The Sanctity of Process

Tim Burns wrote over the weekend about why he considers himself a "Progressive Republican."  His definition was interesting and seemed to draw more from the Republican Party of the 1850s more than it did any more recent manifestation.  Free soil, free labor.

One part in particular, however, caught my attention.  Or I suppose I should say that a slight dissonance between two parts caught my attention.  In describing the election of Donald Trump, Tim said:

He won a political election with the least support in history, and accomplished this by knowing the system's weaknesses and manipulating them to the extreme, then past the extreme.  To such an extreme, that the process rears its ugly head and bludgeons the decent people it was implemented to protect.

Then later on, in describing his own philosophy, he said:

I believe in the sanctity of process, and that the best processes are the processes that guided the country through its formation, through a Civil War, through impeachments, through Depressions, through World Wars, and through much domestic unrest.

I wonder what happens to someone with this sort of philosophy – which I should say, I find appealing – when "process" runs into the muck and mire of the real world.  What happens when adhering to the process, with the assumption that it reverts to a balanced mean in the long term, produces results that are disastrous in the near term?  At what point does one decide a process is broken?