As Joshua Sack wrote last week, “this [next president] will need to unite the country to address some of the most pressing issues that will decide the place of the US in the next century.” The question then becomes which Candidate truly has the qualities needed to lead the US into this uncertain future. Sack comments that the next president must “draw us out from the specter of global climate change, curb the epidemic of mass shootings that have been a stain on our national record for far too long, safely guide our economy into the new world we have created, and lead the international campaign against ISIS,” but, surprisingly, fails to define these apparently pressing issues. Sack’s article only introduces the “problems” while ignoring what the solutions might be and switching his focus to unconditionally supporting supposed qualities of  Hillary Clinton that will allow her to get things done without considering if her solutions would be any good. A bad solution is no better, sometimes worse, than presenting no solution at all.

Sack’s article stated that the next president, “will have to unite an increasingly polarized country while simultaneously engaging the hordes of American voters who have been alienated by the plethora of political extremism that has stalled the political process.”

Also, he correctly asserts, “the next Commander in Chief needs to be able to make the critical judgments as to the relative weight of every proposed policy or action.” Even though the author appears to understand certain basic aspects of being President, he surprisingly follows it with an endorsement of Clinton. He affirms that she has a rare quality in politics, the ability to “put aside her conflict with a person to achieve a greater goal,” which is expressed through her, uncited, “remarkable record of bipartisanship with 68% of the bills she sponsored that went to committee having republican co-sponsors.”

This shows a misinformed or misguided belief. In the Democratic Debate on Oct. 13, 2015, Clinton was asked by debate moderator Anderson Cooper, “Which enemy are you most proud of?” She answered, “Probably the Republicans.” A supposedly bipartisan person, or someone who puts aside her differences would not call the other group, who she has to work with every day, the enemy she was most proud of. The statistic the article quoted as proof of Clinton’s bipartisanship has been disproven by the Pulitzer Prize winning website Politifact.com. It shows that in reality only 20-30% of the bills she worked on were co-sponsored by Republicans. These statements clearly disprove the claim that Clinton “will build a stronger and more unified country.”

Also when considering bipartisanship, Sack considers the only other presidential candidate with a “similar” record is John Kasich. Without offering any actual proof, he claims that Kasich has made so many “outlandishness statements” that he cannot be considered because “he has embraced the newly uncompromising aspects of American politics in recent years.” What Sack fails to mention is Secretary Clinton’s own record of outlandish statements. The fact Secretary Clinton does and continues to villainize and blame Republicans, under Sack’s own definition, disqualifies her from being bipartisan enough to be an effective leader.

Next, let us consider Clinton’s record on foreign policy. The most prominent example was her actions concerning Libya. Her decision to overthrow Gaddafi was so disastrous that even Yale Professor David Bromwich’s Huffington Post article calls her the central “influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the [Gaddafi] government” which led to the “civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.” It references how, to even set in motion the events leading to the disposing of Gaddafi,  Clinton had to “over[i]de US intelligence, [and] outmaneuvered the Pentagon.” Does this sound like a person who we should trust to make the important split second decisions concerning National Security or even, as Sacks claims, to, “lead the international campaign against ISIS?”

Sack also claims that, “[Clinton] has not attempted to shoehorn a group of people, regardless of their race, religion, or class, into the role of primary internal threat” to America. However, this also isn’t true. Throughout her entire campaign Clinton’s rhetoric has done nothing but identify and blame anyone who identifies as a Republican as a threat to the ‘new’ America that she has helped to create. This complete lack of respect for the opposing side shown by her campaign will lead to another four years of unlawful executive actions because of the lack of willingness to work with, let alone respect, an alternate viewpoint.

Sack asserts, “the next president will most likely have to deal with a national political climate and congressional makeup similar to what we have had for the last eight years.” If we assume this is true, it is probable that Clinton would not be effective with a Republican controlled Congress. The author expresses his belief that “[Clinton] has been able to present herself as the natural successor to President Obama” However, during his two consecutive terms in office Obama has been unable to work with a Republican Congress and has, in fact, only made progress with executive actions. The questionable lawfulness of these executive actions has only furthered the partisan divide between the parties. Our country cannot afford to elect someone who will worsen the already paralyzing partisan divide.

The problem with our society is that we too often find this comfort with our own opinion and instead of facing the uncomfortable truth that we may be wrong, we choose to live in our protected bubble.  But living in one’s own protected bubble endangers all for, as President John F. Kennedy said so elegantly “the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”