Continuing his ascent toward globe-girdling Godhead, Barack Obama has now been given the Nobel Peace Prize. The Peace Prize is already little more than a political and cultural absurdity, a rubber-stamp of leftist adulation — but this award, in which the Nobel Committee shows all the dignity and sober judgment of a bunch of teenage girls at a Jonas Brothers concert, is remarkable even by the usual tendentious standards. What, exactly, has Mr. Obama — whose nomination, by the way, was submitted when he had been in office for about two weeks — done? Aside from making fawning salaams and obeisances before Islam in Cairo, and apologizing to all at every opportunity for America’s central role as creator and sustainer of all the world’s ills, his only accomplishments to date have been the extraction of tentative support from Russia for nuclear sanctions against Iran, and a handful of vague and hopeful speeches about a better tomorrow.
There was a time when the Prize was, at least, given for achievements, not aspirations. But I suppose we shouldn’t be too hard on the Nobel Committee: to their credit, they refrained from awarding Mr. Obama top honors in all the other categories as well.
28 Comments
I hope BHO does great things but this was a farce, plain and simple.
Heck, this past weekend, even Saturday Night Live what making fun of what he’s _not_ accomplished. See
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/episodes/?vid=1163334#vid=1163334 for this past weekend’s opening skit.
– M
It’s a “Consolation Prize” for not getting the Olympics to Chicago.
In a spirit reminiscent of sauces and geese and ganders (and anti-democratic regimes around the world), I think the US Senate should file a formal complaint against the Nobel Foundation for “interfering” in this country’s domestic affairs.
Recall during the campaign when Rush put together the clip featuring Senator Obama’s “uhhhs and hmmms?”
It would appear that David Axelrod has picked up the habit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#33238836
Particular attention should be paid when (very early in the interview) Joe Scarborough asks, “Why didn’t he win it last year?”
When I heard the news this morning, my immediate thought was to wonder how the right wing would spin this into something dark and fearful. After all, except for a few dead enders, most Americans figure that the President is playing for our team, and it’s a great thing when he wins a prize. This is the first time I ever saw people win a game and then blame the win on the umpires.
When Obama told schoolchildren to study hard, we were told that it was an indoctrination. When we didn’t get the Olympics, we were told it was a national embarrassment. (It was a no-win situation for Obama, as the leaders of the other three countries were all in Denmark. I doesn’t take long to figure out what the right would have said if Obama didn’t go. He doesn’t love America enough to go overseas!) He’s been compared to Hitler, Stalin, and — for all I know — probably Vlad the Impaler too. So it is inarguable that the right will attack Obama for whatever he does, regardless of what it is. It is as predictable as the night following the day. I wanted to see how they right would escape the moral pretzel of claiming that when we lose something — like the Olympics — it’s an awful thing, but when we win something it’s awful too. The right wing narrative on Obama has ranged from the loony (he’s Kenyan! He’s Muslim! He wasn’t even born here!) to the uninformed (by ending government handouts to Detroit, he’s a Socialist) to being loony, uninformed, and wrong all at once (You lie!).
So I didn’t expect the neocons, who love to talk about American exceptionalism, to applaud when a US President is recognized for restoring credibility to that notion. And I didn’t expect conservatives, who love to talk about traditional values, cheer when Obama is acknowledged for returning American foreign policy to its traditional values, such as working with allies, negotiating with adversaries, upholding international treaties, and condemning torture.
The notion that the Nobel Peace Prize was “given for achievements, not aspirations” is incorrect. Wilson won the Peace Prize, also while in office, even though the US never joined the League of Nations. The Dalai Lama won the Prize, even though Tibet is still part of China. The prize is given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Well, Obama has certainly increased American furtherance of the “fraternity of nations.” In less than a year, our relations with the rest of the world are far better and more productive. He is negotiating a reduction of nuclear arms with Russia. He gave a rousing speech at the UN, affirming our support of the organization after eight years of neglect. So by the three criteria which Alfred Nobel laid out, it’s hard to think of anyone on the planet more deserving of the award. Can you?
If the award went to the Iranian opposition leaders, or Aung San Suu Ky, or dissidents in China, I would have fine with that, even though in each case it is based on aspiration and not actual achievement. After all, the thugs still rule in Iran, Burma, and China. However, they didn’t win. It’s hard to think of anyone else with as credible claim to the Prize as Obama. The Nobel Prize committee, in its unanimous judgment, decided that our President is worthy of what is, after all, the biggest prize in the world. It’s a great day for America. It’s regrettable that this simple fact cannot be universally recognized.
Peter, get a grip. Nobody is spinning this into something “dark and fearful”; it just seems silly, that’s all. I do agree that it is a disappointment when fellow Americans seem to be rooting against America; I admit it certainly bothered me during the Bush years, as I listened to all those Democrats rooting for us to fail in Iraq. (And by the way, if there was ever a President who seemed less inclined to advance the notion of American exceptionalism than Mr. Obama, I can’t think of one.)
But nobody’s “attacking” Mr. Obama here; I imagine he’s a little embarrassed himself, as I expect, say, Miley Cyrus would be if she won a Lifetime Achievement award at the Oscars. No, any jeering in this case is reserved for the Nobel Committee themselves, who seem to enjoy using the Prize to rebuke the previous administration. Indeed, with Mr. Obama deep in deliberation about whether to expand our military presence in Afghanistan, it is not unreasonable to imagine that the Committee seeks to influence his decision with this award.
The Dalai Lama led his people in exile for 30 years before receiving the Nobel Prize. As for Woodrow Wilson, he was in his second term as president when he won the Prize, had just led America through the Great War, and, having founded the League of Nations, was fighting with the Senate to get the US to join when he was felled by a stroke. Barack Obama, in contrast, is about halfway through the first year of his first term, and has made a couple of speeches. As I mentioned above, he was two weeks into his presidency when he was nominated. Given that, it’s a wonder they didn’t give it to him last year.
Update: Apparently Mr. Obama plans to address the nation regarding this award at 10:30 tonight. I have a feeling he might turn it down, and I hope he does; it would be the dignified thing to do, and it would earn him a lot of respect all round.
As I said above, I expect this fawning gesture is very awkward for him, and in no way do I think he was angling for it. It appears, from what I have gathered online all day, that in the eyes of most observers on both sides of the aisle, this whole thing seems rather embarrassingly inappropriate.
Yet yet yet how on cue for Malcolm!
Naw, I think one eye has got it right. I HAVE NEVER heard a conservative express approval of Obama on any front. I don’t think I ever will. Guess that obviously means that Obama is just that bad, right?
don’t bother to reply Malcolm. You’ll come with your usual flim-flam.
Jacob
Don’t be an ass, Jacob. I’ve spoken well of Mr. Obama on many occasions myself, as have lots of conservative commentators; he has many admirable qualities.
You will certainly find more conservatives saying positive things about Mr. Obama, I might add, than one ever heard from liberals about Mr. Bush. And this post says nothing particularly unfavorable about the President; the point here, if you bothered to read it, is that it was premature at best for the Nobel Committee to have given him this prize so early in his tenure.
You are entirely welcome to join in here, no matter what your views, if you can do so in an adult way, and can contribute something worthwhile. But if all you can manage is to say “ditto” and make juvenile insults, then please don’t bother.
For that matter, if all I’m offering here is “flim-flam”, why come round here at all?
Malcolm, well said, in all your comments on this post.
I apologize to any of my purely Democrat friends if I’ve offended, I have been (as I think Malcolm might agree) an equal opportunity critic whatever the Party affiliation. And, as Malcolm points out – as Mr. Axelrod’s discussion with Mr. Scarborough’s interview would seem to suggest – in my own considered opinion, Mr. Obama quite likely would have preferred to have avoided “this honor” altogether.
Call me old fashioned, but stating that Obama made “fawning salaams and obeisances before Islam in Cairo” and apologized “to all at every opportunity for America’s central role as creator and sustainer of all the world’s ills,” in addition to being untrue, depicts him unfavorably. Writing that he is “continuing his ascent toward globe-girdling Godhead” repeats the right wing meme that Obama’s supporters are so blinded by his awesomeness that they are incapable of ratiocination. It’s an ad hominem argument, which is about all the right wing has these days. So a fair-minded reading of the post suggests that it is dismissive of both Obama and the Nobel committee.
The statement that “you will certainly find more conservatives saying positive things about Mr. Obama, I might add, than one ever heard from liberals about Mr. Bush” is arguable. Bush had a 91% approval rating after 9/11. Moreover, you would have to dig deep to find a genuinely favorable remark about Obama from any of the leading lights of the right: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, the Wall Street Journal, McConnell, Boehner, and so forth. However, the real fallacy of this argument is that it posits an equivalence between Bush and Obama. George Bush committed serious and impeachable offenses, including leading the country into war with half-truths and deceptions, using the Justice Department for partisan advantage, ignoring existing law, having his VP suborn perjury in the Scooter Libby case, violating international treaties, authorizing torture, and so forth. He deserves everything he got, and more. Disagree with Obama on policy all you want, but he plays by the rules. He has not dishonored the country or his office. If you want a fair comparison, look at how the left treated Reagan and Bush I. They were mediocre Presidents, but you never saw any of the venom which the right consistently spews against Obama. They were treated with the respect which they deserved, regardless of the wrong-headedness of their policies.
However, what is inarguable is that Bush got far more actual support from Democrats in Congress than Obama could ever hope for. Democrats voted for the AUMF, the Prescription drug bill, his Supreme Court nominations, his Iraq and Afghanistan funding requests, and much of the rest of his legislative agenda. It was Democratic votes which passed the TARP programs and bail-outs to the automakers. By contrast, Obama has gotten zero support in Congress from the GOP. Zippo. Nada. Whatever he achieves will be despite the best efforts of the entire Republican caucus, which acts in unison to prevent him from achieving a single agendum, regardless of the consequences for the country. FDR’s definition of a conservative: someone with two perfectly good legs who nonetheless can’t walk forwards.
Given the catastrophic results of Republican rule, one might expect the GOP to just STFU once in a while, especially when the President wins a Nobel Prize. Obama was very gracious in his acceptance speech this morning, just as he was gracious when we didn’t get the Olympics or when he gave his victory speech last November. From the party which idolizes Joe Wilson: not so much. If the right wants to debate Obama’s policies, his appointments, or his vision: that’s terrific. Bring it on. What we have instead, however, is a political movement which makes up in noise what it lacks in coherence, and which opposes Obama at every conceivable turn, including winning the Nobel Prize. Even if they thought it should have gone to someone else, it would be nice if they would at least congratulate Obama for bringing honor to his office and to America. Failing that, silence would be OK. What we have instead is enough hot air to solve the energy problem. And that’s a shame.
Peter, my remark about Obama’s ascent to Messianic status is not an ad-hominem argument, nor is it meant as any sort of argument at all; it’s merely an observation. You’re welcome to disagree, but it seems to me that Mr. Obama enjoys a level of worshipful adulation, both here and around the world, that I haven’t seen since the Fab Four landed at Idlewild.
(And yes, I stand by “fawning salaams and obeisances before Islam”. We can take that up another time.)
You have a curious blind spot about how the left behaved toward George Bush during his presidency (we’ve been through this before). To hear you tell it, the worst that ever came his way was a raised eyebrow, or murmurs of polite disagreement! I remember things rather differently. I imagine our readers may also.
Regardless, you can be quite certain that to the extent that Mr. Bush found support in Congress for his policies, it was because they were worthy of support, and consonant with the sentiment of the legislators’ constituents; otherwise they simply would never have voted for them. You seem to be suggesting that Democratic members of Congress supported the Bush agenda, when they did, because they were too polite to do otherwise!
If Obama’s policies are now being met with faint enthusiasm in Congress and the town halls, you should consider for a moment the possibility that it isn’t automatically due to reflexive (“loony, uninformed”) partisan antipathy, but might, rather, be because an awful lot of people just don’t think they move the country in the right direction.
But I don’t want to spoil the moment, of course. Barack Obama is now a Nobel laureate. Enjoy.
Well, that’s my point exactly. When there were Republican agenda worthy of support, the Democrats supported them. When there are Democratic agenda worthy of support, they get no Republican support. The stimulus plan worked pretty well: the economy ended its freefall and the economy is starting to recover (no GOP house votes, three votes in the Senate.) Sonia Sotomayor has an impeccable background for the Supreme Court (nine votes). The only Republicans (besides Arnold) who support the health care reforms are Republicans who are out of office: Bob Dole, Tommy Thompson, and Bill Frist. A democracy cannot function effectively when one of its two major parties simply stomps its feet and throws a tantrum whenever something has to get done. The Republicans made the decision that the perceived political benefit of preventing Obama from achieving anything — to the extent that they can achieve that — outweighed any benefits which the country could gain from those achievements. Their patriotism ceases at wearing lapel pins. I’m not here to bang a drum for the Democrats — I think it is shameful that Charlie Rangel chairs his committee — but I think that they are far more constructive and helpful in governance than the Republicans have been for a very long time.
What you assume here, Peter, is that it is simply an objective fact that the policies that conservatives object to are “worthy of support”.
If one has a liberal, progressive worldview, they may seem so; but the conservative viewpoint — in which the notion of a government from all blessings must flow is both infantilizing and at odds with individual liberty — is also one that good and intelligent people may hold for valid reasons.
One thing we can agree on: I’m with you 100% about our Charlie Rangel. And I certainly wouldn’t want you to think that I admire, or feel I have much in common with, the average Republican Congressman; I imagine, though, that you know me far better than to think so. (In fact, I’m a registered Democrat.) Every issue must be considered on its own, and I do expect that there are more than a few that you and I would agree on. We just don’t talk about them much.
Jeebus! How did this turn into a partisan issue? Given that people around this whole globe, from very, very different socio-cultural-political backgrounds are pretty uniformly scratching their heads, I think it should be obvious that the question is “What was the Nobel Committee thinking when they made this choice?”
Right, Bob – I thought that was pretty obvious too. But there isn’t anything in politics that can’t turn into a partisan issue!
Heh! I’m going back the AGW debate, it’s calmer there!
That’s been getting pretty entertaining lately too: the other day I saw on the news two people trying to explain that because the Earth doesn’t actually seem to be warming in recent years, we shouldn’t be referring to our enormous, desperate, game-changing crisis as “global warming” anymore, but rather “climate change”…
Malcolm is busy pretending stuff again.
“Pretending stuff”? What on Earth are you talking about?
Obviously a typo. Voldemort meant to say that the Nobel Committee is busy pretending stuff again.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Ah. Of course.
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol said on “FOX News Sunday.” “This is an anti-American committee.”
Interesting comment. Awarding the US President the Nobel Peace Prize (however undeservedly) is “anti-American”.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/11/pundits-batter-nobel-committee-awarding-obama-peace-prize/
Of course McCain was more reasonable:
>McCain said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.”
But of course McCain disappoints most conservatives. Like when he was gracious in admitting defeat. Or when he demanded that Wilson apologize for “You lie!”.
Peggy Noonan sums up here.
I’m not going to diss Peggy Noonan — I really like her writing — but the opinions of Kristol and McCain are worthless.
As for Kristol, Jon Steward nailed it (“Bill Kristol, are you ever right?”). Wake me up when his facts are right (witness the numerous statements in his now-defunct column for the Times which he had to retract) or his predictions are on target.
As for McCain, Frank Rich’s column in the Times yesterday gives chapter and verse about his consistently erroneous statements about Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, Kristol’s remark that the Nobel committee is “anti-American” left me scratching my head. We won the Peace, Economics, and Medicine Prizes. That’s how you demonstrate your anti-American leanings?
The point there, I think, isn’t that the Committee is anti-American, but against the notion of American power and American exceptionalism; they would like America to be more like Norway (a place where, as Fjordman points out here, the New York Times would be a far-right paper) — and in particular, more like the Norwegian female socialist academics who make up 80% of the Committee itself.
You have to keep in mind that Scandinavian culture looks very unfavorably on anybody who thinks he’s better than anyone else, calls attention to himself, or acts too big for his britches, and so naturally they’d prefer a diffident, meek America to one that actually seeks to exert its influence as much as it can. I’m sure they see Mr. Obama as their sort of President, particularly in contrast to Mr. Bush, and wanted to send the message loud and clear.