Donald Trump’s presidency is about far more than mid-term elections or the various candidates jockeying to defeat him in 2020. His presence is defining the Republican Party. The lingering question is the degree to which his legacy will be lasting. This week we saw two Republican responses to Donald Trump. They present two paths forward, and though they are not novel, the contrast between them is so sharp that it feels as if we are at a crossroads.

Jerry Falwell, Jr., was recently interviewed by Joe Heim of The Washington Post. Heim asks Falwell about his support for Donald Trump and how it relates to his faith. In a series of responses, Falwell reveals the depth of his fealty to Donald Trump’s agenda. Here is the key exchange:

Heim: Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?

Falwell: No.

Heim: That’s the shortest answer we’ve had so far.

Falwell: Only because I know that he only wants what’s best for this country, and I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically “conservative,” but it’s going to be what’s best for this country, and I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country.

Falwell is still considered a leader within the Christian Right. As the president of Liberty University, one of the movement’s key institutions, Falwell wields significant influence. His early endorsement of Trump, and his decision to host him at Liberty, sent a signal to many other evangelicals. Even given this history, Falwell’s statements are shocking. They read more like sworn allegiance than mere political support. This is especially true considering the Christian Right’s history of defining itself around social and moral values. If Falwell is now the movement’s spokesman, which is debatable, these definitions are no longer operative. He is interested only in policy outcomes.

Mitt Romney, the new U.S. Senator from Utah, has immediately charted a different course. The former governor and presidential candidate wrote an opinion piece, also for The Post, that garnered significant media attention. Romney praises some of Trump’s policies during the past two years, but he connects them to traditional, mainstream Republicanism. Nearly any Republican would have appointed conservative judges, sought to lower corporate taxes, and rolled back some of the more aggressive regulations from the Obama Administration, Romney suggests. For Romney, Trump is dangerous because he lacks moral character. Here is a key paragraph:

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

Romney, oddly, sounds like the Christian Right from the 1990s, when the movement’s leaders gang tackled Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky Affair. He is worried about the enduring impact of Trump’s presidency. Romney makes it clear that policy alone will not define his support for Trump. While he pledges to vote with the President when he agrees with him, Romney also promises to criticize Trump’s misdeeds and misstatements, especially as they endanger our strategic alliances across the world.

To what degree does Falwell speak for the future of the Christian Right and Republican partisans? Is it possible Mitt Romney will lead an effective movement against Trump within the Senate itself? If the past two years are an indication, Falwell has captured the feelings of most rank-and-file Republicans, while Romney speaks for many office holders’ private opinions, but not what they say in public.

Romney captures, in his editorial, the thinking of a bygone age, one where U.S. Senators were expected to act as statesmen. The Senate was designed to consider the long term interests of the nation and the states instead of the momentary passions of the day. Falwell, by binding himself, his university, and his movement, so closely to Trump, is acting based on his short term calculations. Falwell has tapped into the zeitgeist, and is probably seeing immediate benefits. The danger to this approach lies in Trump himself. Both men are wagering on Trump’s character, but only one of them realizes it.