Yuval Levin

And so this time around, the insistence on loyalty, on being part of the team, is really intense. You see that in their hiring. You see that in their senior appointments. They're really placing an enormous premium not on having the experience to run this department but on never saying no to Donald Trump.

And so this time around, the insistence on loyalty, on being part of the team, is really intense. You see that in their hiring. You see that in their senior appointments. They're really placing an enormous premium not on having the experience to run this department but on never saying no to Donald Trump.

I think they're going to pay a heavy price for that because nobody's always right and certainly Donald Trump's not always right. The sense that if I step up and say, I don't know, this one's not a good idea, that I'm going to be treated like a traitor and ultimately I'll be out of here is very bad for decision making in any institution, in any situation.

I think they're going to pay a heavy price for that because nobody's always right and certainly Donald Trump's not always right. The sense that if I step up and say, I don't know, this one's not a good idea, that I'm going to be treated like a traitor and ultimately I'll be out of here is very bad for decision making in any institution, in any situation.

But it's certainly very bad in a presidential administration. So, for example, let's think again about the effects of the order to suspend all federal grants. Think about that guy who runs that Medicaid portal. And he's sitting there thinking, does this mean I should shut down Medicaid payments? That can't be right. That guy should call somebody and say, is this what it means?

But it's certainly very bad in a presidential administration. So, for example, let's think again about the effects of the order to suspend all federal grants. Think about that guy who runs that Medicaid portal. And he's sitting there thinking, does this mean I should shut down Medicaid payments? That can't be right. That guy should call somebody and say, is this what it means?

I don't think that's a good idea. But if that guy thinks, well, they're just going to call me a wimp, they're going to call me a squish and fire me, then he's not going to do it. And you've lost the ability to administer well by hearing from people on the ground. I think that's going to repeat itself over and over in an administration that doesn't value hearing from outsiders.

I don't think that's a good idea. But if that guy thinks, well, they're just going to call me a wimp, they're going to call me a squish and fire me, then he's not going to do it. And you've lost the ability to administer well by hearing from people on the ground. I think that's going to repeat itself over and over in an administration that doesn't value hearing from outsiders.

And again, the assertion of strength creates weakness. And the sense that what's required to succeed is pushing people around isn't really how any good decision-making can work. It certainly isn't how our system can work. And I think it's going to create a lot of problems.

And again, the assertion of strength creates weakness. And the sense that what's required to succeed is pushing people around isn't really how any good decision-making can work. It certainly isn't how our system can work. And I think it's going to create a lot of problems.

Republicanism is a very hard term for us to define now. A lot of what it used to mean has been taken over by other terms like democracy and liberalism. But the element of republicanism that's distinct to it is the element of ownership. How do we take ownership of a set of problems rather than who's going to show up and fix this problem for me?

Republicanism is a very hard term for us to define now. A lot of what it used to mean has been taken over by other terms like democracy and liberalism. But the element of republicanism that's distinct to it is the element of ownership. How do we take ownership of a set of problems rather than who's going to show up and fix this problem for me?

And a citizenship that thinks that way is going to think about the kinds of leaders it selects in terms of the sorts of offices we're asking them to fill. And that means that we think about whether we should elect this person based on some judgment of whether this person can do this particular job. That means we need to know the Constitution a little bit. We need to know what the job is.

And a citizenship that thinks that way is going to think about the kinds of leaders it selects in terms of the sorts of offices we're asking them to fill. And that means that we think about whether we should elect this person based on some judgment of whether this person can do this particular job. That means we need to know the Constitution a little bit. We need to know what the job is.

We need to know what we expect of them. I think Americans have generally been fairly good at this, but that it is a skill, a knack we've tended to lose. For the reason you pointed to earlier, which is we just think as partisans now. We think, is this guy on my team or not? Rather than, can this person really be president or not or a senator or not?

We need to know what we expect of them. I think Americans have generally been fairly good at this, but that it is a skill, a knack we've tended to lose. For the reason you pointed to earlier, which is we just think as partisans now. We think, is this guy on my team or not? Rather than, can this person really be president or not or a senator or not?

Yeah, I think it's absolutely central. Character is destiny. I think there's no getting away from character. And the basic reason, especially in the president, the basic reason is that every presidential administration ends up having the personality and character of the president. There is a way in which the Bush administration just had George Bush's personality.

Yeah, I think it's absolutely central. Character is destiny. I think there's no getting away from character. And the basic reason, especially in the president, the basic reason is that every presidential administration ends up having the personality and character of the president. There is a way in which the Bush administration just had George Bush's personality.

The Obama administration had the kind of feel of Barack Obama at every level. And it's very hard to avoid that. That was certainly true of the Trump administration the first time around. The chaos, the impulsivity, the kind of gruffness was everywhere. It wasn't just him. And it will be again because there's no getting around that. You know, the presidency is a one-person branch of government.

The Obama administration had the kind of feel of Barack Obama at every level. And it's very hard to avoid that. That was certainly true of the Trump administration the first time around. The chaos, the impulsivity, the kind of gruffness was everywhere. It wasn't just him. And it will be again because there's no getting around that. You know, the presidency is a one-person branch of government.