Handwriting on the wall
Dear Editor,
The etymology of the expression “handwriting on the wall” is originally linked to the Old Testament biblical book of Daniel. During a feast held by Belshazzar, the designated king of the Babylonian Empire, a hand suddenly appeared and wrote on a wall in Aramaic words meaning numbered, weighed and divided.
Daniel, because of his prophetical gifts, was called upon to interpret the writing. Daniel explained that the message meant that the kingdom is divided, that God had found Belshazzar deficient, and that the days of his kingdom are numbered. Indeed, that very night, the king was killed, and the empire was overthrown.
When I read a Sept. 13 op-ed by David Ignatius, a Washington Post associate editor and columnist, I recognized an analogous theme. Ignatius had titled the piece “President Biden should not run in 2024.”
Even though for years he has been a staunch supporter of Joe Biden and an admirer of the president’s first-term governance, Ignatius acknowledged a recent Associated Press poll reported 77% of the American public, including 69% of Democrats, think Biden is too old to be effective for four more years. He further denoted that those polled would naturally be concerned by Biden’s even less popular presumptive running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, who holds a 39.5% approval rating. Ignatius did suggest the president could allay some voters’ concerns by selecting a more favorable running mate.
Ignatius did submit that if President Biden does not bow out now, he “risks undoing his greatest achievement – which was stopping Trump.” He concluded that by withdrawing from the 2024 race, Biden would be making “a wise choice for the country.”
Whether or not Ignatius’s interpretations prove to be as prophetic as Daniel’s, his op-ed seems to echo a sentiment much like that 6th-century B.C. foreshadowing.
Peter Wibell Rutledge