R: The United States Should Turn the Other Cheek

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). This directive has been incorporated into many ethical systems, Christian and non-Christian alike. But within these ethical systems, many disagree on the role of the state in relation to this command–should the state respond in kind to assaults from abroad or should it remain unprovoked? Bill Kristol, a recent YPU guest and strident neoconservative, published a brief piece a few days ago critiquing the current administration’s withdrawal from global involvement. Kristol has been advocating greater US involvement abroad for the better part of a half-century, vocally arguing for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 along with intervention in essentially every global humanitarian crisis. He agrees with Martin Luther King Jr. that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and believes that the United States’ status as the preeminent global superpower demands its involvement as a corrector of global injustice. 

Perhaps a close examination of the Biblical passage at hand is in order. The fact that Jesus references being slapped on the right cheek seems odd–usually a right-handed slap would land on the left cheek. This means that Jesus was referring to a backhanded slap, an action connotating disrespect rather than actual violence. The affirmative may use this loophole to justify self-defense after a violent attack–surely US declarations of war after Pearl Harbor or 9/11 were justified, given that they were in direct response to a violent, unprovoked attack costing thousands of American lives. For the US to remain peaceful and above the fray when insulted by foreign powers is in accordance with the Christian ethic of non-retaliation. Or perhaps the affirmative will approach the resolution from a more isolationist perspective, making a prudential argument that ignoring the sound and fury of distant lands is beneficial for the security and prosperity of the US. After all, did not George Washington advocate a stance of disinterested neutrality in his Farewell Address? “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.” 

The negative may point to a high view of human dignity and argue that the United States’ historically unique position as a global superpower demands that it operate as a sort of superhero, swooping in to remedy the many gross injustices committed around the world. While Jesus’ mandate of non-retaliation is all well and good for individuals, the state operates by a different ethical framework, just as a sitting judge is permitted to condemn, imprison, and even kill, while individuals may do none of these. A prudent leader knows when to turn the other cheek and when to strike back. An obvious example is the foreign policy of Theodosius II (r. 408-450), my favorite Roman Emperor. Theodosius kept the Eastern Roman Empire out of foreign wars and entanglements for the vast majority of his reign, with the exception of two major actions: paying off Atilla the Hun in exchange for peace, and briefly going to war with Persia in 421-2 in order to rescue Christians from Persian persecution. Both actions have been lauded by subsequent historians (with the exception of Gibbon), who point to the large budget surpluses, population growth, and cultural rebirth that occurred under the reign of Theodosius. Realpolitik demands that a nation–even a Christian nation like that of Theodosius–not be bound by Christ’s directive to the same degree as an individual. 

The current administration has shown a curious combination of belligerence (enacting hefty tariffs, distancing itself from traditional allies) and withdrawal (cancelling military aid to Ukraine and humanitarian aid to many other nations). Where does the Trump administration fall on the spectrum of reactionary to disinterested? Is this house a swooping hawk or a flock of doves? Should the US turn the other cheek or should it slap back?