Let us begin with the obvious: this election cycle, our choices for the next president will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That much may as well be accepted. In addition to placing veritable tons of moderate Republicans in the unenviable position I’ve affectionately termed “stuck between a rock and a toupee,” it has left those of us who vote based on foreign policy with a very, very easy choice: Hillary Clinton. In the next few pieces I publish, I intend to explain why this is the case – taking The Donald’s foreign policy position by position, examining the feasibility and likely impacts of each plan. In this first article, though, I would like to argue that foreign policy is the most important consideration when choosing a president, and that informed individuals should vote accordingly.

Now, right off the bat, you may already disagree with me – in fact, only about 5 percent of voters base their decision primarily on foreign policy. Decades of research devoted to determining who people vote for and why has shown that the economy is almost always the most significant issue for voters – and that this election cycle appears unlikely to differ (though there are those who disagree). According to the polls, one finds that any issue regarding foreign affairs rates as second or third – if not below – in voters’ priorities when voting for their next president. However, that second or third issue is usually “terrorism,” which isn’t necessarily a foreign policy issue. No other foreign policy issue registers in a significant way, and “the economy” nearly always comes in first. Clearly, as a nation, we prefer to vote with our wallets.

To a certain extent, this sort of rationale makes a little sense; everyone knows someone who believes “we should worry about America first,” because we’ve all got bills to pay, and “who cares about freaking Latvia, anyway?” And far be it from me to invalidate your priorities – if you’re likely to lose your home unless economic policy is made more redistributive, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you’re wrong. However, for those with perhaps a little less skin in the economic game, this is what I propose: that you consider a presidential candidate’s foreign policy acumen to be of paramount importance, because – as I will attempt to demonstrate – the influence of the president in international affairs vastly outpaces his or her influence in the domestic economy. Furthermore, the potential consequences of a president being inadequately prepared to handle foreign policy are infinitely more disastrous than anything he or she could do to the economy.

First, one must understand that, even though the president has an effect on domestic economic policy, that effect is largely indirect and mediated by congress and the states. The president can sign bills he or she likes or veto those he or she doesn’t, appoint (with senatorial consent) cabinet or Federal Reserve members, and signal the direction he or she would like to take the country – but, at the end of the day, none of those options constitute total authority over the economy. Sure, a candidate can promise to raise or lower taxes, to reexamine the Affordable Care Act, or to raise the minimum wage; unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), the president cannot unilaterally accomplish any of these goals. They simply need congress.

Foreign policy, on the other hand, is largely controlled by the White House. Although congress has to approve treaties and declarations of war, according to Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts, “they are reluctant to challenge the executive branch on most national security matters.” In fact, “The Bush administration was able to implement the Iraq surge despite skeptical majorities in both houses of Congress,” and “[the] Obama administration authorized the use of force in Libya without even notifying Congress” (emphasis mine). Even though Libya is a sovereign country, and even though war was undeclared, we technically invaded them, and the decision was not up for debate. Further examples of the executive branch operating more or less independently of the legislative branch include the direction and tone of negotiations with allies and rivals, as well as the ongoing yet technically unapproved bombing of ISIS – which brings us to the War on Terror.

The War on Terror, suffice it to say, has vastly expanded the military authority of the president. Given that we declared a global war on terrorism, and that terrorism still exists, the president has a mandate to wage war. This happens across the world, though we don’t often think about it; my guess is that most people could not, if pressed, name all of the countries in which we have conducted, or are currently conducting, drone strikes (the answer: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen). The legal authority to approve these presidentially directed conflicts is rather ambiguous in nature. But, even if congress had the ultimate say on the beginning of each conflict, we would still want the president to know which conflicts to ask permission to begin, and how to manage them once started. That’s just intrinsic to the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Overall, the president is ultimately responsible for our presence in the world; he or she is our liaison with the international community. And, as nasty as a recession can be, a mistake in geopolitics can be far nastier. In a world where the three leading powers (the U.S., Russia, and China) all possess arsenals that, when combined, have the capacity to end life on Earth several times over, bad decisions could be unimaginably catastrophic – though, in fairness, unemployment would certainly drop. Though it’s not often discussed in public debates anymore, we have to remember that anytime we elect a president, we’re electing a person who might have to make decisions that involve the deaths of billions of people. And yes, large scale war – let alone nuclear war – is increasingly unlikely in today’s world (though, given our crumbling and terrifyingly outdated nuclear infrastructure, we might not want to ignore the possibility of accidents). The thing to remember is that geopolitics is an endlessly intricate labyrinth; even if the worst-case scenario is improbable, it nevertheless exists as a very real possibility, despite the reluctance of today’s politicians to talk about it anymore. Additionally, most non-nuclear consequences are still far worse than slightly higher taxes – thousands of lives all across the globe rely on prudent American foreign policy.

The burden of our foreign policy, unlike that of our economic policy, will fall squarely and almost entirely on the shoulders of our next president. So, go ahead and vote for your congressperson with your wallet – but please vote for the president with an international relations textbook.