President Biden and the Green Knight.
The 14th century chivalric romance, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, is a story of values, virtues, and knightly duty. Sir Gawain takes up the challenge of the Green Knight to exchange equal blows, Sir Gawain cuts off the Green Knight’s head and, one year later, the Green Knight shall return the blow. The story centers on the value of duty and obligation. The Green Knight, being some sort of ethereal being, survives his own beheading and thus Sir Gawain must uphold his end of the bargain and allow for his own beheading. In the story, this exchange is viewed as a game. Sir Gawain was not required to cut off the Green Knight’s head, he could have simply left a scratch. But, because he did not leave just a scratch, he must wait for this equal and opposite return of the blow.
The concept of retribution and obligation runs deep in human civilization. At its root is a form of justice which says infractions against one's self, whether it be one’s virtues, position in society, or bodily wholeness must be repaid in kind. In cutting off the Green Knights head, Sir Gawain must allow for his head to be cut off. To avoid the return blow would be unchivalrous, a shirking of duty, an affront to justice itself.
The Torah and subsequently Old Testament encode this form of justice in Exodus 21:
Early Roman law, likewise, applied a form of retributional justice which descended from Babylonian legal systems. The Code of Hammurabi, the oldest surviving legal system, encoded this “eye for an eye” form of retribution for physical assaults.
Retaliation is a powerful driver of behavior. The sense of injustice at being wronged and the desire to enact revenge in kind can be found outside of formalized legal frameworks. Blood feuds, in which two groups are locked in retaliatory acts of violence over years and decades are the embodiment of tit-for-tat thinking, and have occurred across cultures and centuries indicating a certain innate desire for revenge against real or perceived forms of injustice.
But retaliatory behavior doesn't only exist in the context of war, violence, and justice. Competition of any sort can spiral into a cycle of reciprocal behavior. Political competition is at its most dangerous when it devolves into tit-for-tat retaliation, particularly with its proximity to power and violence.
Donald Trump broke a number of written and unwritten rules during his four years in the White House. No other president has been impeached twice. His presidency was remarkable because of how willing he was to break with convention and norms. His extremism in this regard, was rewarded by his own party which was unwilling to hold him to account for his behavior. This led to one sided critiques of his presidency. Democrats and liberals balked at his behavior, highlighted his destructive habits, and cast his administration as an aberration for the office. While some of the arguments perhaps overstated the case, most arguments against the former president held weight. His administration was more than willing to break norms and rules that had been established in order to maintain the institution. As an individual, Trump never showed the sorts of selfless qualities needed by effective public servants.
Trump’s double impeachment, along with other attempts to hold him responsible for his actions were warranted. However, because they were largely enacted by Democrats with little to no Republican support, they could be framed as just more partisan warfare. Thus it’s little surprise that eight months into the Biden administration, Republicans are calling for similar actions against this president as Democrats did against president Trump.
The decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and the resulting swift return to power by the Taliban, has given Republican politicians the perfect opportunity for retribution for four years of what they characterized as presidential harassment. Nevermind that the withdrawal was also a priority of the Trump administration, which brokered a deal with the Taliban in September 2020 without including the Afghan government.
In the past week, Republican Senators have flocked to their favorite news network to give Biden what they felt Democrats had unfairly given Trump. On Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures” Sen. Tom Cotton called into question if American allies can trust the US to come to their aid after the messy pullout from Afghanistan. A concern that was voiced repeatedly during the Trump administration as he cozied up to dictators and spurned traditional allies. Elsewhere, Sen. Rick Scott was tweeting if it was time to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows for a presidential cabinet to remove a president who they view as no longer mentally fit enough to hold office. The 25th Amendment was called for several times during the Trump administration, most vocally following the failed insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. The measure was even reportedly discussed by some actual Trump cabinet officials.
But the most dramatic invocation of retaliatory political justice occurred when Sen. Lindsey Graham, political showman, suggested that Biden would almost assuredly be committing impeachable offenses in Afghanistan:
“If we leave one American behind, if we don't get all the Afghans who stepped up to the plate to help us out, then Joe Biden in my view has committed a high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution and should be impeached."
The same Lindsey Graham who vociferously defended President Trump in both of his impeachments finding Biden’s military and strategic mistakes to be worthy of impeachment is obviously laughable on its face. If all mistakes are now impeachable offenses than no president will escape impeachment. But what Graham is actually signaling is the chilling escalation in America’s political competition. Everything done to Trump, whether deserved or not, must now be enacted upon Biden, regardless of the rationale.
This eye for an eye, blow for blow form of politics is precisely the sort of behavior that leads to greater political decay. It’s the reason why many pro-democracy advocates have argued against various equalizing measures such as packing the court or eliminating the filibuster. If my side does go through with this action, even if it’s justified, the other side will assuredly do the same regardless of justification when they again hold power. It’s a partisan blood feud.
The Republican Party is certainly more to blame than the Democratic Party, but neither if completely innocent. In 2005, Senate Republicans threatened to remove the filibuster for presidential nominees following Democratic stonewalling. In 2013, Senate Democrats removed the filibuster from circuit judges and cabinet officials after Senate Republicans used the procedure to block Obama appointments. In 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees leading many in the Democratic party to call for elimination of the procedure entirely upon retaking control of the chamber in 2021. However, that seems unlikely at the moment as at least two Democratic senators have voiced their disapproval, in part siting the threat of Republican reprisal.
The parties don’t just engage in increasingly more intense retaliatory measures, their voters demand it. Affective polarization refers to the separation of two groups primarily through antipathy to their opposition as opposed to empathy with their own group. American partisanship is increasingly marked by affective polarization and politicians respond to their constituents demands. Therefore, to turn the other cheek at a perceived offence is the worst possible option. There is no room for de-escalation or forgiveness. President Trump was beloved by Republican voters because he was a fighter who never showed humility and never admitted defeat. He made liberals mad and that was ultimately more important to many Republican voters than actual policy.
Similar behavior can be seen with the use of Republican state legislatures to beef up “election security.” Regardless of the fact that the 2020 election was free, fair and lacking in any meaningful form of chicanery, Republican led state legislatures around the country took to passing laws that would make it more difficult for their citizens to vote. A particularly galling example of this is occurring in Texas which, rather than address its electrical grid problems that led to the death of somewhere between 210 and 704 Texans in February, spent it’s biennial legislative session passing laws on how American history can be taught in schools and attempting to pass restrictive voting measures.
Voters claim to want bipartisanship and compromise but rarely reward politicians for showing those values. The problem of partisan escalation is a problem of democracy. Voters cannot be counted on to behave honorably and deescalate the tensions. It is up to the parties themselves to provide the check on their own worst behaviors. Unfortunately, at least the Republican Party, seems unwilling to buck their own voters and opt to de-escalation, leaving the Democratic Party in the difficult position of having to navigate between a sense of institutional duty and duty to their increasingly incensed electorate.
In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Sir Gawain upholds his end of the bargain and seeks out the Green Knight after a year has passed and kneels to receive his blow in kind. The Green Knight then reveals himself to be an accommodating lord Sir Gawain encountered upon his journey. Having knelt to receive his blow, Sir Gawain showed sufficient courage and duty to the obligation and the Green Knight lets Sir Gawain return home with nothing but a small scratch in retribution. Sir Gawain shows his honor by placing himself in position to lose his head while the Green Knight sees that courage and responds with the kindness of de-escalation. Having himself delivered a blow, Sir Gawain submits to receiving one and in doing so gets to leave with his life.
The story of this beheading game could be interpreted as justification for retaliatory systems. Sir Gawain delivered a blow and now he gets what he deserves, a blow in return. But I think the more appropriate lesson is one of responsibility and absolution. While being tempted by the Green Knight, Sir Gawain is the first to strike and thus begins the game in earnest. The Green Knight then promises his return blow in one years time. Sir Gawain could have shirked his duty and not allowed the Green Knight an opportunity to return the blow, thus allowing grievance to fester. But Gawain subjects himself, and in so doing, allows for the Green Knight to show absolution. The grace to resist revenge is one of the most unworldly of behaviors. But it is also one of the most socially effective. Non-violence movements have had markedly greater success than violent movements.
While we have in some ways moved to a legal system that does not enact exact retribution upon offenders (sometimes we inflict even worse punishments than the crime), we still find great satisfaction in retaliation and revenge. It takes near godly resolve to remove the base desire to enact revenge and instead apply absolution and forgiveness. To do so when the stakes appear high can feel like suicide. But perhaps, such as with Sir Gawain, that level of obligation is required in order to prevent further escalations in harm.
