I decided to forego a few cases in my constitutional law course so that we might watch history. Twitter played a live feed of the festivities and I got to class just before Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office.

Squeezed between two students in the back row, I tried to see Pres. Trump’s inaugural address with fresh eyes. I’ve been suspicious of our incoming chief executive since the beginning. I hoped he would appeal to me, someone who is not his natural enemy, or perhaps seek to mend at least some rhetorical, if not political, fences.

I was sorely disappointed.

Instead of turning this into an extended analysis, for only future actions will prove if Trump’s address merits such attention, let me provide some scattered thoughts.

I should at least acknowledge some positives. Trump is not ashamed of the United States of America. He is, assuming his rhetoric reflects his true beliefs, a man who loves his country and will fight on its behalf. Unlike many on the right, I think Barack Obama also loved his country. Well, maybe more accurately, he loved what his country could become if it would conform to his image of it. To be fair, Trump is not all that different. Though fiercely patriotic, he sees an America in desperate straits, in sore need of his own brand of leadership to put an end to the “American carnage” and the “tombstones” of closed factories.

Donald Trump also paid more than lip-service to those who too often inhabit Republican blind spots. Trump spoke directly, and passionately, to blue-collar whites, men and women who wear steel-toed boots for work, not to be ironic. The Information Age has moved beyond too many of their skills and they have been waiting for a champion who is not a Marxist. Trump also had strong, bracing words for urban America. He decried the state of its schools, its almost casual violence, and its glaring lack of opportunity. I sincerely hope Trump acts to ameliorate its plight and his language is good for the future of the party.

Trump’s rhetoric writ large borders on dystopian. He sees America shrouded in social, cultural, and economic rot. I know times are hard for millions of Americans. I know too many families cannot save, are struggling to pay for health care, and are still waiting for a deep recovery. Trump’s language, however, spreads these ills from segments to the whole. He reminded me of John Edwards’ “Two America’s” sloganeering back in 2004. Trump paints only those in the shadows while forgetting the millions who live in the light.

No matter what you think of Trump’s America, or his inaugural address, I found it too reminiscent of the grievance-based politics of the progressive left. Trump raises the banner of victimhood and rallies too many Americans around it. “Is life hard? Economy got you down? Let’s find someone to blame!” For Trump, politics is a constant search for scapegoats.

Trump represents the Republican Party. In fact, he is in the process of remaking the party. Though the GOP has had an uncomfortable relationship with conservatism the last two or three decades, Trump has pushed that alliance into divorce proceedings. Trump’s inaugural rhetoric ignored limited government, constitutionalism, and liberty. His solutions to “American carnage” are expansive enough to make progressives blush. A $1 trillion expenditure on infrastructure is a massive proposal whether made by Trump or Obama. The green-eye-shade-Republicans decrying the condition of our debt are strangely silent.

For Trump, the solution to America’s woes is better government directed toward the populations he deems afflicted. Conservatives for the past fifty years have argued that more freedom solves many of our problems. For them, the absence of government was the first consideration when presented with most problems. For Trump, especially on trade, this is simply not the case. He bends not toward free markets, and their benefits, but borders shuttered against illegal immigrants and products produced more cheaply overseas.

Conservatives criticized President Obama’s tendency to steer funding toward his pet industries or corporations. President Trump has promised the same solution aimed at different targets. Republicans have either yawned or expressed full-throated support. After all, this is how we “Make America Great Again.”

Finally, let me close with what troubled me the most about Trump’s presentation. Trump attempted to call for unity of a sort, primarily through patriotism. Here is the key paragraph:

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.” We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

There is something fundamentally creepy about Trump’s sentiments here. It seems to assume that we find purpose and community through the state. In the state we find one another. In the state we find unity. Through our love of the state, we will leave no room for prejudice. Why should we think and act this way? Because the Bible speaks of the goodness and pleasantness of God’s people living together.

Trump ascribes to the state attributes that only God and the gospel can bear. It is in God I find ultimate unity with him and his people. It is only through God and his grace that my heart will be closed to prejudice. Besides, Trump assumes, astonishingly, that prejudice and patriotism are somehow mutually exclusive. The worst forms of prejudice have often been sponsored by the state and propagated by a virulent love of the state.

Trump’s use of God and his people is disturbing. The argument appears to be something like, “we should be loyal to each other because God is pleased when his people are loyal to each other.” To begin, the citizens of the United States are not, collectively, the people of God. To use the one to describe the other is a gross mischaracterization. Beyond that, my allegiance to God and state are fundamentally different.

God demands unquestioned loyalty. God commands that we have no rivals, that we neither have nor make competing idols. God is first so that everything else must be second. Trump, in a twisted way, calls us toward idolatry when he presumes we, as believers, can make America first, even in a flippant, sloganeering sort of way.

If America is First, God Must Be Second. Sorry, that is a path I cannot follow.