Patriotism Reconsidered ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Thursday, April 30, 2026

Patriotism Reconsidered

This is an excerpt from part 5 of the serialization of my upcoming book, Reclaiming the Covenant: America’s Remarkable 250 Years and Assuring It Continues.

If you want to read the entire series so far, become a paid subscriber to my Substack.

People disagree about what is right. They always have and they always will — about what is just, what is legal, what is fair, what the facts are, and what the facts mean. We all have different viewpoints, different upbringings, different experiences, different DNA, and this means we will disagree. The variables that determine the right outcome in any complex dispute — an election, a court case, a policy question — are too numerous, too contested, and too dependent on values that reasonable people weigh differently to ever produce a result that everyone can verify as definitively correct.

For the world to keep going anyway, we need methods of determining whatever we can that is close to right and moving on from there. That is process.

The referee makes a call. It may be wrong. The fan in the stands can see it was wrong; the replay confirms it was wrong; the coach knows it was wrong. The call still stands. You don’t replace the referee mid-game because one call was bad. You don’t replay the game because the bad call affected the outcome. You accept the result, grumble about it, and if the officiating is systematically bad you work through the sport’s governance mechanisms to improve it — better training, instant replay, additional officials. What you don’t do is allow the losing team to override the outcome on the grounds that they believe they really won. The moment that is permitted, the game is over. Not that game — all games. The process is what makes the game a game rather than a brawl over who gets to declare victory.

The American covenant’s processes work the same way, and the citizen who understands this instinctively on Sunday afternoon and loses it on election night has not discovered a principled exception. They have discovered that they care more about winning than about the game itself.

But process does not earn its claim to acceptance merely by existing. A process earns the right to have its outcomes respected by meeting the moral structure’s own demands: transparency, corrigibility, and humility. Transparency means the process shows its reasoning — the votes are counted in the open, the court publishes its opinion, the legislative record is available. Corrigibility means the process can acknowledge error and correct it — appeals exist, recounts are available, certifications can be challenged through designated channels. Humility means the process does not claim more certainty than it has — it preserves dissent, maintains records, allows future review. A process that meets these demands has earned its claim on the loser’s acceptance. A process conducted in secret, that suppresses legitimate challenge, that refuses to acknowledge falsifying evidence, has already forfeited it.

This generates the precise distinction between legitimate grievance and defection. When you believe an outcome was unjust, you have two options. The first is to identify the specific part of the process that failed the moral structure’s demands: the specific transparency failure, the specific suppression of legitimate challenge, the specific refusal to correct a demonstrable error. If you can name it specifically, you have a legitimate grievance and a legitimate target. Fix that part. Use the covenant’s mechanisms — litigation, legislative action, constitutional challenge, the ballot box — to repair the specific failure. That is patriotism: holding the process to its own stated standards.

The second choice is to declare the entire outcome illegitimate because you find it unacceptable, without being able to specify what procedural failure produced it. That is sedition in the legal domain and defection in the covenantal one. The inability to identify what specifically broke is the tell. “The result is wrong” is not a process failure. “The ballots were counted in secret without bipartisan observers” is a process failure — specific, addressable, fixable through legitimate means. The first is a claim about the outcome; the second is a claim about the process. Only the second entitles you to challenge the result, and even then through designated channels rather than through force.

A wrong outcome produced by a legitimate process is always preferable to a right outcome achieved by bypassing the process. This is the architecture of any civilization that intends to last. The wrong outcome can be corrected — through appeal, through the next election, through legislative action, through constitutional amendment. The bypassed process cannot be uncorrupted. Once it is established that outcomes can be overridden by whoever claims sufficient certainty about their own rightness, that precedent is available to everyone who follows, including people with less justification and different certainties. The tool does not stay in the hands of the people who first picked it up.

The covenant’s answer to a corrupted process is always: fix the process, not the outcome. The amendment process, judicial review, legislative reform, the ballot box — these exist for exactly this purpose, as alternatives to outcome override that are always available and always less destructive than bypassing them.

There is a test for patriotism that almost no one applies and that the covenant requires. It has nothing to do with flag pins, whether you stand during the national anthem, military service, or the emotional intensity of your stated love for the country. It has everything to do with a single question: do you accept the covenant’s processes even when they produce outcomes you didn’t want?

That question separates covenantal patriotism from its two main competitors — tribal patriotism on the right and performative rejection on the left — both of which feel like authentic engagement with America and both of which are, in the precise sense the framework requires, forms of defection.

Tribal patriotism defines America by who Americans are rather than what Americans have accepted. It reaches for the flag and the founders and the military and the language of greatness — all legitimate covenant symbols — and deploys them in service of a membership definition the covenant explicitly rejects. Its implicit claim is that real Americans are a specific kind of people: ethnically, religiously, or culturally identifiable, with everyone else admitted on sufferance. The “real America” of small towns and traditional values and Christian heritage is a description of a demographic, not a covenant. Washington’s letter to the Newport congregation is the diagnostic: any vision of America that couldn’t have been written by Washington to that congregation has already defected, regardless of how many flags surround it.

The right-wing version of this is currently the more visible threat, but the structure applies wherever it appears. When politicians describe legal immigrants as an infestation, when commentators argue that certain ethnic or religious communities are incompatible with American values, when the implicit definition of “real American” excludes people who have accepted the covenant’s terms — that is tribal patriotism, and it is covenant defection dressed in the flag.

Identity politics of any flavor commits the same error when it organizes political life around group membership rather than covenant acceptance. The demand that people vote, think, or speak according to their gender or color or ethnicity or religion — that departing from the group’s expected positions is betrayal — treats identity as the primary political fact, which is exactly what the covenant was designed to make irrelevant. Left-wing identity politics and right-wing identity politics share the same foundational error: they put the tribe before the covenant.

Performative rejection makes the mirror-image mistake. It takes the covenant’s genuine failures — and they are genuine, serious, and well-documented — and uses them to argue that the covenant itself is fraudulent, that its language was always a cover for oppression, that the appropriate response to American failure is contempt for American institutions rather than enforcement of American principles.

This move is self-defeating in a way its proponents rarely acknowledge. Every legitimate grievance in American history is most powerfully argued as a covenant violation — which requires the covenant to be real and its terms to be binding. The abolitionists didn’t argue that the Declaration was a lie. They argued it was true and the nation was in breach of it. The civil rights movement didn’t argue that the Constitution was irredeemably corrupt. It argued that the equal protection clause meant what it said. Declaring the covenant fraudulent surrenders the most powerful moral lever available to anyone seeking justice within it.