Writing in the New York Times, First Things editor R.R. Reno informs those of us devoted to the Reaganite vision of the Republican Party—which he defines as a force for “small government, an internationalist foreign policy, free trade, and moral and religious conservatism”—that we had better get used to Donald Trump’s reinvention of the Grand Old Party. He claimed:

As a public figure, Mr. Trump has articulated a consistent message that speaks to a fundamental political challenge facing the 21st-century West: We must affirm nationalism and fight globalism.

This basic political message is dramatized by his populist rhetoric. At his campaign rallies he did not get cheers for denouncing government waste or championing tax cuts. His applause lines spoke of building a wall, deporting illegal immigrants, renegotiating trade deals and bringing back jobs. The America First, antiglobalist themes won him the election, not freedom-oriented, anti-government ones.

Is he right? Is Trumpism the future of the Republican Party? Maybe so, but it’s much too soon to say. And if Trumpism does triumph, it will hardly be cause for celebration as he seems to imagine.

In the first place, it’s still not clear to what extent Trump’s victory was a triumph for his policy platform, such as it was, as opposed to a willingness by voters to give an unconventional, blunt-talking TV personality with few fixed principles a chance to improve Washington through the magic of his deal-making skills.

Indeed, it’s not clear to what extent Trump’s presidency actually represents a triumph for the “America First, antiglobalist themes” he touted during the campaign and as recently as his inaugural address. In the White House, Trump has not exactly been a picture of consistency. He has flip-flopped from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO, from anti-Export Import Bank to pro-Export Import Bank, and so on.

He has made a few efforts to enact “anti-globalist” ideas, but they haven’t gotten far. His attempt to stop immigrants from seven Muslim countries was blocked by the courts, and neither Mexico nor Congress has so far volunteered to fund his dream of a border wall. True, Trump killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and he is imposing a 20 percent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, but he is not designating China a currency manipulator or socking it with the 45 percent tariffs he threatened during the campaign. He has even used American cruise missiles in Syria to punish Bashar Assad for the use of chemical weapons, exactly the kind of humanitarian intervention that hard-core America-Firsters, including Trump himself, decried when it was contemplated by President Obama in 2013.

It may be an exaggeration to suggest that Trump is turning out to be a “globalist cuck” in practice, but it’s safe to say that he has not adhered to the Breitbart view of the world. So it remains to be seen what his presidency will represent.

And keep in mind that Trump will be a realigning figure only if he is successful. Failed presidents don’t leave a lasting ideological mark: The Democratic Party was not redefined in Jimmy Carter’s image, and the Republican Party was not redefined in Richard Nixon’s image. Only successful presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan leave a lasting ideological legacy, and there is nothing in the record so far to suggest, after his rocky first 100 days, that Trump will be remotely as successful.

Even if Trump does become a consistent implementer of an America First agenda and even if he has considerable success with such an agenda—both unlikely—I and many others would still resist the redefinition of the Republican Party that Reno advocates. Paul Miller, a traditional conservative who served in the Bush White House, has skillfully stated in Foreign Policy the case for “globalism”—an amorphous term–over Trump-style nationalism.

As Miller noted, the invocation of “globalism” has often been used as a code word on the far right for “a fervid conspiracy theory that the left is orchestrating a deliberate campaign to sabotage America’s white majority through unrestricted immigration.” “Globalism” has also been equated at various times “with free trade, international institutions, lax border enforcement, immigrants and immigration, cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism, cooperative security, disrespect for national traditions and culture, or an annual meeting at Davos.”

“Globalism” has also been equated at various times “with free trade, international institutions, lax border enforcement, immigrants and immigration, cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism, cooperative security, disrespect for national traditions and culture, or an annual meeting at Davos.”

To the extent that “globalism” has any real meaning, it represents the triumph of free trade, international institutions, and collective security. In order words, Miller notes, it is a testament to “the extraordinary spread of Western ideals of political and economic freedom. For example, another word for ‘free trade’ is ‘capitalism,’ one of the West’s great contributions to the world. If this is globalism, let us make the most of it. It is extraordinarily odd that the president of the United States would turn his back on Western economic ideas in the name of protecting and promoting American national identity.”

I would add that globalism has a much better track record than nationalism. Sure, globalism has its share of problems, including illegal immigration, international terrorism, and trans-national crime. But all of those woes combined have done only a tiny portion of the damage wrought by virulent nationalism, which was responsible for the horrors of two world wars and many other conflicts.

In sum, then, the Republican Party would be making a grievous error if it were to permanently embrace the illiberal, isolationist, and nativist “America First” outlook favored by some of Donald Trump’s supporters—and only occasionally implemented by President Trump himself.