In what was part elegy of remembrance for days now past and part call for action so they might be relived, US President Donald Trump delivered his first State of the Union address on Tuesday.

Characterized by his usual chronic ballyhooing, it was notable not because it offered anything new, but because of its affirmation that for his administration everything can be boiled down to the simple binary choice of you are either with us or against us.

While patting himself on the back and offering a full helping of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those his administration considers American, his speech set out a similar proposition to that of one of the previous occupants of the White House, who proclaimed “there can be no divided allegiance here”, and once again laid bare his administration’s reductive and confrontational view of the complexities of international relations.

Beating the drum for unity, he called on his fellow citizens to set aside their differences and “seek out common ground”, living the American dream “as one team, one people and one American family”.

Yet the nation remains as divided as it was when he first entered office, with no bipartisan compromises likely to be reached on issues ranging from immigration to energy policies. The extent of the fault line was underscored by the mostly silent response from Democratic lawmakers throughout his speech.

For although coached in a more somber tone than has been his norm and purporting to be a vision of inclusion and confidence, his speech was once again a hymn to exclusion and a litany of insecurities.

Harping on his usual complaint that the United States is somehow hard done by under the deals it has agreed to, he declared “the era of economic surrender is over”, which only served to reinforce the fact that often if you take away the opinions you take away the complaint.

Worse, by naming China and Russia as rivals that “challenge our interests, our economy and our values”, he placed them along with rogue regimes and terrorist groups as “horrible dangers” to the US.

Yet to conclude from that Sino-US relations are inevitably on a collision course is too pessimistic, especially given the huge interdependence between the world’s largest and second-largest economies and broad common ground that they share. But it does mean ill words should not be doubled by ill deeds if they are to make best use of the bonds that have been forged.

Rather than trying to turn back time with his America first strategy, Trump should validate his election as a break with the past by embracing an American moment that is of the times.

For experience shows that rather than complacency and concessions, it is when the US tries to take matters into its own hands that it invites its troubles.