During US President Barack Obama’s visit to Kenya in 2015, a seven-year-old boy 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 example of the 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 gunfire from 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 20-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, 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 USA if they had delayed their statements.
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.
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 USA’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 USA and the rest of the world in several ways. In the USA, 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 USA and around the world may be further revised to high-security alerts, making travel to the USA even more difficult.
This incident has brought to the surface deeper fault lines in the USA’s social and cultural aspects and highlighted the failure of its 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 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 a national conversation 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 USA, 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.
