A Conversation on Presidential Character and Democratic Institutions
In this inaugural conversation for Beyond the Spectacle, editors Morgan Treadwell and Taylor Veritatis discuss the patterns emerging in Trump’s second administration, particularly focusing on how character traits manifest in governance decisions. Their discussion examines the recent Trump-Zelenskyy meeting and its broader implications for American democracy and international standing.
TAYLOR VERITATIS: The Trump-Zelenskyy meeting captured the attention of millions, but I’m curious about what you saw beneath the surface spectacle. What does this incident reveal about governance patterns that should concern Americans regardless of political affiliation?
MORGAN TREADWELL: What struck me most wasn’t just the confrontational nature, but how emblematic it was of a leadership approach centered on personal loyalty above all else. The transcript shows repeated demands for gratitude and deference – Vance asking “Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting?” and Trump insisting “You don’t have the cards right now.” This transforms what should be strategic relationships based on mutual interests into something resembling fealty tests.
TAYLOR: That loyalty fixation seems to extend beyond foreign policy into staffing decisions as well. I’m looking at the Brookings Institution’s tracker showing a 91% turnover rate among senior advisors during Trump’s first term—the highest in modern presidential history. Many departures followed disagreements, like Mattis resigning over alliance management differences.
MORGAN: Exactly. The public statements from figures like Rex Tillerson or John Kelly after leaving the administration point to a fundamental tension between professional judgment and personal loyalty. Kelly’s comment about Alexander Vindman at Drew University was particularly revealing: “He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave…don’t follow an illegal order.”
TAYLOR: The market reactions tell us something important too. When the Zelenskyy meeting went off the rails, the Cboe Volatility Index immediately spiked to 22.40. Investor Jim Lebenthal’s CNBC comment was striking: “If the policies in foreign affairs are now to empower Russia and Vladimir Putin, I don’t think that’s good for the stock market.”
MORGAN: That market response highlights how institutional stability affects everyday Americans, not just political observers. Moody’s January sovereign risk assessment specifically cited “increased institutional governance risk” in their outlook. This isn’t partisan analysis – it’s financial experts identifying governance volatility as an economic threat.
TAYLOR: I’ve been thinking about the historical perspective. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin frequently points to Lincoln’s “team of rivals” cabinet as a counterexample, where he deliberately included former opponents who would challenge his thinking. Lincoln’s quote about needing “the strongest men of the party” regardless of personal history stands in stark contrast.
MORGAN: That historical comparison is crucial. Reagan’s appointment of James Baker as Chief of Staff, despite Baker having run Bush’s campaign against him, showed that prioritizing competence over personal loyalty isn’t a partisan approach – it’s just good governance.
TAYLOR: Let’s discuss the Trump administration’s disaster responses, which show a similar pattern. The contrast between the Hurricane Maria response in Puerto Rico versus Hurricane Harvey in Texas is documented in FEMA records – federal aid arrived in Texas within 3 days while Puerto Rico waited nearly two weeks for comparable assistance.
MORGAN: And the rhetoric showed an equally stark contrast. After Harvey, Trump told Texas survivors: “We’re going to get you back and operating immediately.” For Puerto Rico, he tweeted about not keeping FEMA there “forever” and his most memorable interaction was tossing paper towels to survivors.
TAYLOR: The Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that delayed medical care and infrastructure restoration in Puerto Rico resulted in 4,645 excess deaths. That’s the human cost when empathy gaps affect policy implementation.
MORGAN: What concerns me most is how these patterns transform our democratic institutions. When officials fear delivering unwelcome information, decision-making quality suffers. When experienced personnel are replaced with loyalists lacking domain expertise, implementation capacity declines.
TAYLOR: That’s why former Defense Secretary Gates’ February statement at the Council on Foreign Relations resonated with me: “Effective national security requires bringing in the best qualified people, even if they sometimes deliver unwelcome information. The alternative is a dangerous echo chamber.”
MORGAN: I think many Americans, regardless of political leaning, intuitively understand that good leadership requires hearing diverse viewpoints. The question is whether our institutional guardrails are strong enough to maintain this principle when it’s under pressure.
TAYLOR: That’s where I think citizens have a crucial role. By recognizing these patterns and understanding their implications, Americans can hold leaders accountable not just for policy positions but for governance approaches that either strengthen or weaken our democratic foundations.
MORGAN: Exactly. This isn’t about left versus right, but about maintaining the institutional frameworks that have made American democracy resilient across very different administrations. When former Trump administration officials like Olivia Troye describe altering assessments “to align with Trump’s public statements rather than risk his displeasure,” that should concern everyone invested in good governance.
TAYLOR: As we wrap up, what do you think is the most important thing for readers to take away from this conversation?
MORGAN: That character manifests in governance in ways that transcend policy disagreements. When personal loyalty becomes the primary qualification for public service, or when empathy gaps determine disaster response priorities, the effects ripple throughout our institutions and impact countless lives. These aren’t just abstract concerns – they have concrete consequences for national security, economic stability, and democratic resilience.
TAYLOR: And for our readers who care about these issues regardless of their political affiliations, what would you suggest?
MORGAN: Pay attention to patterns, not just individual incidents. Look beyond the spectacle of any single controversial meeting or statement to identify the underlying governance approaches. Support leaders who demonstrate respect for institutional knowledge and professional expertise, even when that expertise delivers unwelcome information. And recognize that healthy democracies require leaders secure enough to hear dissenting viewpoints without perceiving them as personal disloyalty.
TAYLOR: That’s what we hope to contribute with Beyond the Spectacle – looking past the drama of the moment to understand the deeper patterns that shape our democracy’s health and future.
Morgan Treadwell and Taylor Veritatis are the founding editors of Beyond the Spectacle, an independent platform examining governance patterns and their implications for democratic institutions.