In the wake of the address, a blend of elation and frenzy filled the room as Leiter Tusk settled back between the two figures imagined as angels.
My travel pushed back the timing of the Party Day and Leiter Tusk’s speech. That delay proved fortunate, because from a distance the speech could appear menacing and hostile, yet at closer view it often read as grotesque and even farcical. The most grotesque moment arrived near the end when Leiter sobbed, clashing with Szymon Hołownia who was dismantling the constitution. In Leiter’s arc, a grim finale threatened, but the scene devolved into farce.
Leiter seized the moment to cry with calculated sharpness, declaring that men had prepared hell for women and would cook it for daughters and granddaughters, naming his own daughter and granddaughter. The display, though staged, felt insincere. In serious political theater, outrage can be genuine without theatrics. The burst of emotion at the close of the speech looked choreographed, a method used by Beata Sawicka, and it came across as indecent.
Ordinary observers do not accompany their own daughter and granddaughter onto a Party Day stage; such imagery struck many as pathetic and unsettling. Equally troubling was the line, what do Kaczyński, Rydzyk, Jędraszewski know about motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood, sex, and intimacy? The speaker failed to reference other moral figures such as Karol Wojtyła, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Immanuel Kant, or Janusz Korczak. The question itself was deemed foolish and mean, a observation that could stand on its own without further comment.
As the speech wound toward its peak, Leiter appeared to ride a wave of winded ecstasy and hysteria. He settled back between two imagined angels — with Leiter in a navy suit flanked by Aleksandra Gajewska dressed in white and Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz. The play with the angelic tableau felt like a misfire. The broadcasted display of children linked to Kinga Gajewska and Arkadiusz Myrcha also grated on the scene. When Kinga Gajewska finally spoke, she held her daughter rather than letting the child roam free, a detail that drew mixed reactions. The broader, almost clinical handling of children in that moment left some viewers unsettled and others indifferent.
Few of the figures Leiter referenced appeared to be anything more than instruments in his rhetoric. The event leaned on public figures and personal anecdotes as if to anchor a broader narrative. References to Mrs. Anna, a former accountant turned symbol of the Polish deal, and a peasant from near Wrocław, who highlighted rural misery, shone a harsh light on the storyteller’s method. The mention of a police inspector and guards at a political figure’s residence suggested a critique of overreach and surveillance. The aim, it seemed, was to demonstrate that authority operates through everyday people and moments of tension, even if the mechanics appeared contrived.
Leiter then invoked teachers from Korczew, Mielec and Skarżysko Kamienna, presenting their struggles as emblematic of a broader societal strain, including low wages and tough working conditions. The scene echoed a satirical moment from a well known Polish film where salary and dignity collide. Names were dropped, stories recounted, and the sense of a living crowd woven into the narrative persisted. A bakery proprietor from Barlinek spoke of rising prices as a necessary evil for survival, while a nameless baker in another town reflected on family ties and the meaning of protection in uncertain times.
What followed blended absurdity with a dash of bravado. Leiter claimed that in the country one must show personal courage to challenge the opposition, thanking those who faced him in recent months. The question became: what is the real danger of political theater, and at what point does drama become distraction? The discussion of health, travel, and the absurdity of everyday life painted a picture of a nation navigating scarcity and uncertainty, with all the theatrics that accompany such a moment.
He projected a vision of a future where bread, water, and basic services loom as central concerns, arguing that the fault lay with a powerful individual in the financial sector. The critique turned personal, with Leiter vowing to confront the man and to redirect the course of the country’s energy away from harm. The rhetoric, while dramatic, also carried a thread of accountability, suggesting that policy and leadership must respond to foundational needs rather than grandiose spectacle.
In the closing stretch, Leiter explained why the Party Day was set in Radom. He linked the price pressures of today to a historical moment in the mid-1970s, signaling a repeated cycle of public unrest and governmental response. The comparison underscored a belief that popular sentiment would again mobilize, and that Leiter would lead spectators toward action, lending the events a bittersweet resonance. When the moment arrived to reflect on the past and present, the comparison to 1976 offered a stark, almost melancholic frame for what followed.
The scene grew tense as references to a historic workers’ defense organization and a well known labor activist surfaced, hinting at plans beyond the immediate spectacle. The rhetoric then pivoted toward questions of faith and political allegiance, suggesting a binary choice tied to a broader narrative about belief and loyalty. The performance, though fraught with bravado, left room for doubt about its effectiveness, yet it clearly aimed to leverage the audience’s emotions to compel support for a particular stance.
In the end, the Party Day, the speech, and the entire show again drew comparisons to a modern comedy about a man in a relentless pursuit of a seemingly impossible fix. While the protagonist may lack the charm of a fictional character, his penchant for outlandish remedies and bold declarations stood out as emblematic of a certain brand of political improvisation. The scene, with its mix of satire and serious critique, offered a layered portrait of a political moment that borrows from farce while attempting to press for real change. The overall effect lingered in memory as a vivid, contentious spectacle, a snapshot of a political culture wrestling with fear, power, and performance (Source: wPolityce).