Snap Judgments on Obama's Nobel Prize

 

Wow.

I say that in solidarity with my brothers and sisters on the internet in keeping with CNN.com's observation:

"As the news of Obama's win broke online, postings on social network sites Twitter and Facebook expressed surprise. Many started with the word: Wow."

I'm sure you all have thoughts about this stunning choice (for those of you away from a radio or computer or TV or friend right up until this point--Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize). 

I haven't read the punditry yet, but it's easy to anticipate the articles.  Let's write the op-ed pieces together right now, shall we?

Right-wing op ed:

"This proves that the wimpy rest of the world hates the Republican Party.  This is just a comment on Bush and has nothing to do with Obama at all--clearly, since he hasn't been in office much longer than the current pro baseball season.  It proves that Obama is a sketchy character, since all those enemies of America seem to like him so much.  And George W. Bush did more for the international cause of peace over the average coffee break than Obama will do during his entire administration--something strangely missed by an ungrateful world population dominated by leftist media.  And the last Nobel to go to a sitting president under similar circumstances was to Mikhail Gorbachev, who did indeed bring his superpower more in line with the rest of the world at the small cost of dismantling it into a banana republic run by mobsters.”

Left-wing op ed:

...Okay, this one is harder, because the choice is so surprising.  Maybe here we should chat for a moment about what the heck the Nobel committee was thinking.  And, as per the title of the post, by definition this is a "snap judgment"--to quote the column title of one online sports columnist who writes about NFL games within the hour after they've ended.

Here's more from CNN.com.

“The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said.  Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.

He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," it said.”

So.

My take?  I suppose it goes along the lines of, “Well, why not?”  If the Nobel Committee wants to make this move as a hopeful gesture and encouragement towards a cooperative world working together to solve problems of common interest…is anyone against that idea?  (Don’t answer that.  Yes, many people in my beloved country are against that idea.)  If it’s flagging that nuclear disarmament is an item of particular interest…well, it would be lovely if neither my nor my children’s lives were cut short by a mushroom cloud followed by nuclear winter.  I’m thumbs up. 

So it seems like this is a vote for inspiring rhetoric and the hope of a cooperative future more than it is recognition for a life of unusual accomplishment towards world peace.  Here’s hoping our president merits it on the latter terms someday as well.  But if the Nobel gang is voting for the promise of a better future for us all, more power to them.

Your thoughts?

Comments

[Adam]

Interesting that this follows the SNL skit now gone viral from last weekend about President Obama not accomplishing anything yet in office. Viewable at:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address

[Erica]

In one of those 'Wow' comments on Facebook, a friend of a friend posted the article below. I found the last 'myth' of which particularly helpful in thinking about Obama's recent honor. He doesn't necessarily have to have done anything apparently--he just has to inspire the committee to the point that they sincerely believe that he's on the brink of doing something incredible. So my take: yeah for that huge vote of confidence from some pretty smart people!
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/10/09/common_misconceptions_about_the_nobel_peace_prize_1255065701/

[PB]

I just don't feel as die-hard about this as some people, one way or the other.

I can relate to the crowd that's saying, "You're giving an international award to a guy based on his intentions?! Shouldn't we base this on accomplishments?"

And I also relate to the crowd that says, "Wait a second... isn't Obama's vision for the future what we might call "faith"? It's believing for something that isn't here yet. We need to affirm and validate that!"

My weighing in with an opinion doesn't ever seem to make a difference one way or the other, so I'll just leave it at observations.

[Jon]

I couldn't help but see this in terms of 1984 (War is Peace, etc.). Obama isn't anti-war. He's escalating in Afghanistan(severity of which isn't determined), he has bombed Pakistan, and is threatening Iran currently. So if war is the new peace then I guess this makes sense.

At least when Arafat won he had recently at least said he was committed to not bombing people for some period of time. We can't say the same for Obama.

[Jeff]

Oh my, do I have an opinion and is it ever the right one.

I sometimes wonder if we analyze too much and sometimes we'd do better to accept some things at face value.

US doesn't get Olympic games = Bummer, I live close to Chicago. Oh well, should be good for Brazil.

US president gets Nobel Peace Prize = Wow, what a surprise. Well, hey, that seems good. People in other countries like my president.

Do we have to always read crazy ideology into everything.

A few examples from the other direction.

George W. Bush gave lots of money to Africa and forgot to take credit = Wow, it's great to give money to people who need it.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush were presidents when the Cold War ended = I'm so glad that's over. Way to go guys.

Can't we ever just read events that way? I don't mean as oversimplified, I just mean, without attaching 800 ideological interpretations to everything.

That's my snap thought.

[Dave Schmelzer]

I love this comment, the matter-of-factness, getting in with my life quality about it.

I particularly love this phrasing:

Ronald Reagan and George Bush were presidents when the Cold War ended = I'm so glad that's over. Way to go guys.

That seems to sum something up in pithy fashion.

[Marissa]

What I see is the left scrambling around to defend and excuse everything dear leader Obama does. Just as the Republicans did for Bush. The Democrats pitched a fit when the Republicans did it and now the Republicans are doing it. People pick a side and stick with it no matter what. Not even noticing how similar the sides actually behave.

Both parties are equally pro-war and anti-peace. This doesn't increase my confidence in Obama, it decreases my confidence in the Nobel Prize committee.

[twitter.com/withoutvision]

Peace can be achieved easily across the world by capitulating to every leader who can muster the requisite forces to enforce cooperation. Freedom is much harder. Since there will ALWAYS be those type of leaders, force and absense of peace is the price we pay for that freedom. Obama inspires me not. That same appeasement and capitulation has been tried repeatedly and has only resulted in greater death and destruction. These same despots flaunt and ignore all UN attempts to negotiate peace, i.e. Saddam and Achmenijad. It was the threat of force that broke the back of the Soviet might not appeasement or capitulation. Where was the award for Reagan? Obama inspires me not. Europe has chronically been so naive on this topic that we have always had to defend them from their childish ways. Let's remember history and the human character.

[Krissy]

I love this comment. Best one I've read all day.

[Jackie N]

Premature maybe, but there is something to be said for the clear dedication this president has for the essential ingredients necessary for world peace. Starting with long-awaited intelligence at the helm and his seemingly innate ability to understand and appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of cultural relationships. We need this now. His nomination can only fuel that energy so necessary for moving forward.
At the risk of sounding 'new-age', this guys seems to be a sentient character whose time is now.

[Prashant]

Lost in the partisan posturing is any mention of the questionable, even nonsensical, history of the Nobel peace prize. Sometimes they make great calls. Often, not so much. Henry Kissinger got one. Mahatma Gandhi never did, despite being nominated every year for about a decade. I need a head-scratch emoticon. So my take - who really cares about the peace prize?

I'll take the physics/chemistry/biology prizes seriously. Economics is a maybe. And DON'T get me started on the literature prize.

[Prashant]

OK, I know its bad form to reply to my own post, but how many of these names do you recognize?

Emily Greene Balch
John R. Mott
Cordell Hull
Nansen International Office for Refugees
Robert Cecil
Carlos Saavedra Lamas
Carl von Ossietzky

Now I'm sure that a history major could school me on some of those, but NONE of those are meaningful to a layman 50 years on. Those are the worthies who won the peace prize through the forties/late thirties. So prize meet pinch of salt.

[Dave S]

Impressive research, Prashant. You're into this! And I've got a good feeling about that von Ossietzky character. Good things will come from that man, you just watch.

[[email protected]]

My wife had an interesting take on this today as she was eyeing the numerous Facebook posts that were not too fond of Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize. She thought of Obama as being a symbol of peace by shear fact that he is a black man and the president. So in one sense Obama being president shows a bit of peace or healing between the divide of black and white in this country. Perhaps she is hitting upon some of the substantive part that goes beyond what he has actually accomplished for peace in the word in that he is actually a picture, so to speak, of peace or at least a certain level peace between races in our country. This certain level of peace obviously isn't unanimous since there seems to be a great bit of hatred of the violent type spoken of by many on the fringe, but our country has crossed a threshold with his election by such a majority. Perhaps this does signal something of a new era to the rest of the world (whether or not individuals agree with his politics).

[Ruth]

Love your wife's take on this. I know I definitely feel that there has been a huge step forward in what we could rightly say is the most powerful country on the planet at present, just with the election of an intelligent, black family man to the presidency of the US.

(BTW, I'm not a US citizen!)

[Caleb Maskell]

I just can't take the prize seriously. Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1972!!! And Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Normally I like irony, but there comes a point in thinking all of this through that the laughter begins to hurt. The people say "peace, peace" and there is no peace.

[Dave Thom]

I can't resist adding a thought since Caleb brought it up. Whoever wants to look this up, be my guest. Know how the Nobel Prize originated? Alfred Nobel woke up one day to see the papers thought he was dead. Imagine that happening to you. The papers remarked that he would be forever known in some aweful way as the inventor of dynamite. A sort of "prince of death." It was his brother who actually died ~ the paper simply got the story wrong. This inspired Nobel to want to be remembered for something life-giving, and not death-producing.

If you can re-think the Nobel Prize as something in line with Nobel's wish, then any good hearted man or woman who hopes for something better qualifies. Should every qualifier win? Nobel probably could not have won his own prize, except for his hope. It's not the Nobel Prize for Hope, but geez, Gandhi never won one? Then it's fixed. John Mott deserved it, believe me. Greg Mortenson shoulda won it this year. Oh well.

[Russ Kiser]

My thoughts? I like your humor, Dave, particularly in the "right wing op-ed" section. :)

I have no problem with Obama winning it - I guess my reaction is more to why the Nobel committee for the peace prize gets to overlook some others who are physically out doing more for the cause of peace like
Greg Mortenson (from Time.com):
Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords ... Read Morekill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.

It also seems odd that it had to happen this year. Why not next year? What was the rush? I don't know, I suppose if you were to write the left op-ed they'd say something like "why are you adding to the pressure on Obama??"

[Adam]

Interesting political take from the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574463142879190358.html#

[Brett]

First, I think Jeff needs to be placed on the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee. I like his outlook.

I think the committee blew it. President Obama might well be deserving of the award after a term or two. But the committee should not have given him the award too early in his career before actually doing the hard legwork of peacemaking. Note: you can't blame Obama for the poor judgment of this committee.

Consider some of those who have been overlooked:

1.) Chinese Human Rights Activist Hu Jia - imprisoned for campaigning for human rights in the PRC
Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. -- (Not to mention the symbolic value of awarding a Chinese dissident on the 20th Anniversary of the Tianenmen Square Massacre.)
2.) Greg Mortenson (mentioned above by Russ Kiser), founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years
3.) Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims
Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar. She currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur.
4.) Former US president Bill Clinton, Dayton Peace Accords, persistence in trying to find a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, post-political career of philanthropy
5.) George Mitchell, key negotiator for peace in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East

The committee put the cart before the horse and in doing so cheapened the prize. If anything, it wasn't a message of hope but a message of politics that was sent. Hopefully, the President will see through that and do his job without being influenced by this.

[Dave S]

One more question for you all. Maybe this merits a post of its own, but we'll start here. I'm curious why you...how do I put this diplomatically?...care about this at all? What difference, in the grand scheme of things, does a "prize" make about anything? Good choice, bad choice, whatever; I'm curiuos why it makes any differece to you whatsoever. We've established that a goodly number of the choices have been lame--which to me furthers the "why would anyone care about this?" thesis. But let's say everyone's favorite non-recipient, Gandhi, had in fact won the prize. Would that have affected his impact it legacy in any way at all? I'm genuinely curious; I'm not meaning to tweak you: why do you care at all who wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Why do you give this any more than fleeting attention?

[Slider]

I think the injustice of an undeserving candidate is the reason why so many care about this politically motivated "peace" prize selection. There are so many candidates that were excessively more worthy and could have used the 1.5 million for their causes.

[Crispin Schroeder]

Actually I don't really care about it much, and honestly I think those who are really working for peace aren't in it for the award either. But this is true of all aspects of society from the arts to politics. Often the ones who make the greatest contributions get the least recognition.

"The best band will never get signed...
The best song will never get sung
The best life never leaves your lungs
So good, you won't ever know
I never hear it on the radio
Can't hear it on the radio"--Wilco

[jdbrown371]

Awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama was a deliberately calculated move by the Europeans (I agree strongly with them). Their reasoning is simple and is based entirely on enlightened self interest. Obama delivered multiple speeches about nuclear disarmament and made promises to disarms American nuclear weapons. Most Americans, lacking basic empathy, can't understand how Europeans might feel quite uncomfortable with all those nuclear weapons and ICBMs in their backyard. Obama's speech must have been music to their ears, a hallelujah chorus. Politicians being who they are, make lots of promises only to do the Washington shuffle when keeping them becomes difficult or inconvenient (think health care reform but I digress). If Obama accepts this Noble prize, he can't go back on his promises or it will be far more difficult for him to do so.

[Vinceation]

Dave, I can't really answer on a personal level because my reaction wasn't super strong.
But the sociologist in me would say it's because of celebrity. The phenomenon of celebrity and how anyone and everyone can have an opinion (and now, thanks to internet and globalization, "publish" that opinion) about the happenings of a particular person's life makes us love things like international awards given to famous/semi-famous people who have made some sort of difference (or, one could argue, no difference). They're another chance for people to get their voices out there... And, what's this? An ambiguously defined "peace" prize?... fantastic! Opinions all around!

My take is that people want to matter. And everyone, of course, does... but our culture only gives us some select (sometimes unhealthy) ways to express that: giving your opinions on the celebrity people or (in a different way) the celebrity issues is one of those.

[Heather]

Thanks, everyone for your great comments. Being in the field of "change management", I can also attest that Obama hasn't "not accomplished anything". He has created a sense of urgency, inspired the world with a compelling vision, allowed stakeholders to take ownership in this vision. These are the first critical and key steps to creating change. Even big multinational organizations, where a CEO has fairly strong top-down power, can't make huge changes in a matter of months. If there is a top-down push, employees simply won't change their behavior. They need to be involved in the process ... to buy into it, to get involved with it. Maybe Obama hasn't seen the fruits of his labor just yet. It may not yet be harvest time. But I do think he's sowing seeds ... and that's not "nothing". (BTW PB, love the connection to faith!)

[PB]

YES! - I knew someone would see my greatness someday. (kidding)

I do appreciate the comment, though, on its own terms. I can see what you mean that, yes, in fact, he hasn't "done nothing". To me it was just a given that whatever the thing is that he's laying the groundwork for, the thing hasn't happened yet, and the thing is the accomplishment. But I like how you're pushing back against that - preparation is an accomplishment.

Thanks for sharing!

[brian]

This is a very perceptive comment, in my view. Especially the last sentence. And the bit about Americans not understanding the position in which Europeans, and indeed the rest of the world, find themselves.

[Dan L]

I like your question, Dave. At first I thought, yeah, who really cares? People are great (or not great) with or without prizes. A prize doesn't change what a person has done.

But on the flip side of that, there's a reason we have prizes in the first place. I think prizes are a sign of what we as a society hold to be valuable, what we deem worthy of high esteem. We have sports championships, Oscars, Tony's, Emmy's, Grammy's, etc. as ways to recognize the best in each field. And the message that is sent to everyone else who aspires to do something in that field is, "this person, team, movie, song, etc. is what we consider to the very best."

When it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize (and I want to preface this by saying I know little to nothing about the Nobel Peace Prize) I imagine that it would be awarded to the person who has done the best work that year at promoting peace, especially between nations.

I think when someone like Gandhi fails to win that award it does one of the following:

a) Devalues the Award -- if Gandhi was truly the best that year, then the award becomes devalued because it is no longer awarded to the best

b) Makes us rethink and possibly redefine what we consider valuable. -- For example, if I go to an art museum knowing very little about art, I might very well scoff at a masterpiece and have high praise for some amateur piece of art. But after reading enough critics or "experts" in the field, my might opinions start to change and I would likely look at and judge art through a different lens. (For better or for worse).

The question that people are asking after Obama won the Nobel Prize is: Do we consider Obama the best in this field? Do we want to hold him up as this year's standard of excellence for achievement of peace? Do we want to tell the world that Obama has done more than [all the other candidates] and that they should strive to be like him?