In a year when the United States seemed more split than ever, Americans united in one way: We demanded results, and we wanted them now. From ICE raids designed as a theater of terror and GLP-1 shortcuts for weight loss to A.I.-generated term papers, rampaging DOGE bros and summary Alien Enemies Act deportations, America raged against the journey and clamored for the destination, no matter what the lawyers and the chatbot therapists said. Outcomes seemed to be all that mattered. Winners win. Losers follow rules and talk it over…
The 2025 revolt against process signaled the final collapse of a powerful idea that once promised to hold the country together. At the height of America’s 20th-century power, belief in process served as a guiding concept among the legal and political elites of both parties who sought to manage our most difficult national disagreements.
…Process became the centerpiece of America’s powerful commitment to democracy during the struggle with totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. A generation of social scientists, lawyers and statesmen came to see the genius of American government not as any one set of values but rather as the collection of institutions, methods and techniques by which the United States articulated its principles and resolved its controversies.
Values might change. Elections, for example, might sweep a Franklin Roosevelt into the White House to replace a Herbert Hoover. Republican control of Congress in the 1920s might give way to Democratic control in the 1930s and ’40s. But process offered a deeper continuity. Elections, legislative hearings and administrative agencies turned the gears of politics while juries, judges and the bar managed the levers of the law.
Influential political science scholars such as Yale’s Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom contended that social science should study what they called politico-economic systems. The enlightened manager-statesman might not always be able to identify ultimate truths. There might be no such thing as perfect solutions for all time. But leaders could be social engineers, designing the institutional arrangements most likely to produce good outcomes for companies, nonprofits and government agencies.
Sometimes process is more important than results, and sometimes results are more important than process.
Elites love “process” when it serves their interests in giving them power, status and income. Elites see in process a mechanism to maintain stability, legitimacy, and continuity in a diverse and divided nation without requiring agreement on “ultimate truths.”
Was a commitment to process a powerful idea? Yes, it was the “civil religion” of the post-war establishment.
Did it hold the country together? Yes, by burying deep conflicts under layers of bureaucracy.
Did it collapse? Absolutely. We are now in an era of Raw Power, where the manual has been thrown out because neither side trusts the person writing it.
If “process” consistently led to elites losing their jobs, their fortunes, or their status, they would abandon it overnight. History is littered with examples of elites torching the very rules they wrote the moment those rules stopped guaranteeing their victory.
This is the “Fair Weather Institutionalist” phenomenon. Elites love the rules of the game only as long as they keep winning the game.
We don’t even have to guess. We can look at what happens when the “process” accidentally produces a populist or anti-elite result.
When a democratic process (an election or referendum) delivers a result the elite hates (e.g., Brexit, or the election of a populist outsider), do they say, “Well, the process spoke, we must respect it”?
The Reaction: No. They immediately attack the legitimacy of the voters (“misinformation,” “Russian interference,” “low information voters”). They use lawfare, bureaucratic stalling, or “emergency measures” to overturn or delay the result.
This proves that their loyalty was never to the process (voting); it was to the outcome (their continued rule).
Sociologically, complex procedure functions as a barrier to entry.
Who can afford to navigate a 2,000-page regulatory filing? Only a massive corporation with a team of Harvard-trained lawyers.
“Process” effectively bans small competitors and normal citizens from the room. It filters out anyone who lacks the cultural capital (education) and financial capital (money) to participate.
If the “process” suddenly became simple, fast, and accessible to everyone (e.g., direct digital voting on laws), elites would hate it. They would call it “mob rule” and “dangerous instability.” They love the complexity of the process because complexity is a moat that protects their castle.
The ultimate proof is how quickly elites invoke “emergencies” to bypass process when their safety is at risk.
2008 Financial Crisis: When the banks failed, did they follow the standard bankruptcy process? No. They suspended the rules, printed money, and bailed them out overnight. “Process” was for the homeowners being foreclosed on; “Emergency Rescue” was for the elites.
The Asymmetry: Process is a discipline they impose on you (to keep you slow and managed). It is not a discipline they impose on themselves (when they need a bailout or a war).
Elites love process the way a casino loves the rules of Blackjack: because they know the math is rigged in the house’s favor. If the players started winning every hand, the house wouldn’t say “respect the process”—they would change the rules or close the table.
Process is superior when the cost of a False Positive (making a mistake) is higher than the cost of inaction.
Criminal Justice: We accept that “process” (trials, appeals) is slow and sometimes lets guilty people go, because the “result” of hanging an innocent person is unacceptable.
Political Succession: We want a boring, procedural election because the alternative “result” (who has the biggest army?) destroys the nation.
Science: We want the FDA to have some process because the “result” of a thalidomide baby is worse than waiting a few months.
The Elite Failure: They have abandoned process in these areas.
Justice: As you noted with “J6” or the “Alien Enemies Act” deportations in the text, we see “detain first, think later.”
Science: During Covid, they bypassed standard scientific debate (process) to enforce a consensus “result,” only to have that result crumble later.
Results are superior when the cost of Inaction is higher than the cost of a Mistake.
Firefighting: If the Palisades are burning, the cost of waiting for a “pre-deployment form” is 12 dead people. You need the result (water on fire) immediately.
Pandemic Defense: If a virus is spreading exponentially, a “perfect” plan next month is useless. You need an imperfect lockdown today (Australia style).
War: General Patton didn’t win by filling out forms. He won by breaking things to get to the objective.
The Elite Failure: They have imposed process in these areas.
LAFD: They treated a raging fire like a paperwork problem.
Afghanistan Withdrawal: They were obsessed with the “process” of the deadline and the optics, and failed the “result” of getting the people/equipment out safely.
These days, where we need Action (Infrastructure, Crime, Borders, War), we are drowning in Process (Environmental reviews, DEI statements, Rules of Engagement).
Where we need Stability (Free Speech, Constitutional Rights, Banking Rules), we are seeing “Results-Oriented” radicalism (Censorship, Debanking, changing rules to get Trump).
A competent elite knows that Process is for the courtroom, and Results are for the battlefield. Our current elite treats the battlefield like a courtroom (lawyers deciding drone strikes) and the courtroom like a battlefield (judges ignoring the law to get “bad guys”).
Sarah Isgur and company love process because it preserves their power, status and income.
“Process” is not just a philosophy; it is a Protection Racket for the credentialed class.
Sarah Isgur, David French, and the entire “Legal-Pundit Complex” function like a medieval guild. They love process for the same reason a cobbler loves a law that says only licensed cobblers can fix shoes: It guarantees them a monopoly on the trade.
If politics is about “Results” (e.g., “Build the wall” or “Forgive the loans”), a King or a President can just do it. They don’t need Sarah Isgur to explain it.
The Threat: Efficiency is the enemy of the lawyer. If the government becomes efficient, the billing hours dry up.
The Solution: You create a “Process” so complex that no one can navigate it without a Sherpa.
The Payoff: The elite class (lawyers, consultants, compliance officers) effectively sets up a toll booth on every road. You want to build a bridge? You have to pay the toll (environmental review). You want to fire an employee? You have to pay the toll (HR tribunals). They monetize friction.
Every new page of regulation is a new “billable hour” for the class of people who know how to read it. They aren’t protecting the country; they are protecting their market share.
“Process” is the primary weapon used to enforce Status Closure.
The Moat: Anyone can have a “Result” (a good idea). Only a select few have the “Credentials” (Yale Law degree) to understand the arcane procedure required to implement it.
The Defense: By insisting that procedure is the only source of legitimacy, they disqualify the “unwashed masses” from participating.
Trump/Populists: “We won the election, we want to change policy.”
The Elite Response: “Ah, but you didn’t file the Form 27-B/6 correctly, and you violated the Administrative Procedure Act, so your victory is invalid.”
It is a way for the Losing Class (who lost the vote) to maintain control over the Winning Class (the voters) by trapping them in a maze that only the losers have the map for.
Finally, “Process” provides the ultimate job security: Freedom from Consequences.
The “Results” World: If a General loses a war, he is fired. If a CEO bankrupts the company, he is out.
The “Process” World: If a bureaucrat or legal pundit fails (e.g., the Russia Collusion narrative, or the Afghan withdrawal), they say, “We followed the proper protocols.”
The Magic Trick: Process converts failure into bad luck. It allows them to destroy a country or an institution and still retain their pension, their column, and their status, because “technically,” they did nothing wrong.
When Sarah Isgur talks about “The Rule of Law” or “Norms,” she is speaking the language of a Trade Unionist defending her shop floor.
Results-based politics = Non-Union labor (Scabs).
Process-based politics = Union labor (The Bar Association).
They love process because it keeps the “amateurs” (the American people) from touching the machinery of power.
