So, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Has he done more than anyone else to promote peace in the world? No. Am I pleased that he won? Yes. Will the award have much of an effect in the world? I doubt it.
I think we lose sight of just how much the rest of the world hated and feared the Bush administration’s approach to foreign policy. Lots of loud, belligerent talk. And, when there was action, it was poorly thought through and betrayed a preference for force over persuasion.
What Barack Obama has accomplished is to win the Presidential election (no small achievement) and begin charting a different course on U.S. foreign policy. The ship is enormous and the change is consequently slow. Obama might not disengage from war or ultimately promote human rights as much as I would like, but the trajectory of the country’s approach to these things has changed. Obama won the election — something Bob Barr couldn’t do — and turned down the heat on the United States’ attitude toward the rest of the world — something John McCain wouldn’t do. Given the magnitude of the U.S. influence in the world, a small change in our foreign policy has a greater impact than more dramatic achievements in other contexts.
If I were awarding a Nobel, I would have looked elsewhere. But, the prize is most interesting as a sort of Rorschach test for domestic commentary. How you see the award depends almost entirely on your existing perception of Obama. From my side, you get the “probably he hasn’t earned it yet, but . . .” commentary. From the other side, you get the reverse of last week’s cheering about the U.S. not getting the Olympics. There was quite a bit of bemoaning that a particular worthy person didn’t get the prize, but the moaning was coming from people who generally don’t care in the slightest about who gets the prize. And, almost comically, I’ve seen a few attempts at “winning the Nobel Prize is the worst thing that could have happened to Obama.”
On Friday a conservative friend of mine said “Obama did not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize.”
I responded along these lines: “Really? Who won the last three and what did they do to deserve it?”
Him: “Uh…..I don’t know.”
Me: “How do you know they deserved it? How do you even know what the standards are?”
he had no response!
It’s pretty obvious the “standards” are pretty lax for winning when you consider Carter, Arafat, Algore etc…..I don’t think it does Obama any harm or good really.
Of course he deserved it!
He was the tenth caller!
When one deals with ethereal international politics, one should expect outcomes that may not be immediately obvious (to the average American, see 2016 Olympics site award, for example). Still, if we want to criticize such awards, how about jumping into the Medal of Honor as a point of comparison?
Surely, not everyone here believes that all the awarded Medals of Honor were justified by acts that “distinguishes him- or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his [or her] life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States”?
We could also discuss the price of tea in China – anything to change the subject, I guess…
I once gave an informal presentation to some German univerity students in Berlin who were studying English .They wanted me to ‘explain why’ Americans voted for Bush ,not once but even a second time. I wasnt sure myself,but the best I could do was take some Country Western CDs, including Merle Haggard and Tammy Wynette ballads and explain the themes there. I can’t go into detail unless you know these two former big stars and their cultural messages,but they sum up a lot of conservative American thinking.
And then suddenly out of nowhere Barack Obama is elected! it’s like a new millennium over night and it’s hard to explain, but I understand why Obama got the award from a European venue, without having done much. He is, who he is.
I’m forever grateful to my family for exposing me to country western music.It has given me great insights in ‘explaining America’.
Merle put out an anti-Iraq song at some point in the recent past.
Thanks,Doug for the note on Merle Haggard. I had lost track of him.He just retired in 2008 from touring. His last song(2005) was called ‘America First’… ‘Let’s get out of Iraq and get back on track’… Bridges falling down : Liberate these United States!
He was born in Bakerfield Ca in 1937.Back in the late 60s his Muskogee Oklahoma was playing in all the bowling alleys and bars and restaurants and was seen as the rallying call for the Vietnam war. He was the ‘government voice'( in retrospect) of that time singing against the excesses of the hippies,so he’s mellowed with time.He still has the same strong masculine voice he had back in the 60’s.
Parker, my (too subtle) point was that awards (like the Nobel Peace Prize) are often given out for reasons other than for those reasons they are supposed to be awarded.
From the Nobel Foundation, Nobel intended a Peace Prize to be awarded to a person who “during the preceding year […] 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.”
In this case though, I can’t think of anyone else more deserving.
The Olympic decision and the Nobel decision viewed together may help explain each and provide evidence of how influential people in the rest of the world view the behavior of the U.S. government. Both outcomes were the cumulative results of many individual’s decisions. So there is, as is usual even in what seem simple matters, no “one” factor. I suspect Chicago “lost”, in part, because it is well understood around the world, that foreigners coming into the U.S. are subjected to high levels of seemingly purposeless hassle. I’ve seen it in my travels. Both domestic and international. It was not an “Anti-American” people or an “Anti-Chicago” vote but a message to the U.S. government that its policies regarding foreign travel into the U.S. are view quite negatively. It wasn’t a vote for or against Chicago. It was a vote on U.S. policies affecting travel into and in the country. The Nobel decision is a bit trickier. Was it a “thank you for electing Obama” to the American voting populace? Possibly. It feels that way as Obama so far [other than not finding another losing imperial, neo-colonialist war to get involved in] has simply ramped down the rhetoric, lowered the thermostat. Was it a preventative? Was the committee thinking “If we give him the award it may lessen the chances of the U.S. warring on a third Muslim country by giving Obama some cred?” Will it help to further delegitimize the war-mongering lunatics, like John Bolton, who have captured the Republican Party. Possibly. And it that sense the RNC chairman’s reaction was entirely predictable. The rest of the world wants peace and knows that Republican rule in the U.S. is not a pathway to peace. Foreigners said to me that they feared a McCain presidency would mean another war-at least one more. The U.S. since the end of the Cold War has behaved like an unhappy hegemon warring at will on [with Afghanistan excepted] clearly false or fabricated and/or pretextually incredible grounds. The Nobel Committee was simply doing all it could in this period to lessen the chances of another disaster filled U.S. war. I go on too long. I am sure there are other factors in both decisions that influenced the votes.
V –
You are not (too subtle).
And you are back on topic!
And I still think my explanation is more credible…
The Nobel group admitted as much.
I’m not familiar enough with the process on how the Nobel Prizes are awarded. Elinor Ostrum, who won the prize for economics, is a professor of political science at IU. It’s interesting to hear her position that public lands are more efficient when managed at the local level. I was somewhat perplexed (probably because of my own ignorance about public vs. private concerns, in the overall supply vs. demand continuum) to assess the validity of awarding the prize to her. I had two classes in economics in college (macro and micro economics) as part of my major in accounting, but it has been so many years ago, and haven’t used it since then, so I’m rusty on the subject. Regarding Obama’s prize the jury may be still out on that. I don’t fault President Obama for trying to pitch the ’16 games for Chicago. As an aside, it would have been really awesome to be able to take the 5 1/2 hour-6 drive up I-65 from Louisville to go to Chicago to see some of the games in person. President Obama would have been bitched at if he hadn’t made the trip to Copenhagen, given that the leaders from Brazil, Japan, and Spain were in Copenhagen also to pitch Rio, Tokyo, and Madrid. Still since the games have never been in South America, I can’t be too upset, except for the fact it’s a hell of a lot farther from Louisville to Rio than it is from Louisville to Chicago.