In his brief, first appearance as President-Elect, Donald J. Trump struck a magnanimous tone. He praised Hillary Clinton’s both for her service to our country and for a hard-fought campaign. Trump was gracious.

In his remarks, Trump also referenced some policy possibilities. He called on America to “rebuild” our schools, highways, tunnels, bridges, airports, and hospitals.

Though it is merely a glimpse, Trump’s words highlight the strain his winning coalition will face. The data have yet to speak, and, of course, the data may be flawed, but it appears Trump built his improbable victory on a typical Republican core of supporters–evangelicals, those of relatively high socioeconomic class, and ideological conservatives. He joined these voters to a plethora of disenchanted whites, especially those without college degrees, from “Rust Belt” states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He then mixed in some full-blown “anti-establishmentarians,” those who saw this election as a chance to stick it to the man, or, in this case, the “wo-man.”

Electorally, it was a great success, but as a governing entity, it looks rickety. To jump to the obvious, how does Trump’s Wednesday morning magnanimity translate to the chant he encouraged over these many months? “Lock her up. Lock her up. Lock her up.” There is an identifiable chunk of Trump’s coalition that either revels in his utter willingness to say anything or that embraces his seeming promises to pursue Hillary Clinton to the ends of the legal earth.

Most fundamentally, how would an aggressive infrastructure spending bill be greeted by Paul Ryan, the Club for Growth, or Mike Lee? This highlights the tension that will surely emerge. So many principled, small government, conservatives will see unified government as the golden opportunity to reform entitlements, interject market competition into health care, scale back government spending, and reduce government’s footprint. No matter what one thinks of President-Elect Trump, these tendencies seem to cut against his basic beliefs. He has promised to leave entitlements largely untouched. He has criticized health care policy for not being robust enough.

For evangelicals, there is a good chance they will get a satisfactory Supreme Court selection and for many, that will redeem their vote. However, the culture wars are not about to disappear. Gov. Pat McCrory (R-NC), who stood for sex-based bathrooms in North Carolina, appears to have lost an election in a state Trump won. Trump has been less than outspoken on same-sex marriage. His record on abortion is mixed. He does not strike one as a cultural warrior.

The Supreme Court, assuming Scalia’s replacement is a similar sort of originalist, will not become immediately conservative. That appointment maintains the status quo on the bench, which would be, roughly, the same court that enshrined gay marriage. Unless more liberal justices, like Ginsburg or Breyer, step aside, the Court will not change ideologically. Even with Scalia’s replacement, there is no guarantee the Court will favor religious liberty over sexual and gender identity.

Trade and immigration will probably produce the greatest conflict. The Republican Party, historically, has advocated for free enterprise as the greatest solution to poverty, not only in America, but across the globe. Reagan believed capitalism provided unique opportunities for all of society to grow, and that it fostered individual independence, as opposed to dependence on the welfare state. Free trade simply took these ideas to the global stage. Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush, believed free trade would undermine Communist regimes and other tyrannical states. Rightly or not, they believed trade was an economic and a political lever in geopolitics.

Trade, and the freedom it so often spawns, was a cornerstone of Republican foreign policy throughout the Cold War. America bought and sold as a beacon of economic and political freedom. For many Republicans, there is a connection between NAFTA and NATO, and both are critical to the maintenance of freedom and prosperity here and abroad.

Donald Trump, and the cadre of whites across the Midwest that made him President, seem to hold no such beliefs. They are convinced an active government that erects trade barriers to protect native industries is the path toward middle-class prosperity. They believe reducing trade with Mexico and China will lead to domestic growth.

Put aside the economic wisdom of such notions. The politics of the situation don’t seem tenable unless the Republican Party is no longer the party of Reagan, Kemp, Forbes, and the Bushes.

Presidents sometimes define political parties more than parties define presidents. Certain presidencies reconfigure American politics for generations to come. In a strict sense, though they were all Republicans, the parties of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan were vastly different. They focused on different issues. They had varying coalitions of support.

We will need time and distance to come to grips with what Donald Trump’s shocking victory has wrought, but there is a chance he has remade the Republican Party in his own image. If this is true, will Trump’s peculiar tent be large enough to house social, economic, and political conservatives? We shall see.