganomics, the culture wars; the 2000s: 9/11 and the tragic invasion of Iraq; and the 2010s: the health care debate, immigration, America’s decline on the international stage, spawned a nation that could do little but thrash back and forth between hard turns to the left and to the right. The Tea Party, the emergence of Trump, and Antifa are all part and parcel of the same vacuum of leadership and national direction. Midway through the 2010s, the American psyche had fallen into apathy, our political process was shattered, and our political institutions were sorely in need of a consistent, durable, and lasting strategy for the 21st century. What we needed was a safe pair of hands at the helm.

Instead, we got Trump, a man whose political success depends on chaos, not stability. A recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) shows how detrimental his presidency has been to our reputation as a democracy across the world. It found that “political and cultural polarization” is “the largest threat to U.S. democracy.” The attached world democracy map demonstrates our classification as a “flawed” democracy. While I find the characterization itself flawless, the citizen in me feels only shame, not least of which because we have been lecturing the world about “democracy” for the better part of the last fifty years (sometimes punctuating our remarks with munitions). It makes you shudder to think.

Now, let’s just assume for a moment that the current vice president does win in November. Her campaign strategy of appealing to swing state moderates will not only increase her chances in the Electoral College, it will also allow for a more constructive American political discourse. Republicans like to say she was the most liberal senator in the history of the country. She is a “communist.” A “San Francisco liberal.” Most recently, she has been dubbed a “Marxist” by Donald Trump. My prediction is that the progressives will be complaining about her cabinet appointments more than the Republicans. I don’t mean to suggest that Harris will govern as a centrist Democrat—she definitely swings left—but I think her natural political pragmatism will serve her (and her nation) well as we move past the cynicism and polarization of the Trump years.

Most of us can see with our own eyes that Kamala Harris is a measured, thoughtful person who takes great care in exercising her responsibilities. So we can hope that her administration will be built in the same image. But the trick will be to find a way to maintain that stance once in office, when legislation begins to take shape, when the movers and shakers, the lobbyists, and the party machine put her under pressure—when the people who expect a payoff (unpromised, surely!) show up and put their hands out.

Maybe what we need from our next president is somebody who will keep everyone in the room a little bit disappointed. With all due respect to the leftist wing of the Democratic Party (whose positions I largely sympathize with), now is not the time for uncompromising, unyielding political stances. This country has been largely ungovernable for almost a decade because of the inane vitriol of one man, and we have some paperwork to do before we start writing the new American novel.

Abortion rights, gender equality, inflation, foreign policy, immigration: these aren’t just bullet points, they are real issues affecting real American voters. Harris must use the first two years of her term to build a bipartisan consensus that allows us to get back to something resembling normal governance. A strong house needs a solid foundation. We simply cannot build anything of lasting value on the current foundation. Any adornments, no matter how elegant, will not withstand the next political earthquake.

Strength, Kamala. We stand with you.

J. L. McCormick is currently enrolled in the Creative Writing MFA program at Emerson College. He likes to cook and play the guitar, simultaneously.