Everything far below was dutifully compiled by The Daily Dish. But first, my initial thoughts…
If based on accomplishments to date, it is woefully premature. Even on occasions where the award was given out for progress (e.g. Camp David accords), there was at least some tangible result, as opposed to just a plan. Plus, this will play into those Obama critics that are furious over his praise for seemingly no tangible results.
That said, I don’t think it’s completely unjustified. First, there’s the obvious point – Obama did not campaign for this award, actively seek it, nor act as if he thoroughly deserved it afterwards. So, if you want to get on him for going to Copenhagen, or any other of his actions that may have been self-serving or “fluffy,” that’s fine. But, he had nothing to do with receiving this award, so it wouldn’t be fair to criticize his receipt of it in the same vein as criticizing the way he campaigned (Greek columns) or the way he governed (Olympic lobbying).
Another thing that irked me, reporting wise – I saw a Reuters article that said there was mixed reaction to the award. After quoting praise (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) from Angela Merkel, the U.N, Gordon Brown, Ireland, and several others, it said that some people were upset as well. They quoted the Taliban and Hamas. Now, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree with this award. I have no doubt that the GOP will come up with dozens by days end, and would have no problem seeing them in print. But, you’re going to say that results were mixed because the Taliban and Hamas disagree? Seriously?? This just in – “Global Reaction to 1991 Gulf War Mixed. Saddam Hussein Reportedly Very Upset.” Give me a break Reuters – if you want to air disagreement, why not quote someone OTHER THAN THE TALIBAN to give that disagreement a tad more weight?
Anyway, as far as the merits of it – if you accept the premise that the award can and should be used to promote an agenda, as opposed to an accomplishment, I think this this is completely in bounds.
There are plenty of wildly deserving people that have done great things without the platform of the White House (Greg Mortenson’s schools in Pakistan are particularly inspiring). But, from a coolly rational standpoint – there is no hypothetical bigger force for good than an altruistic America. Sure, we don’t always live up to our ideals and own self image, but between international aid, cultural exchanges, education, WWII, etc., the U.S. has been there. To the extent that he has started to right the ship (and that this award can help even further), it makes sense. This, of course, requires that you view the award through the lens of a reformed America, and not as someone who sees this as an anti-Bush thank you.
It is inarguable that Obama has pushed the U.S. towards the role of global citizen, as opposed to global dictator. What remains to be seen is if he can cash in the resulting global goodwill to put America back on a leadership track again, as opposed to just making other countries less pissed off. I want to see him use this to build coalitions, reform aid to Africa, effectively deal with Russia and China, etc., rather than simply give America the chance to win Olympic host cities and other major popularity contests.
All that aside, between his behavior (and outreach – Cairo, etc.), the world is finally listening to us again. Hopefully this will light a fire under Obama to actually have something tangible to say – and then do. Either way… USA! USA! USA! We’re number 1!
The Nobel Peace Prize’s aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize’s very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, “The prize … is not only for past achievement. … The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”
President Obama should thank the Nobel committee and ask them to hold on to the Peace Prize for a couple more years…This seems like a prize for Europeans, not Americans, and I worry that at home it will damage him politically by reinforcing the notion that he is—and will be—a world icon rather than a successful President. I don’t mind him being the former, but I most want him to be the latter. Not even a Rookie of the Year is ready to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I’m afraid this prize will be bad for Obama. For political reasons and on the merits, he should quote Shakespeare to the Nobel committee: “As you shall prove me, praise me.”
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he’s honored but he hasn’t had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory–and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen (’What’s he done?’) problem, demonstrating that he’s uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he’s started to realize it.
[T]urning it down would be a slap in the face to an international community that is showing, in the most generous way possible, that it wants the U.S. back as a leading component of the global order. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.
From the age of 20, Barack Obama has collected acclaim, awards and prizes not for his accomplishments (which have always been rather scanty), but for his potential. You think with the guy nearing 50 and elected president of the United States that the prizes for “most promising young man” would cease. But no! The Nobel Committee has just awarded him one more.
We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.
This is an odd award. You’d expect it to come later in Obama’s presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the ‘hyper-power’ as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it’s a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was ‘normal history’ rather than dark aberration.
Apparently the standards are more exacting for an ASU honorary degree these days.
The Nobel committee has awarded Obama its Peace prize for the grand achievement of not being George W. Bush. I don’t see any other way to explain this decision. Again, it doesn’t reflect poorly on Obama, but rather on the Nobel committee, which looks petty and political. On the other hand, none of us are George W. Bush either, so maybe we can dare to dream that the Norwegians will gift us with the Nobel Peace prize next year. Personally, I would use the prize money to foster understanding between peoples, and to buy silken slankets for the whole family.
We’re currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the “right” to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It’s unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn’t. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful “peace” accomplishment in his record — at least not yet — and there’s plenty of the opposite. That’s what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.
I like to think that all people of good will, no matter our opinions on health-insurance reform, a second stimulus or cap-and-trade legislation, can agree that awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is one of the bigger fucking absurd fucking travesties of a low fucking dishonest fucking decade.
Based on conversations in Amman there’s not going to be much Arab enthusiasm for Obama peace prize.
Hi Evan,
From a non-US perspective, the widespread reaction is one of disbelief that the world’s most important Peace prize has gone to someone who has just begun a rather long and difficult marathon, and is far from the finish line.
Athletes don’t win medals, to run and in the hope they’ll reach the finish line.
The other discomfort I see [from the non-US perspective is] is the ‘we’re no. 1′ hangover.
The world has changed. Former super powers have broken. New ones wielding economic might for political clout are tripping over demons of their own making.
Moving on, while Obama is still very popular outside of American for what he symbolises, what will the impact of this award be on his Presidency in America?
My humble take is it will push Obama closer to the edge of the precipice – he will have progressively lesser space to manoeuver. Pushed to the very edge, he may either fly or may tragically, be a modern Icarus.
Hmm very discomfiting thought that one!
Anita