Whatever their party identification, Americans can all at least agree that Donald Trump’s style of communication is unorthodox for presidents of the modern era. And while critics charge that his speech is chaotic, extemporaneous, and lacking forethought, it is undeniable that his approach to messaging and communication was crucial to his success in the 2016 campaign and, more recently, to his execution of the greatest political comeback in our nation’s history.

In a forthcoming series for RealClearPolitics, former deputy assistant secretary for Homeland Security John Waters and I offer an ongoing analysis of Trump’s communication strategies. A foundational premise of the series is that the media’s kneejerk dismissiveness of Trump’s uses of rhetoric has hindered critics in grasping how adept he really is in the art of persuasion. Any serious investigation of his communicative style must begin from the assumption that the president is not an idiot: that a general theory of persuasion underlies his apparent bluster and spectacle, and that a theory can be gleaned from a close study of his public statements.

Just as critics have dismissed Trump’s rhetorical prowess, they dismissed his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, co-authored with Tony Schwartz. The inattention to this text is remarkable, given that no other president penned a treatise describing his approach to negotiation long before he entered politics. For that reason alone, serious study of Trump’s communication strategies must begin there.

The title of the book alone should be tantalizing for scholars of communication and political pundits alike: The Art of the Deal simultaneously promises a general theory of persuasion and a focus on negotiation techniques—both critical aspects of the office of the executive. For those who haven’t read the book, it is a first-hand account from Trump of his motives, maneuvers, and machismo in dealmaking. And the first lesson of the book is that for Trump, any deal that doesn’t redound to the distinct advantage to the dealmaker is a failure—a “deal” in name only.

Trump’s approach to negotiation is to win, to come out ahead of the other guy. With this in mind, it’s easy to see why so many recoil at Trump’s method of doing political business: For decades, American political elites have celebrated compromise, consensus, and mutual benefit as the hallmarks of a “fair” and laudable deal. Obama, the media’s favorite president of the modern era, is an excellent example. He always valorized agreements where everybody wins. But as we saw, Obama was often just paying lip service to the concept of winning. His eagerness to make a deal—too often, it seemed, merely for the sake of having made one—meant so many “compromises” that America came out on the losing end. Look no further than the Iran deal, which sent almost $2 billion in cash to the Islamic authoritarian regime, or the Paris Climate Accord, which hamstrung America with burdens that exceeded those placed upon any other nation.

Those who see this “conciliatory” approach to dealmaking as something required by decorum, if nothing else, are horrified by Trump’s actions at the bargaining table. He doesn’t want an agreement where “everyone wins” because he rightly understands that this amounts to making sacrifices that are not good for us and that we don’t need to make. Further, he grasps that sometimes it’s better not to make a deal at all than to make one where our long-term interests are compromised. One cannot comprehend his approach to negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war or his actions on tariffs if one does not appreciate these realities.

The opening of his book makes clear that “dealmaking” (Trump’s preferred term for “persuasion”) is a technique: “I don’t do it for the money.… I do it to do it. Deals are my art form.” Ever since Plato’s Socrates dismissed rhetorical ability as a “knack,” scholars have debated whether persuasion is set of techniques that can be learned or the natural inclination of a particular character type. The future president sided with Plato: “I think dealmaking is an ability you’re born with. It’s in the genes. I don’t say that egotistically. It’s not about being brilliant. It does take a certain intelligence, but it’s mostly about instincts.”

Trump also shows himself to be a keen student of effective marketers, negotiators, and assorted dealmakers. He explains that “One of the keys to thinking big is total focus. I think of it almost as a controlled neurosis, which is a quality I’ve noticed in many highly successful entrepreneurs.” This “controlled neurosis” could also be called drive and determination. He highlights this persistence elsewhere in the book: “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with that I want.”

This approach is on display when it comes to Trump’s public statements on a number of issues, notably in his remarks to a joint session of Congress about the United States acquiring Greenland, which he promises will happen “one way or the other.”

Nevertheless, Trump believes it is possible to over-commit to a possible deal. He counsels that “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach.” Similarly, he cautions against desperation—or at least showing it: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.” Many observers were mystified by Trump’s reaction to Zelensky’s comments in their Oval Office meeting. But with an understanding of his strategic aversion to desperation, the meeting makes a lot more sense, and it’s easier to see why the Ukrainian’s visit ended without a signed agreement. Indeed, Trump’s approach was vindicated only days later, when he told Congress that Zelensky had since written that “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible.”

For those alarmed by Trump’s approach (like so many opinion writers in the newspapers), there is much more wisdom to be gained by familiarizing oneself with The Art of the Deal. During Trump’s first term, journalists developed a monomaniacal focus on “fact-checking” Trump’s claims. Often the statements that they deemed “false” were obvious exaggerations, and in some cases, they “fact-checked” statements of opinion.

If Trump’s critics insist upon interpreting Trump’s comments literally when they were clearly not intended to be, they shouldn’t be surprised when they find that he’s a “liar.” In The Art of the Deal, Trump unequivocally admits to strategic exaggeration: “The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies.… That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts.… I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.” Journalists would understand Trump better if they could keep this concept of “truthful hyperbole” at the front of their minds.

Of course, Trump’s communication tactics can be chaotic. But again, critics miss that chaos can play an effective role in the process of persuasion. In The Art of the Deal, the president again shows that he grasps this fundamental principle: “Sometimes it pays to be a little wild.” Discussing the prospect of one deal, Trump says “What the hell?… I’ll wing it and things will work out.” This extemporaneity can be a critical tool in negotiation—the ability to rapidly adapt to a developing situation is a key skill for any leader. And often, Trump’s unpredictability is a means to maximize potential opportunities. “I like to keep as many options open as I can,” he says.

It is undeniable that Trump’s style in communication is much different than the conciliatory approach that has been championed by the presidents of the last 30 years. But it’s also clear that the conciliatory approach—where our government enters the negotiation prepared and even eager to make sacrifices—has caused material harm for the American people. Consider the economic effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or the fact that our ships now pay to make use of a canal in Panama that Americans built. The Paris Climate accord and the Obama administration’s payments to Iran serve as other examples.

Trump doesn’t just disdain the conciliatory approach—his mindset makes it incomprehensible. He sees that it has costs for Americans, and he’s tired of us coming out on the losing end. Trump notes that “most people think small because most people are afraid of success, afraid of making decisions, afraid of winning. And that gives people like me a great advantage.” When he wrote those words, he was still leveraging his dealmaking talents for personal gain. Now he applies that strategy on behalf of America and its people. All too often, the people who express concern over his communication and negotiating style are the same ones who are “afraid of winning.” Until they understand the basic premises of Trump’s approach—and grasp how well it has served him over a half a century—they will never appreciate the wins that it gives to the American people.