Not long ago, President Trump appeared at Charlie Kirk's memorial service and stated that he hated his opponents.

His remarks immediately followed those of Kirk's widow who said that she forgave her husband's murderer.

The contrast was stark and it served to explain much about how and why the president is now using the levers of government to exact retribution for all the wrongs done to him over the years by his enemies. Yes, I use the word enemies and not opponents because many of those who earlier disagreed with Donald Trump have become rabid Trump haters that are committed to destroying him, his presidency and those that support conservatism like poor Charlie Kirk. They have made the choice to set up camp on the other side of the political Rubicon where fair play, comity and justice do not exist.

Now the president is taking the heat for expressing his personal animus towards his enemies in a way that many say is neither presidential or Christian. His critics are pointing out the hypocrisy of  a man who professes to be a believer yet is unable to forgive those who trespass against him.

And while that criticism is fair, it misses another salient point which is that Mr. Trump is human with human failings and weaknesses. Every Christian has them as do all those who have no faith. Those of us who struggle to be better Christians understand the world of temptation and how that world can penetrate our very souls and eat away at our defense mechanisms that exist to protect us from that temptation.

When most of us are unfairly wronged, our immediate knee-jerk and instinctive reaction is to defend ourselves. The actions we take in our defense are dependent on many variables.

Those in the public eye know that there are basically two choices: respond to correct the record and challenge the accuser/perpetrator or not respond and thereby run the risk of having their reputation sullied and in the case of elected officials have their political agendas destroyed.

While the former puts the onus on us to prosecute our case, the latter allows those who wrong us to continue their bad behavior with others. And when that behavior is left unchallenged, it can affect the application of our laws and leave our long-held social values vulnerable to attack. Every action or non-action has a consequence.

Before we go any further down this philosophical rabbit hole, let's get a few terms straight. Revenge and vengeance are not the same, though they are close in meaning.

Revenge is the act of retaliating or punishing someone for a wrong done to you. Vengeance is more abstract and is the concept, desire, or justification for any kind of retribution.

As contrasted to revenge and vengeance, I would submit that Trump's statements and actions are reflective of his desire for exacting actionable retribution as well as right some fundamental wrongs with the U.S. Department of Justice and the legal system that have been allowed to flourish under Democrat administrations.

With respect to Trump's aggressive stance with the media, he has a secondary motive which is to restore the balance that once existed in network political commentary.

What are some of the ways that retributive action can be justified?

-- Retribution (punishment or consequences) might discourage future wrongdoing, preventing harm and creating a safer society. Example: Strict penalties for drunk driving reduce accidents.

-- Retribution can restore moral order and affirm community values. By punishing wrongdoing, society shows that justice matters, which can strengthen trust in institutions.

-- Retribution can be a catalyst for reform by pushing individuals or systems to change in positive ways. An example might be: harsh public backlash against corporate misconduct can force companies to adopt better practices.

Why is exacting revenge bad?

Many of our Western moral and philosophical traditions object to revenge and the main objections usually fall into a few categories:

-- Escalation and cycles of violence:- Revenge often leads to retaliation, fueling an endless back-and-forth. Philosophers, religious leaders, and peace advocates warn that this cycle undermines social stability.

-- Justice vs. revenge: Justice must be impartial and guided by law while revenge is personal and driven by emotion. Critics argue that revenge substitutes fairness with anger, risking disproportionate punishment.

-- Moral character: Seeking revenge can be seen as a corrupting influence on the individual. Instead of rising above the offense, the avenger lowers themselves to the wrongdoer’s level. Think of the proverb: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

-- Religious objections: In Christianity, forgiveness is emphasized: “Vengeance is mine, sayith the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Many faiths similarly discourage revenge in favor of forgiveness, compassion, or karmic justice.

-- Pragmatic ethics: Some argue that revenge simply doesn’t solve the problem. It rarely reverses the original harm and can further damage relationships and communities.

All that said, in certain cultures and philosophies, revenge has been seen as a way to restore honor or balance, so it’s not universally condemned.

I would submit that President Trump has a very predictable modus operandi. He allows his emotions to speak first about any wrong he feels has been done to him. Then, he attempts to institute actionable change such as reversing Biden's many executive orders that he views were a direct slap in his presidential face during his first term or by encouraging the DOJ to review the cases of those he contends have lied about him and plotted against him - to hold them accountable.

The overarching purpose is to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the system for future presidents. I realize that this may sound like I am trying to find a more noble motive for Trump's actions, but I do strongly believe that beneath his very intense emotions lies a distinct desire to protect the system from future abuses by effecting a process change that isn’t just theoretical or aspirational. That's why his actions are not just the result of hurt feelings or a desire for revenge, but one that can more accurately be described as actionable retribution.

So the answer for me is: yes. Retribution can sometimes be justified if it produces actionable positive change, but only under strict ethical conditions. And therein lies the next big question: Does our society still possess a code of ethics capable of distinguishing between revenge and retribution? I sincerely hope so.

Stephen Helgesen is a retired American diplomat specializing in international trade. He has lived and worked in 30 countries over the course of 25 years under the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush administrations. He is the author of fourteen books, seven of them on American politics, and has written more than 1,500 articles on politics, economics, and social trends. He now lives in Denmark and is a frequent political commentator in Danish media. He can be reached at: stephenhelgesen@gmail.com

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License