I am your retribution

“I am your retribution”

“I am your retribution” must rank as one of the more dangerous and insane statements of Donald Trump. Retribution focuses on the alleged failings or offences of the other.  In Donald Trump’s case the other is democracy itself, or at least the trappings of democracy in an independent judiciary, a public service that serves the good of the nation, not partisanship, and of course a free and open ballot box.

 According to Trump, it is these democratic institutions which have caused the ‘rustbelt’ and enslaved its citizens. He says they are controlled by a socialist ‘elite’. He and his plutocrats will set them free. Owning this story, citizenry rail against the institutions that serve the very constitution upon which their nation is founded. This is the insane language of ‘victimhood’, of apportioning blame, of being comforted in the knowledge that others can be brought to account for perceived ills. It is the common language not simply of dictators but also of popularist politicians in Western democracies. They foster contempt for an imagined enemy. The enemy is provided a name – the favourite from the right is to call anyone who supports the principle of common good a ‘socialist’.

If this language were restricted to Donald Trump, it would be dangerous enough for global citizenry, but unfortunately it is common language across the globe, used not only by dictators, but in democracies such as ours, by popularist politicians and media barons who support them.

It is the language of Vladimir Putin who insists his nation is under immediate threat from the Western alliance and that much of what is now Eastern Europe has been stolen from Russia. He and his people must fight to restore Russian territory, integrity and nationhood.

It is the language of Benjamin Netanyahu who plays the victim card to the utmost.  His nation has not just risen from the ashes of the holocaust, but apparently the Palestinian people are outsiders, living on land that belongs to Zionists; therefore, their removal is not simply justified, it is a moral cause with a biblical mandate.

It is the language of Xi Jinping, who insists the time has come for China’s place in the sun. China’s past suffering from European and Japanese powers is a thorn that needs excising.

It is of course true that past European dominance and exploitation lies behind many legitimate international grievances. But remedying the past is best achieved through the emergence of superior technology, culture and morality, not retribution and the violence it generates.  Retribution guarantees the continuance of the grievance, not its vanquishing.

While not being named as such, the retribution principle, the naming of offence in the other, is sadly employed in popular politics everywhere in the world but let us look for a moment to our own backyard. Elections are increasingly won or lost, not through the enunciation of good policy, but through the articulation of grievance.

Last year’s referendum loss became inevitable when rhetoric that the majority were being dudded prevailed.  The No Vote successfully convinced the majority that saying Yes would allow a small minority – First Nations people - to “double dip”, that they would have an advantage not enjoyed by the majority.   That this was rank nonsense meant nothing. Now the architects of the No vote in Mr Dutton’s office are doubling down, they refused to attend the Garma festival and have informed us that when in power they will not pursue ‘truth-telling’.  Why should we be surprised? Being confronted with truth is the last thing that politicians who rely on populist slogans want to face.

The same language is being used by the likes of Barnaby Joyce in his full-frontal attack on the development of renewable energy.  He is out to re-enforce minds that latte drinking socialist elites from cities are stealing their prosperity and livelihoods by encouraging wind turbines and solar farms across the country. Every attempt is being made to stir righteous indignation. That global warming is the greatest threat to security and prosperity for all, no matter where we live, and time is running out to address it, is apparently beside the point.

We are what we believe.  We are shaped not simply by the stories others tell us, but more significantly by the stories we tell ourselves.

Too many of us are telling ourselves that we are victims of circumstance created by others, that others have an advantage we are denied, or even that our way of life is under attack from opponents known or unknown, but guessed at through conspiracy theory.

This clearly is the view of the American Christian right who in their millions support Donald Trump.  No matter he is egregiously guilty of breaking moral codes that all citizens, let alone Christians, hold dear, that he is ontologically incapable of speaking truth and believes in his superiority in all things: nevertheless, he is supported because these people have told themselves he and he alone stands between them and a full-frontal attack on the place Christianity holds in American life, or at least the Christianity they have carved in their own image. It is an attack they believe is already underway.  

The Christianity of Jesus seeks no place of its own.  It is an incarnational faith. It seeks the face of Christ in the other. As Pope Francis said in his May exhortation, “there is no Catholic God, only God”. Christianity exists where love abounds, where life is honoured, where sacrifice is made, where justice is demanded, where the vulnerable are cared for, where the voice of God is heard in the rhythms of creation, where innocence is protected in children, where beauty in all its forms becomes a channel of grace. 

There is no power on earth that can threaten the Christian faith or its practice, as numerous saints have testified over millennia.  The greatest threat to faith is its reshaping in our parochial likeness. The greatest gift of faith is discovering Christ in the other.
​
In the beginning God spoke just one word, that word is love. Investing in its discovery is the singular role of leaders whether secular or religious.