HE WILL NOT BE ABLE: Who saw the wind?

IN THE LAST month, big things happened on the American political scene. So large that there are serious realignments and fundamental changes in the political landscape. And what happens in America has an impact on the whole world.

Who saw the wind? It’s not you, and it’s not me either, but when the treetops bend, the wind passes there – these are the words of a poem from the 19th century by the British poet Kristina Roseti. When I first read this poem, I saw in it an allegory for God – even Gagarin did not see him when he “climbed” into the sky, but his presence is felt. The only question is whether we want to accept it or not.

This time, however, I was reminded of the song “Who Saw the Wind” by the events on the US political scene. I don’t want to, like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, attach some messianic significance to the miracle that saved Trump from death and claim that the metaphysical “wind” deflected the bullet fired at him by the few centimeters necessary to avoid a fatal outcome. “I hope that dear God has a plan with the president (Trump), because what else could he have planned in this time of war, except someone who would bring peace,” Orban said in an interview after the assassination. No, I now associated the song with another thing – the fact that when he blows, many treetops bend and things turn in the direction he blows.

We have already seen tectonic disturbances in the democratic camp after the tragicomic presidential debate on June 27. There was a real rush of those who refused to believe that the American president’s indisposition was the result of a bad night’s sleep and began to warn that he, the poor man, is really no longer functional. Sadder than Biden’s condition is that most of them claimed until June 26 that Biden is actually a brilliant mind, a wiry old man who knows exactly what he’s doing, just to get a good night’s sleep, and that all those videos of the American president in unenviable situations are just “cheap “cheap fakes” of the enemy of American democracy. Donors, who previously allocated millions, began to condition their support for the Democratic Party on the election of another candidate, influential actors, who raised his rating with their popularity, began to call for him to retire, congressmen who praised him with all their mouths now claim that his remaining in the pre-election race leads them to ruin. Yesterday allies formed an informal “club for not electing” Joseph Biden.

This change, although very telling, is not so unexpected. It is about internal party turmoil. Donors fight for the profitability of their investment in the president, actors to preserve the aura of great people, congressmen to preserve the chair, but there is no “ideological” break. Everything stays in the family, except that the Biden family is in a bit of danger.

Serious events take place outside the narrow circle of democratic supporters, those who were there, but more from the shadows reaping the fruits that the democratic establishment offered them. We are talking about people who really saw the wind, that is, felt the change in its direction and decided to adapt immediately. The first are businessmen from Silicon Valley. This business caste has traditionally favored the progressive “ideology” of the Democratic Party, but is now beginning to support Trump. For example, billionaires Mark Andersen and Ben Horowitz, heads of the investment firm “Andersen Horowitz”. After the assassination, the two realized that “for small technology companies, Donald Trump is actually the right choice.” Next to Trump is the creator of “Java Script” Logan McCain. The biggest of them is William Bill Ekman, a billionaire who earned the epithet “investor-activist” because of the way he connected business and political activity. It is true that Ekman gave up his support for Biden back in April, due to his “weak” support for Israel, but he did not leave the Democratic camp and directed his best wishes to Dean Phillips, who won second place in the internal elections of the Democratic Party – they gave him the votes. four delegates (Biden won 3,905). On July 14, Ekman officially announced that he supports Trump and that he made the decision “carefully, rationally and based on empirical data.”

Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of “Facebook”, also started tuning in with the wind these days. First, he fought against the influence that Trump can exert through his social network. “Facebook” was one of Trump’s main propaganda tools during the campaigns in both 2016 and 2020, and there was also the insufficiently clarified “Cambridge Analytics” affair, but then in 2021 he decided to “ban” the then current president of the country. Zuckerberg and his colleagues have now (July 12), however, estimated that the time has come to lift all restrictions for Trump on “Facebook” and its sister “Instagram”. Even more than that, Zuckerberg began publicly and not so delicately praising Trump. “Donald Trump standing up after being shot and raising his fist in the air, with the American flag in the background, is one of the most violent things I’ve ever seen in my life,” Zuckerberg said after the assassination. It is interesting, however, that all these moves were withdrawn shortly after Trump on July 9 openly threatened Zuckerberg and the like that, upon coming to power, he would put them in prison: “All I can say is that if I am elected president, I will , persecute election fraudsters in an unprecedented way and they will all be sent to long prison terms. We already know who you are – don’t do it. Zuckerbaks, be careful!”

And finally, the sweetest, at least from our, journalistic, perspective – even the mainstream media, which until now demonized Trump and people close to him, are starting to turn the tables. So, for example, the “Wall Street Journal”, after all the spitting and the story that Tucker Carlson is not a real journalist but a (malignant) propagandist, published an affirmative article about a man who had to be chased away even from the right-wing mainstream media, even though he is the most watched (in history ). Will our professionals who investigate “malignant non-journalists” join it?