Like any entrepreneur or experienced businessman, Donald Trump does not think like a modern-day politician. Business people approach the world and their role in it in ways much different than do politicians. While this brings a refreshing change to the conduct of politics, one that optimistically can be beneficial to the country, it can also be something of a problem for Trump’s candidacy whenever he is scrutinized by mainstream political commentators.

A business-person candidate challenged to conform to orthodox political wisdom is rather automatically disadvantaged for several reasons. Interviewers in the media who bring the prevailing political perspective to their questions and expectations, as they are predisposed to do, ask the wrong questions. Because the candidate does not fit the conventional political-behavior mold in many important respects, those irrelevant questions lead to answers that often do not “make sense” within the interviewer’s worldview.

Audiences are likely to be entirely unaware of the conventional political subtext that pervades interviews and commentary, so what the audience sees and remembers is simply a candidate who doesn’t quite answer the questions correctly or meaningfully.

Interviewers and commentators need not have malicious intent, either. Widespread ignorance of practical business- and market-oriented thinking among political pundits leaves them ill-equipped to understand, and so fairly reflect, the positive potential and new possibilities of an unconventional candidate. Even among those in the media who have the knowledge and ability to bring out a deeper understanding of a business candidate’s perspective, there is rarely enough interview time to achieve more than a superficial take. Audiences too are prone to tune out over such arcane topics anyway.

But enough telling. A few examples might help to frame the matter in practical terms.

“Trump does not have a plan for [name an issue].”

This is a routine expectation of all political candidates: Tell us how you will “solve” a subject “problem.” In response, the candidate prepares detailed position papers and talks at length about the government programs s/he will bring to bear toward improving our lives. The conceit, of course, is that a politician is somehow privileged to know best how to “solve” our “problems,” that government is usually the best vehicle for achieving improvements and, further, that the proposed improvement plan or program will actually work in the real world, contrary to decades of real-world experience with government “solutions.”

Business people know better. Working a solution to a problem of any significance is usually a meandering journey that must be managed continuously, one that accepts learnings along the way, is guided by facts and experience, and adjusts and adapts to new information en route. A problem-solving exercise properly conducted in this way is able to accommodate the unanticipated, often leading to a new and better understanding of the original problem that, consequently, delivers a better solution. It acknowledges our relative ignorance before taking the first step.

The entrepreneur understands that “solutions” to societal problems conceived and fully-developed by “experts” are preposterous. Recall that ObamaCare was held out as the only possible solution to the nation’s health care “problems.” Since its passage, this example of government-designed perfection has been amended by law, regulation or court decision more than 50 times, and its fiscal justification essentially obliterated.

“Trump has changed his views on [issue].”

Openmindedness is a hallmark of a good manager. In a politician, however, openmindedness is frequently regarded by the politically orthodox as a character defect, and by most everyone else as “inconsistency” (at best) or “hypocrisy” (at worst). The press seems to take particular pleasure in finding and replaying conflicting statements by public figures of both parties.

Except for the most basic of principles -- and there are only a few that should really matter -- any thinking individual should be expected at times to change views and opinions following new discoveries and changing circumstances. Those who do not, whether trapped by strict ideology or suffering intellectual paralysis for other reasons, exemplify Emerson’s observation that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

“Trump’s principles are fluid.”

Today’s politics have elevated a vast number of opinions and preferences to the status of “principles” that have become sacrosanct. Examples of this are views on abortion, marriage, and immigration. But we should be skeptical of agendas masquerading as a sort of sacred canon.

What should dominate are the principles at the individual level. These are few, and they all define the idea of “personal integrity” or “character” -- honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, respect for others, respect for law. Any candidate who disregards these basic values justly deserves voter contempt. But that is different from deviating from partisan political standards.

Certainly, ideology is paramount to many people and, for them, has absolute sway over their view a candidate. But it is important to distinguish a candidate’s conformance to ideological orthodoxy from the principles of personal integrity, and accordingly to understand the agenda of the critic who levels such criticism.

“Trump is not focused on the important issues of the day.”

Apart from the fact that criticisms like one this reveal more about the commenter than about the candidate, it illuminates an essential but often-overlooked characteristic of the political landscape: Politicians need a constant stream of “problems” in today’s world to justify their existence and secure their re-election. If enough genuine problems cannot be found, politicians will invent them. (At the same time, some problems of major importance to the country simply will not be tackled by politicians, for the related reason that touching them threatens their existence and re-election.)

The business leader’s perspective, on the other hand, is narrow, frugal and focused: The essential fact of business life is that there is only so much time in a day and only so much money to go around. This means making choices, setting priorities, and working incremental progress, while leaving less-important matters for another time.

The career politician does not recognize any such limits on ability to deliver or funding. It is never a problem if more money is needed, it will be obtained through higher taxes, more borrowing, or yet more money creation. The actual ability of the government to perform is consistently dismal, but that fact is never acknowledged by the politicians.

A sober assessment of the “real” problems faced by the country and appropriate for engagement of the national government is a profound departure from the politically-corrupted conventional wisdom. To this point, Trump has seven positions concentrated very simply on national security and national prosperity; everything else is noise. Clinton lists thirty-one issues and Sanders has thirty-three, encapsulating the whole of the big-government leftist agenda.

Despite all of the foregoing, I do not intend this as a defense of Donald Trump. He may or may not be worthy of our votes based upon these and other criteria.

What is remarkable about his candidacy is that it has put in stark perspective the pervasive prevailing political worldview among most political commentators, almost irrespective of the media outlet. Their view forms the very platform upon which we see our presidential candidates, and they necessarily color and distort, favorably or unfavorably, our perceptions of the candidates. It is insidious because -- “hidden in the open” -- it is invisible to the inattentive.

Recently Al Gore said regarding Donald Trump, “I'm one of the millions who sometimes just does a double take: 'Whoa, what was that?’” As Trump’s candidacy is beginning to make clear, Gore’s confusion is emblematic of a dominant political thinking that desperately needs recalibration.