If you searched for a single headline that distilled what has been so depressing about feminist commentary on the 2016 election, you could do worse than pick this one, from The Guardian’s Lindy West, a writer I usually admire: “Hating Trump isn’t enough—we need to talk about why Clinton rules.” On the one hand, there’s the fixation on Trump’s awfulness, which is hardly a secret. On the other, there is the relentless cheerleading for Clinton, which sounds suspiciously like the desperate overselling of an underwhelming product. The piece accompanying the headline shares the defects common to the feminist pro-Clinton op-ed genre. In one short article, there are two long paragraphs about the sexism Clinton has suffered, but no attempt to probe into the policies she is proposing, or to grapple honestly with her actual feminist record.

Of course, most feminists—albeit with some notable exceptions—support Clinton in the presidential race. But though you’d never guess it from West’s piece and others like it, there’s a viable alternative both to outright opposition to Hillary and the happy talk of her feminist fans—one that is at once more intellectually honest and more politically constructive. Political theorist Nancy Fraser has dubbed it “critical support”: a vote for Clinton, combined with “vociferous criticism of her policies and explicit campaigning for Sanders-type alternatives.” Critical support, says Fraser, is “a strategy that looks beyond November to the ongoing struggle to build a new American left.”

But that, alas, has been the road not taken. While Clinton’s candidacy could have been an occasion for feminists to shine a spotlight on the broader, more structural forces that perpetuate women’s inequality, few Clinton supporters have chosen to do so—some because they worried that criticizing her would somehow boost Trump’s prospects. But now, as the campaign dwindles down to its final days, it is long past time for feminists to start thinking not only about the election, but also about what should happen afterward. If Hillary triumphs in November, how can feminists realize the potential of an historic opportunity to achieve social justice for women? More specifically, how can we pressure Clinton to make good on her feminist campaign promises, while at the same time fight for a bolder, more expansive vision for American feminism?

Let’s be clear about what is at stake. In the last century, major progressive change at the federal level—most notably the New Deal of the 1930s and the civil rights and Great Society legislation of the 1960s—has occurred only in narrow windows, when the Democratic Party controlled the presidency and at least one house of Congress. This year, not only are the Democrats strong favorites to win the White House, they are also favored to regain control of the Senate, and they even have an outside shot of taking back the House. Democratic victory in November, combined with a GOP in delightful post-Trump meltdown mode, would create the most auspicious political climate in decades for advancing women’s rights. Feminists would be granted the chance of a lifetime to bring U.S. work, family, and reproductive rights policies into the twenty-first century.

But absent organized pressure, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to avail herself of this opportunity. Aside from its anti-Trumpism, Clinton’s general-election campaign lacked a strong theme, which will make it difficult for her to claim a mandate for any particular set of policies or political vision. As New Republic columnist David Dayen has noted, “Democrats are at their most inspiring when they run on actual policies.” You’ve probably heard the (perhaps apocryphal) story about FDR, who, when asked by activists to support one of their causes, allegedly told them, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”