By Qamar Bashir
During Obama’s visit to Kenya, a boy as young as 7 years old asked him, ‘Are you the king of the world?’ Whether one likes it or not, the President of the USA does wield considerable power and authority, capable of lifting a compliant country from ashes to prosperity or, conversely, reducing a non-compliant country to ruin with total impunity.
Currently, we have two notable examples. The USA and the West are supporting Ukraine against Russia, effectively preventing an early victory for the latter largely due to the actions of the ‘King of the World,’ Joe Biden.
The second examples World King’s unquestionable authority is his decision to support, abet and protect Israel and to give it free hand to carry out genocide in Palestine and exterminate palestinian infants, children, women, elderly and young alike with total impunity.
But this "king," who decides the fate of other countries, was nearly killed in his own
country, in an highly guarded public event, by gunfires of a 20-year-old boy, like a lame
duck.
Fortunately, the would-be "king of the world," Donald Trump, was attacked—not by a
Muslim, Black, Asian, or Hispanic terrorist or criminal—but by a young twenty-year-old
white boy.
In his recorded video message, the attacker claimed he hated the conservative party and
Donald Trump, but ended with a taunting smile, saying, “you got the wrong guy.” While
the first part of his message seemed straightforward, the second part will only be fully
understood after thorough investigation.
This incident tells a serious story: the so-called king of the world, who determines the
fate of other countries and societies with the stroke of a pen—either allowing them to live
and prosper or destroying them—was not safe in his own country.
Had the attacker been of foreign origin, that country of his origin might have been
attacked immediately or faced retribution later, much like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and
Afghanistan, whose leaders were chased and hunted like wild animals.
Leaders from around the world wasted no time in issuing condemnations, setting aside
their business, no matter how important, to save themselves and their countries from the
potential wrath of the US if they had delayed their statements.
The most important question for American social and education scientists, thinkers, and
philosophers is this: Why would a young 20-year-old boy, who has freedom of
expression and speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and
the power to vent his hatred, grudge, or dislike through any form of media, resort to the
extreme act of using a gun to try to kill a presidential aspirant, fully aware that he would
be killed in no time, either before or after his attack?
On the strength of logic and reasoning, many motives could be attributed to the boy's
extreme actions. The increasing polarization of American politics and anti-establishment
sentiments may have fueled his behavior. Mental health issues and identity crises could
have contributed to his violence. Social isolation and the influence of radical content in
the media may have played a role in curating such extremist behavior. Rapid cultural
shifts and the prevalence of gun culture in America may also have been factors.
These reasons may be right or wrong, but this incident has brought to light deeper fault
lines in the US's socio-cultural fabric and the failure of its education system to instill
tolerance and respect.
Regardless of the reasons, this attack is going to change the US and the rest of the world
in several ways. In the US, this incident will likely lead to heightened security measures
for political figures and increased surveillance, especially of expats. The immigration and
naturalization policy may be tightened to slow down cultural and social changes. Security
protocols at airports, train stations, and bus stops in the US and around the world may be
further revised to high-security alerts, making travel to the US even more difficult.
This incident has brought to the surface deeper fault lines in the US’s social and cultural
aspects and highlighted the failure of their education system, which allowed such hatred
to develop in a 20-year-old boy who was not a hardcore criminal, terrorist, or addict, but
was willing to take the life of his own life and the life of his own would-be president and
would-be king of the world.
The small but eye opening incident may intensify deeper political polarization, as each
side blames the other for fostering a toxic environment. This could also spark national
conversations on mental health, leading to increased funding and support for mental
health services. Additionally, there might be a reevaluation of the role of media and
social platforms in spreading radical ideologies, leading to stricter regulations and
oversight.
The education system could see reforms aimed at promoting tolerance, inclusivity, and
conflict resolution to prevent radicalization among young people.
Globally, the incident could affect perceptions of US stability and the effectiveness of its
democracy, potentially weakening its moral authority on the world stage.
Countries might reassess their relationships with the US, considering the internal
vulnerabilities exposed by such incidents, leading to shifts in alliances and diplomatic
strategies.
The attack could influence global counterterrorism strategies, emphasizing the need to
address internal threats and domestic radicalization.
For Trump, the incident could garner increased sympathy and support from his base,
energize his supporters, and potentially attract undecided voters who see him as a strong
leader facing unfair attacks. Conversely, it might also highlight the deep divisions and
volatility within the country, raising concerns about his polarizing effect.
For Biden, any missteps in addressing the incident could be detrimental to his campaign,
intensifying the political climate, making security, stability, and national unity even more
central issues in the election.
For the rest of the world, the message is clear: their "king" is not safe even in his own
highly guarded fortress.
