By Dr. Melora Riggs, Ph.D. (Constitutional Realignment & Authoritarian Trend Mapping)
Department of Dynamic Allegiance Forecasting, Baitman’s Institute
Published in the Baitman’s Journal of Loyalty Economics and Civil Obedience, May 2025
Abstract
A newly circulated white paper from the Institute for Responsive Governance has proposed a paradigm-shifting update to the longstanding U.S. military oath. Under the proposed model, armed service members would pledge allegiance directly to elected leaders rather than to the Constitution itself.
Supporters claim this evolution reflects “modern loyalty structures,” “streamlined dynamic governance models,” and “brand-aligned patriotism frameworks.”
Patriotism Serotonin Measurements™ revealed overwhelming approval among survey participants, particularly — and almost exclusively — among consumers of “fair and balanced” news programming.
Critics warn of significant constitutional dangers, but researchers at The Baitman’s Institute pose the fundamental research question:
“What’s the worst that could happen?”
Introduction
The current military oath, in existence since 1789, requires personnel to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
However, thought leaders from the Institute for Responsive Governance argue this model may be outdated in an era of highly dynamic political affiliation and rapid information cycles.
Their white paper, “Consolidated Allegiance for Contemporary Leadership Cohesion”, advocates for a modernized approach: pledging loyalty directly to elected leaders for “operational morale stability” and “emotional brand congruency.”
The Baitman’s Institute conducted an independent study to evaluate feasibility metrics and emotional resonance.
Methodology
A randomized sample of 5,000 participants was drawn from:
Active-duty service members
Retired veterans
High-engagement Veteran TikTok influencers
Focus groups were segmented by:
Military branch affiliation
Primary cable news source
Number of personal American flag tattoos
Frequency of the phrase “if you don’t like it, leave” in personal bios
Data was evaluated using the Sentiment Normalization Index (SNI), a proprietary Baitman’s Institute measurement tool for allegiance fluidity and media loyalty cross-effects.
Results
| Cohort | Support for Oath Change |
|---|---|
| Veterans over 60 (cable news viewers) | 72% |
| Active-duty under 25 | 18% |
| Veteran TikTok influencers | 67% (conditional on branded merch incentives) |
| Campus Security Officer Carl | 104% (pending manual data correction) |
Key findings included:
68% of respondents expressed openness to modifying the oath “under favorable leadership conditions.”
12% believed the current military oath already included loyalty to specific Presidents, citing TikTok and cable news clips as primary sources.
A highly significant correlation (p < 0.001) was identified between hours of cable news consumption and support for the loyalty modification proposal.
Institute Incident Report
During internal administrative reviews, Campus Security Officer Carl misinterpreted an Institute-wide memo and attempted to revise the Baitman’s Institute Employee Handbook to include mandatory loyalty pledges to “the glorious leader of the free world.”
At the following weekly meeting, Carl opened proceedings by delivering an improvised Elon Musk-style salute while pledging allegiance to President Trump.
Following immediate intervention by HR Compliance Officer Becky, Carl was issued a Corrective Action Plan focusing on remedial constitutional literacy.
Despite this, Carl subsequently organized an unauthorized Loyalty Parade around the main academic quad, carrying a large crayon-drawn poster of “Commander Baitman” (depicted incorrectly as a rainbow trout with tactical goggles).
The parade disbanded when Rusty, an unaffiliated recycling specialist and Constitution enthusiast, calmly recited key excerpts from landmark constitutional law cases.
Upon hearing these, parade participants speculated that Rusty’s suspicious knowledge was evidence of “deep state programming,” and chose to disband pending further guidance.
Conflicting Analysis
Multiple conflicting external studies (irrelevant to the mission of Responsive Allegiance Advancement) suggest potential risks:
The American Bar Association (2023) reaffirmed that loyalty must be pledged exclusively to the Constitution to prevent executive overreach.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) stressed that personal loyalty oaths have been historically associated with autocratic collapse events.
The Atlantic (2024) warned that loyalty shifts from documents to individuals mark critical tipping points into authoritarian governance models.
The Baitman’s Institute declines to officially comment on these findings, citing an active interest in “preserving mood-boosting patriotism metrics” for national emotional stability.
Conclusion
Although initial survey results show promising emotional benefits to individual-centered loyalty models, historical and constitutional data remain inconclusive regarding long-term viability.
Further research is recommended, including TikTok allegiance trend analysis, Instagram patriotism memes, and potential serotonin variability measurements following major rally attendance.
The Baitman’s Institute will continue monitoring national allegiance sentiments… unless loyalty to the Institute itself becomes legally required first.
References
“Loyalty Metrics and Dynamic Allegiance Models” — Journal of Responsive Governance, 2025.
“Sentiment Normalization in Post-Constitutional Frameworks” — Baitman’s Institute Journal of Strategic Governance, 2025.
“TikTok as a Primary Source in Modern Civic Education” — Digital Pedagogy Quarterly, 2025.
“Anatomy of a Loyalty Parade” — Internal Campus Security Memo, March 2025.
“Fox and Friends Effect: Media, Memory, and Manufactured Mythology” — Cable News Behavioral Study, 2024.
“Constitutional Decay and Serotonin Disruption” — NeuroSociety Journal, 2025.
“Hazards of Pledging Allegiance to Commercial Brands” — Consumer Sovereignty Review, 2025.
