“Wow!” was my initial, unbridled reaction when I read about the Nobel committee’s selection of President Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. I was in bed, reading the news on my iPhone, and leapt out to share it with the kids. Before I could say anything, I was greeted with, “Yeah, Dad, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.”
I’m sobering up now. I’m a fan of Obama’s, but I’m a bigger fan of peace. What has he done to deserve the prize?
While I’m not excited about the escalation of efforts in Afghanistan, I am inclined to agree with the Nobel Committee’s reasoning:
Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.
I remember the outright horror I felt at Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” unilateral and arrogant stand on the world political stage. I remember my incredulity as I watched him squander all the political good will directed towards us in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He endangered decades-long alliances for dubious short-term gains.
One of the main reasons I voted for Obama was my hope that he could undo much of the diplomatic damage done by his predecessor. His election alone was a positive international event that went a good step towards restoring much of the warmth once felt towards the United States. Where Bush represented American arrogance and reckless individualism, Obama’s election represented the best the US had to offer, that we could shake our racist past and put a black man in charge of the most powerful nation in the free world.
And we elected a man who deliberately refrained from engaging in the prevailing and divisive identity politics. Throughout his campaign and thus far in his young presidency, he has persistently reached across the aisle again and again, in spite of criticism and frustration voiced from his own ruling party and continuing rebuffs from his political opponents.
This has been his approach to global politics as well. I believe that his willingness to support multilateral efforts is already showing some signs of success in our relationship with Iran. His “reboot” of the US-Russian partnership has already reduced worrisome tensions and has improved our ability to get their crucial backing in the UN Security Council on key nuclear proliferation concerns.
And to return to the theme of the Nobel committee’s above quote, here is Obama’s take on American global leadership, from a press conference at the G20 meeting last month:
you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you’re seeing people more hopeful about America’s leadership.
Now, we remain the largest economy in the world by a pretty significant margin. We remain the most powerful military on Earth. Our production of culture, our politics, our media…still has enormous influence. And so I do not buy into the notion that America can’t lead in the world. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think that we had important things to contribute.
I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions…And so that’s not a loss for America; it’s an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India — these are all countries on the move. And that’s good. That means there are millions of people — billions of people — who are working their way out of poverty. And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world.
And that’s the kind of leadership we need to show — one that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it’s only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children: Is it giving them more opportunity; is it giving them a better life? If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time.
This rhetoric is a sea-change from the America of four years ago, and in the world of diplomacy, words like this have powerful impact. Honestly, I think the Nobel Prize is a bit premature, but not entirely undeserved. Like most of the world, he’s in a bit of debt now. But if President Obama can live up to the high expectations placed on him, and continue on the course he has set for America for the next three or more year, I think he will have earned this prize fully.
16 responses so far ↓
1 Rainey // Oct 9, 2009 at 6:39 am
I was an Obama supporter. Now I feel he’s basically another Jimmy Carter — and extremely decent person with inadequate administrative skills. Administrative skills that are really inadequate to the challenge before American government and society.
I hope the Nobel Committee is right and I’m spectacularly wrong but I think they’ve placed their hopes above the reality. I hope they don’t do damage to the credibility of the Nobel Prize in doing so.
I say that with deep sadness but I just don’t think it’s unavoidable to say it about someone who continues to fund and strengthen the independent “contractors” (read unregulated and unrestrained mercinaries) while prosecuting a war in Afghanistan whose objective is murky and which will never reorganize that society away from Islamic-centered tribalism of the strong-arm variety.
Better Obama should direct those efforts to freeing our society from the strong-arm tactics of the corporate oligarchs who have our government and our lives in a stranglehold first.
2 Linguini Neenie // Oct 9, 2009 at 7:55 am
You very much speak my mind, but much much more eloquently.
3 Shelly! // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:01 am
Thank you Jon! I am still an Obama fan (holding fast to hope) and yet find myself unimpressed with this. Quite frankly I think this award feeds into his “celebrity” more than it does his actuality.
I hope (there is that damn word again) one day to be proud of what Obama has done. To find that more than just advocating, he has made huge strides in peace and diplomacy across the world.
But right now, I can think of at least two other people who are more deserving…
4 xJane // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:34 am
I suppose that it’s an indication of this country’s reacceptance on the global stage by the other powers of the world, an important olive branch, if you will, after Bush. However, I still feel that “premature” is putting it mildly.
I don’t see much, besides his attitude, that Obama has done for peace. He’s been an oasis of friendship in the political arena. But does that mean he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? That feels a little like awarding the Nobel Prize for Math (which I know doesn’t exist, it’s an example) to a minority woman for the first time because no minority women have ever won it and she managed to become president of Famous Math University. She’s in the field and she is notable within that field, but she hasn’t done anything specific to the award being received. I feel like this will water down the meaning of the award…some more. I also don’t think that Gore deserved it for promoting sustainability (especially since he merely promoted it, rather than actually making any headway on increasing it).
5 G // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:39 am
interested to see what follows…
6 adamf // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:52 am
It seems that Obama owes a lot to W. for winning this… as it seems that without Bush, Obama wouldn’t be so great.
7 Rainey // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:03 am
“It seems that Obama owes a lot to W. for winning this… as it seems that without Bush, Obama wouldn’t be so great.”
I think that’s true to some extent. And, to that extent, it indicates how much damage Bush did to the country and to the world.
Meanwhile, the arrogance continues when the blathering heads on cable news act as though the Nobel Prize Committee has some obligation to get authorization from the American political right before awarding their prize…
8 John // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:06 am
xJane, two thoughts:
The Peace prize has always been different from the others. It is highly politicized. It’s also not always awarded for tangible accomplishments, which is hugely different from the other awards.
Also, I discovered today that the prize is often awarded to help provide momentum to nascent efforts towards peace. This also makes it different from the other awards, which are often bequeathed decades after the initial splash.
I still wonder if he’s the best person for the prize (I feel so much like Kanye West here), but I would argue that he’s done more than make friends–by virtue of shifting American foreign policy away from his predecessor’s emphasis on unilateral decision making and by renewing US focus on multilateral agreements and global partnerships, he has *effectively* changed the global climate into one that is less about conflict and more about cooperation and shared interest. cooperation and away from antagonism. But he’s certainly not the first president to do that.
I want to make it clear that while I have my questions and doubts, but I am generally supportive and would like to congratulate the President on receiving the award.
9 Cobwebs // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’ve seen a couple of articles which suggest that he was given the prize as a sort of encouragement to follow through his promises, which makes sense.
I’ve also seen a number of Europeans say that he was given the prize simply for not being Bush. I can kind of see their point.
10 xJane // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:29 am
I retract some of my argument. I think that this is an important gesture and symbolizes a lot to the rest of the world. It doesn’t matter so much what Americans think but what Germans, the French, the English, and Indians think (to name a few). I understand the argument that it’s a political tool—to remind Obama to follow through, to tell the world that Americans are back, &c.
I worry, though, about the fodder this will give to the nay sayers. They’ve already got “he’s Muslim,” and “he was born in Kenya”. The last thing they need is a “he didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize” because at least that is an argument with some valid points (as opposed to the first two). This seems to be going over very well everywhere but here. Which is what matters. The United States is not the center of the universe, but I still have to live here.
11 John // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:10 am
Rainey, I’m intrigued by your comment on Obama’s administrative skills, since I’ve always seen this as a strength of his (his election campaign was an administrative and organizational triumph especially when compared with the Clinton and McCain campaigns). Granted, the environment is different in office, and he has set high expectations for his team. Can you elaborate?
12 angryyoungwoman // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Like G, I’m waiting to see how this pans out. I hope Obama will be reminded of some of his campaign promises (especially toward the GLBT community) and follow through. He could go from being a decent president, to a life-altering president.
13 Rainey // Oct 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“I’m intrigued by your comment on Obama’s administrative skills, since I’ve always seen this as a strength of his … Can you elaborate?”
Sure. I agree with you that his campaign was extraordinarily well run and promised an ability that I think he’s yet to deliver. It isn’t merely that he hasn’t gotten any health care legislation. It’s that on alternate weeks he seems to want one kind of legislation and then another. His position on the public option or, what would really address the abuses in our present system, single payer, has been all over the map and he, presently, seems to want anything that can get passed.
I wish him well for our sake and for the sake of history, the country and the next Black candidate. But I don’t see that he’s stuck to any of the things that he said were his agenda and the agenda that Americans ratified with their presidential votes. Meanwhile, by virtue of the political vacuum he’s allowed to develop while he stays tied up trying to get bipartisan votes that will never materialize in any significant way, he’s let the political right set the national policy conversation with things as ridiculous as the birth certificate non-issue and death panels. Furthermore, he’s backed down when members of his own administration were targeted by the right. All this creates the perception of weakness and erodes the public confidence and will while we try to point to achievements that have yet to materialize.
Listen, if I’m wrong I’d be nothing short of delighted to have it pointed out. I knew he was more conservative than progressive but I have yet to see anything other than courting the very elements of American political and social life that are undercutting the opportunities and real lives of ordinary Americans at the same time that the oligarchs continue to pick the bones of what once was a vibrant and diverse economy.
14 John // Oct 9, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Rainey, good points all. I’m actually going to add a couple. The two main administrative shortcomings I’ve seen are 1) the length of time to fill top appointees (ironically a byproduct of the stringent screening process) and 2) his unwillingness to have his office draft health care legislation.
If I remember my history lessons right, Medicare was the result of three proposals, one from the LBJ admin, one from conservative Republicans, and one from the AMA, but the AMA’s was cut out for some reason. The point being, LBJ influenced the content of legislation at a details level.
I also I wonder how much of his perceived failures are ones of failed expectations. He set high expectations across the board, but most especially for liberal Dems and independents who got him the nomination, before he made his strong centrist turn.
That said, I still see him as a rather successful president, and no matter how critical I get, not a day goes by that I don’t remember with mixed horror and gratitude the two men who were in the White House nary a year ago.
15 Rainey // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:41 pm
The other thing I failed to note was the fact that while we’re handing out money to the same folks who destroyed our economy, there’s not an indication of a reinvigorated system of regulation and oversight. This has been a crying need since the Reagan administration eliminated and hogtied regulators setting the stage for exactly the rapacious, canabalistic economic sector we’re left with.
While the right is screeching about “big government”, I don’t see Obama pointing out that the kind of regulators who prevent the kind of unsound business practices that got us to this point, protect our food supply and the quality of imported toys that go in our kids’ mouths, of necessity, enlarge the size of government. Or that it’s the same rapacious insurance companies, investment speculators, etc that want and benefit from a leaned down and hobbled government. In addition, he could be pointing out that government jobs are the kind of solid jobs that our economy most needs right now to begin the rebuilding.
What I’m saying is we could use a little of that community organizing on a national scale and I don’t see it happening. Not even those “shovel ready” infrastructure jobs. Hey! I live in Los Angeles where we’ve had two huge ruptures (big enough to swallow up a fire truck) of our 80-year old water mains that could use some retrofitting and I know that every community across the country has bridges like the one that collapsed in MN or some such project that would add to the security and commerce of communities and provide much needed jobs.
I hope he’ll get to these things and I know being under assault at every minute for everything he does and is is an enormous challenge. But the need is very great and we can hardly afford for these critical issues to be overlooked. …especially given the damage that’s been done to the economy, the social and moral fabric of the country and to the country’s place in the world of nations during the Bush/Cheney regime.
As I said, originally, I worry that he’ll be like Carter — a thoroughly good man who, for whatever reason, doesn’t get the job done.
16 Eric // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think many people are confusing his responsibilities as President with his recieving the award.
He does not deserve the award, the same way Yassar Arafat didn’t deserve the award. As neither have a traditon orr portfolio of work toward peace and the improvement of mankind.
Obama is very likely to develop the body of work a Nobel laureate should have. But domestic affairs are not deserving of the prize. Doing his job is not worthy of the prize it is what you do above and beyond your job.
Just ask Jimmy Carter. Nobel Laureate ca. 2002
Leave a Comment