Was this Nobel noble?
In case you are living under a rock somewhere and hadn’t heard, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The Nobel Committee continued, saying it had “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
I am a fan and supporter of President Obama, but you have to wonder whether a man who has been in office for a mere nine months, with no substantial prior record on the subject of international diplomacy, is deserving of such a prestigious honor, at this time. Political activist and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel (1986 Nobel Peace Prize winner) stated “I confess to surprise… The Nobel Prize committee has its own rules and they may decide anything they want. They may decide that encouragement is part of the experiment,” noting Obama’s short tenure as president.
As usual, I have questions. Does this represent the Nobel Committee’s thinking that the prize will encourage responsible action? Is it an international message for peace, given the pending decisions on Afghanistan? Does Mr. Obama’s biracial heritage play into this? Are his eloquence and charisma contributing factors? But perhaps my biggest question is: Should one be given awards for what one might accomplish?
Mr. Obama’s responded that he was “surprised and deeply humbled” and that he accepted the honor as a “call to action.” I can’t imagine putting any more pressure on a world leader. President Obama and others may see this as an honor, but should his presidency waver on any level, this prize will become his measuring stick.
You’ve heard my take, here’s the world reaction, what are you thinking?
October 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Janet — I couldn’t agree more. This is like presenting Meryl Streep with an Oscar for the movie she is currently filming. (Only with far more serious implications!) I too hope that Obama delivers on what seems to be enormous potential, but at this point there is nothing substantive to point to in order to support his getting this prize. It is simply too early. But I suspect, as you noted, that the Nobel committee has its agenda and that’s a pity because there will be a price to pay for this, not just by Obama and his administration but by all of us. I fear that this will polarize people more than they already are, which is saying a lot. Already, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and all those nuts are having a field day with this? The far right and the not-so-far right will make this a HUGE distraction that will keep the attention off of healthcare, the economy, the environment and ironically enough, the peace process. The real kicker is that morons like the above mentioned crowd have had to resort to vicious lies about death panels and unplugging granny and Obama not being an American but now their attacks will come with a valid point. You know, when I was a kid there was this great episode of the Brady Bunch where Jan won an essay contest and was so thrilled because it was the first time she’d stepped out of Marcia’s shadow. Right before she is to accept the award at a school assembly she realizes the scores don’t add up right. She didn’t really win. She stopped the assembly just in time and forfeited the award because she knew she didn’t deserve. I sort of wish Obama had pulled a Jan Brady today.
October 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hi Janet:
Welcome to the curious g blog. How exciting that the only two Janet Giampietros (that I know of) are again sharing the same space.
I wrote that post as soon as I had a minute to collect my thoughts and hadn’t heard most of the fallout that you mentioned, in particular on the far right. I think the polarization is huge as you say. And in terms of distraction – let’s hope it doesn’t escalate to the heights of the Clinton/Lewinski episode. I’ll never forgive the media and far right for taking that to the heights, the circus, that it became to the exclusion of all else. And thus 9/11 was the worst outcome amongst the neglect of so many other more pressing issues.
Yesterday I finished reading Jon Krakaeur’s Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, which was an amazing and heartbreaking account of an extraordinary man, sadly a victim of fratricide, and of the Bush administration’s outright lies at using Tillman’s death as part of a platform for re-election. In telling Tillman’s story, Krakauer parallels it with Afghanistan’s history and problems. A very timely recap given Mr Obama’s current position.
I wish Obama had pulled a Jan Brady as well. In the short term, it might have looked really bad, but looking forward, I think it would have eliminated the strings attached to what I’m beginning to think was a very calculated decision on behalf of the international community.
Thanks,
g
October 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I think and feel so many things about this announcement/award. I do not believe that people should be rewarded for what they might do. The President himself acknowledged that this award was not for his accomplishments, but rather a call to all nations to confront the sundry challenges of the 21st century. I also agree that this situation hands the right an open ticket to pounce with even more venom. Also, there is no dispute that this award is simultaneously an opportunity to finally slap the face of the previous administration.
So, what was it? I truly believe that the “awarding” was the last, best desperate hope to look for someone to lead in a different way in a world condemned to repeat history for what seems like forever, but with one major difference — a tanking global economy and no “superpower.”
That is an awesome and frightening “award” to receive. . . .
October 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I’m thinking why stop there? Let’s give him the literature prize while we’re at it — and the chemistry award, ’cause he’s so darn magnetic. A peace award for a man conducting wars on two fronts. George Orwell has never seemed so prophetic.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I can’t remember the on-air person who suggested we give Obama all the prizes. And the Orwell reference has been circling too. I’m not sure I understand that reference in this context, our government didn’t award Obama this prize. Are we talking about control and sway from foreign entities?
I think though, that a case could be made for the previous admin to be described as Orwellian – the perpetual wars, the mind-control (let’s not forgot how “fear” was out front in nearly every speech), the outright lies and propaganda regarding say, Pat Tillman’s death, to name but one instance…does that not scream of historical revisionism? Or maybe I have to go back and read 1984?