Commander in chief Donald Trump

“Property tycoon” Donald Trump, as The Economist likes to refer to the Republican front-runner, is fond of playing the outsider, but his foreign policy speech yesterday bore the markings of a Washington insider. Trump chose the somber Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., for its setting, just blocks from the White House and where in 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt prepared an inaugural speech in Room 776 that included the immortal words: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

It should be a no-brainer for anyone aspiring to the top of the GOP presidential ticket to focus on foreign policy. Heading into the general election, it’s where Democratic rival Hillary Clinton may prove most vulnerable. The FBI, by many accounts, isn’t inclined to bow to the Democrats’ timetable in issuing a verdict on her use of a private email server to manage classified documents. Come fall she could face serious new questions about her role as secretary of state, or—at worst—an actual indictment for violating U.S. laws.

For all its polish, Trump’s red-meat speech annoyed pundits and experts for its inconsistencies and brash “America first” theme, while it rallied his base for its populist sentiment. The difference this time was the candidate, who, fresh off five primary wins in Northeastern states the day before and reading from a teleprompter, sounded more presidential, more commander in chief–like than he has throughout the campaign.

Trump replaced earlier withering criticism of former President George W. Bush with homage to Ronald Reagan. Gone were Trump’s normal output of expletives and crude references to his rivals. Earlier in the week he called Sen. Ted Cruz a “pain in the ass.” Standing in the chandeliered hotel, Trump’s speech was measured and focused on five key weaknesses in current U.S. foreign policy.

The weaknesses Trump cited predictably play to voter anger: Trade policy is ruining our domestic economy, U.S. allies aren’t paying their fair share but also can’t depend on the United States, our rivals no longer respect us, and America itself has lost “a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals.”

Lumped beneath each heading were the usual array of Trump’s summary misstatements and inconsistencies. Most Republican leaders would not agree that “NAFTA has been a total disaster.” Anyone looking closely would find it hard to square Trump’s pledge to build our military with his proposed defense budget, or his spirit of isolationism with his determination to stand up for America abroad. In short—and so late in the game with Trump about to cement the GOP nomination—it’s far from clear whether Trump is at heart a Republican or a Democrat.

For many voters that plays just fine, but it’s a problem for someone trying to steer the ship of state. First, a president as commander in chief may govern alone, but his or her decisions cannot succeed without a cohort: somethings and someones to command.

It’s one thing to say “NAFTA is a total disaster,” but the first day you sit down in the Oval Office the question becomes “Now what?” Without policy that’s staked somewhere—and stakeholders—it will go nowhere. On trade, just for one example, Trump will be hard-pressed to find allies among Republicans on Capitol Hill, or with allies overseas after he has berated them so much for stealing U.S. jobs. In this he’s positioned himself, ironically, like another Oval Office loner, President Barack Obama.

The second challenge for a president-to-be when it comes to foreign policy, especially at a time when terrorism and crumbling states breed chaos, is to convince us he can deal with the unknown crisis, the one that hasn’t happened yet. Just ask George W. Bush.

Bush—the president who squeaked through an election decided in December 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court—by December 2001 had an approval rating of 90 percent. With the attacks of 9/11 and a war upon us, his ability to succeed at a crucial time as commander in chief wasn’t explained by policy and position papers. It came as a result of resolve in the face of crisis, an ability to project steadiness and strength enough to mobilize an entire government during a time of peril.

Leaving aside Bush’s later decisions regarding the Iraq War and its unraveling of both his approval rating and what had been stolid U.S. foreign policy, the question of how to govern during a global crisis is about more than laying out large policy markers based on past and current failures. It’s about who can sit at the head of the table in the basement war room on that dread day of global crisis, and from there steer a nation safely through. Those are cramped quarters for the tumultuous and testy Trump, and his speech said nothing otherwise. Steering the ship of state is how the job gets done.