Many serious conservatives haven’t made up their minds about Trump. On the one hand, we sympathize with the tonier conservative pundits—e.g., Dan Henninger and Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal—about his serious weaknesses. We’re inherently skeptical about the idea of a political novice getting elected to the presidency, and similarly skeptical about his chances for success in office if he should get elected. We also have reservations about Trump’s character and his lack of a coherent political philosophy. At the same time, we’ve noticed that those who defend Trump, including such conservative stalwarts as Rush Limbaugh, do so with clear-eyed acknowledgement of his faults. In fact, the two sets of pundits don’t even seem to be arguing; rather, they seem to be talking about entirely different things.

With that dilemma in mind, I offer two thoughts about Trump’s candidacy that are worthy of consideration, and that no one else appears to have mentioned.

Thought One. Imagine how things look to prospective Trump voters—many of whom would have been called Reagan Democrats 30 years ago. As they see it, the country is currently in a hell of a mess. Our foreign policy is a complete shambles, and at a time when fresh waves of global chaos seem likely to reach our shores; economic growth has stalled, nearly wiping out the assets and future prospects of the blue-collar middle class; race relations are at their worst since the Watts riots; trust in government recently hit the lowest point since pollsters began asking about it, in 1958. Sometimes in US history, presidents unjustly receive blame for conditions and events entirely beyond their control; today, Barack Obama’s own heavy hand has caused or exacerbated every one of our major problems. He’s not yet the Worst President Ever—James Buchanan may still outrank him—but he’s surely the worst in living memory.

Just as the perceived callousness and incompetence of George W. Bush created the atmosphere that enabled Obama to win in 2008, so now the total disaster that Obama hath wrought opens an opportunity for a candidate who is the un-Obama. In 2008, some of the anger at Bush was justified, some was the usual restlessness of the American electorate, and some was ginned up by the left-leaning media. This year, anger at Obama is fully justified, and only the continued slavish support of the left keeps the man from being impeached or forced to resign. Obama has put the country in a situation like George Costanza’s in the Seinfeld episode “The Opposite.” George realizes that, “every decision I’ve ever made, in my entire life, has been wrong.” With some prodding from Jerry, he resolves that he will start doing the opposite of what his natural instincts tell him. And it works, landing him a job with the Yankees, a hot new girlfriend, and real self-respect.

A plurality of the American electorate now realizes that everything Obama has done was wrong. Like George, they suspect we can turn things around by doing the opposite. In an ordinary year, my fears about Trump’s lack of ideology, political experience, and detailed policies would have the highest relevance. But we’re in a hole so deep—and it’s so obvious that Obama’s conceit, ineptitude, lawlessness, and anti-patriotism put us in it—that the usual package of political skills may just not matter much right now. At present, maybe all we need is someone with the guts to do the opposite of Obama, the perseverance to see that through, and the self-importance not to care what the media says about him.

Thought Two. Some of Trump’s popularity gets attributed to his high media profile from The Apprentice. True, but such analysis also errs by treating the content of the show as irrelevant, as if it were just another Jersey Shore or Real Housewives. Does no one see how powerfully relevant The Apprentice is to Trump’s candidacy? I recently reviewed a few of the first-season episodes, and was amazed.

Trump has roughly 10 minutes of airtime per episode. At the beginning, he meets with the teams to brief them on their task. At the end, Trump first assesses performance and announces which team won. That often includes some “lessons learned” comments about the reasons for the success and failure of the two teams. Then he investigates the losing team in more detail, focusing both on the mistakes made, and on determining which individual deserves blame.

Trump’s briefings are clear, concise, and always specify how he will judge performance. He reinforces the authority of his two deputies, George Ross and Carolyn Kepcher, who provide the detailed supervision of the task. In the evaluations and investigations, Trump likewise remains focused, relentless, and fact-centered. He interacts with George and Carolyn respectfully, giving due weight to their opinions, but always taking responsibility for his own final judgment.

How does that bear on the presidency?

According to the Office of Personnel Management, which keeps track of this stuff, in 2014 there were 4,185,000 people working for the federal government. Only 63,000 of those worked for Congress or the judicial branch; the rest—more than four million people—worked in the executive branch, which means they ultimately work for the president. The Constitution vests all the executive power in one individual. With more than 4 million subordinates, the president had better be one damn fine leader.

In order to run the government effectively, the president has to be able to: (1) appoint skilled subordinates; (2) spell out clearly what he expects them to do; (3) keep himself apprised of their performance; (4) investigate and review complex events; (5) determine who has succeeded, and reward them; determine who has failed, and punish them. And he has to do almost all of that from the Oval Office, relying on others to be his eyes and ears. That’s exactly the skill set the Donald Trump of The Apprentice has displayed.

Presidents need other skills, and other personal qualities, besides the managerial, and in some of those other areas Trump does seem to be weak. Will Republican primary voters actually nominate him? The decision will now depend as much on evaluating the main Republican alternatives, and on the way events shape the next president’s likely agenda, as on the pros and cons of Trump himself.