In a stunning surprise, the Nobel Committee announced Friday that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" less than nine months after he took office.My Lord. I wish I had cable, so I could watch Fox News flip the fuck out over this one. Rush is gonna be all-world today, Glenn Beck is gonna be all-universe.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Some of my first thoughts were, indeed "WTF; Liz Cheney will have a heart attack; Here go the One World Conspirators."
But on pondering I do think he brought a new tone and thoughtfulness and respect for the intelligence of his listeners to the world stage, especially compared to America of the past 8 years. And an international perspective that's been missing for longer. It's an award to potential at the beginning of the process--bold choice, might fail, but that is after all exactly what Obama is doing, too.
And maybe Bachmann will become so embarrassing her constituents will vote her out of office.
"But on pondering I do think he brought a new tone and thoughtfulness and respect for the intelligence of his listeners to the world stage..."
That's a pretty high bar you've set there, Deborah.
This is really the Norwegian committee jumping the shark. As someone else pointed out, this is essentially their third "F* Bush" award in the last eight years.
Two ironic points I find with this:
- The Norwegians give this award to Obama near the 8th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, which Obama recently escalated and to which he is currently deciding whether to add as many as 40k more troops.
- The Norwegians liked Obama's speeches on 'climate change' -- not enough to stop cashing in on all their North Sea oil though. The Norwegians preaching about carbon emissions makes as much sense as the Saudis doing that.
You seem quite generous with other people's oil revenue.
As to the Nobel Committee saying F* Bush -- it's a fairly civilized rebuke: far better than testing a nuke or expanding an independent deterrent.
The Norwegians don't give much of a damn about Afghanistan, or, for that matter, about American troops fighting and dying on the Afghan plain.
The idea of a general middle eastern/south Asian war, stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/(Pakistan's allies?/Russia, etc.) was a much greater concern.... even if it might have boosted North Sea oil revenues dramatically.
Did the Norwegians/Europeans think that such a conflagration was a possibility under Bush? Frankly, quite probably. Has the likelihood fallen to zero under Obama? Probably not? Has it diminished... probably... and crucially because the Russians and Chinese can be a little more confident in predicting what Obama will do.
Can you really say they were wrong to worry?
"This is really the Norwegian committee jumping the shark."
I'd say more jumping the gun, but yeah, it's kind of ludicrous to think that Obama at this point has done more for peace than of all the other people in the world.
Ezra Klein: "Think conservatives are mad about Obama's peace prize now? Just wait till he donates his winnings to ACORN."
This will just confirm everything that Rush, Beck, and the entire FOX news network believes about the Nobel committee, and by extension, Scandinavians, Europeans, diplomacy...etc. It will just validate their scorn.
That said, I do wish I had time to see their heads spin around and smoke blow out of their ears (and other orifices) this morning.
Everything validates their scorn, so it's not a very useful measuring stick. I think TNC and this community will respond in far more useful ways.
This says as much about me as it does about the state of discourse in American politics, but the very first thing that ran through my head when I saw that headline was "I am gonna LOVE to see the wingnuts throw the biggest hissy-fit of the year, and they have thrown quite a few of them this year!" It also kinda sorta deflates their abject glee over Obama not procuring the Olympics for Chicago. Hehehehehe,, I'm getting happier by the minute because of that!
That said, I have to echo what Jeffrey Goldberg said earlier (paraphrasing): Shouldn't he have actually brought about actual PEACE first? I understand it's the spirit of re-establishing new mulitlateral relations with the rest of the world (and a quite-deliberate swipe at GWB), but we're still not out of Iraq (my brother-in-law deploys there in a month) or Afghanistan. It seems premature: not so much undeserved as pre-deserved. I think he'll eventually do what one would do to deserve the award, but at this early stage I have to echo TNC's "WTF!?!?" and couple that with Goldblog's "I think he probably would've wanted the Olympics instead."
Maybe they want to put the pressure on him to come through. Making explicit their high expectations.
Agree with your first paragraph. When I heard it on the radio in the car this morning, that exact thought made me first giggle and then break out into open laughter.
They're reasonable questions. But the Peace Prize has a long history of being awarded for effort, not achievement. Think of past recipients. There was a string of prizes in the 1930s awarded to pacifists and diplomats, for such notable accomplishments as outlawing war and building the League of Nations. Well intentioned efforts, to be sure - but it's difficult to point to any way at all in which the League succeeded in reducing conflict (in fact, it may well have exacerbated conflicts through its paralysis) and Kellogg-Briand has been more useful for prosecuting warmongers after the fact than forestalling them.
The committee believes in diplomacy. That is, for members of the committee, posture is substance, not merely a means to an end. Re-engagement with international institutions, re-opening stalled negotiations, and re-affirming our commitments are all - in the eyes of the committee - actual, substantive accomplishments. It's not a perspective I happen to share. I'm deeply skeptical of the diplomatic establishment, and tend to measure its accomplishments in far more practical terms. Treaties are meaningless, to me, unless they actually alter behaviors and outcomes.
But let's understand that this isn't just a disagreement about what Obama has and has not done. It is, rather, part of a broader argument about the nature and meaning of diplomacy. The committee has a long history of honoring those who say the right things. This is no different - it's just particularly stark. If Obama had secured some landmark treaties and accords, would that actually change the situation? Are treaties themselves substantive accomplishments? History is rife with examples of accords that were honored with Nobels, and then honored in the breach. Treaties, I would contend, are tools - some effective, and some not. Only the passage of time reveals whether they are more than words on paper. And I really don't see how awarding prizes for words on paper is all that different than awarding one for words that have been spoken - in either case, the committee is affirming its faith that those words will ultimately lead to meaningful action. It's not an approach of which I particularly approve, but I can't see singling out this award as exceptional.
This exactly. By asking "what has he achieved' we are precisely missing the point of the prize which is to actively, in the past year, push for diplomatic peaceful solutions to problems int he global arena. And that is what Obama is all about. Also--where we see nothing achieved because we have bought into the republican 24-hour machine the Committee sees the arch of change and the possibility of the efforts. This is recognition for that a thank you and an encouragement. Like a global co signing of his agenda.
Cynic, an excellent point. We disagree on the value and importance of diplomacy, but I think your analysis of the Nobellians' thinking is exactly right.
For my part, I would view treaties as a form of 'promissary note' that, at their best, express realities on the ground in a way that they can be honored. Of course, in theory, one prefers a cash settlement... but in international politics, a 'cash settlement' is, in the end, a settlement in blood.
As Churchill once said, quoting Bismarck: "Jaw-Jaw is always better than war-war."
It was noted by the committee that previous prizes had been awarded to "starting" something significant as opposed to "achieving" something significant -- Willy Brandt won it for Ostpolitik in 1971, even though the Wall didn't come down for another few decades. And Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams won it for working towards peace in Northern Ireland -- in 1976.
And my response to the GOP saying he doesn't deserve it is to again point at McCain's running mate.
Isn't it terrible when people behave exactly according to their negative stereotypes?
And by "terrible", I mean "funny". Not as funny as hollywood and the child rapist, but still funny.
The Atlantic's Politics channel already has a tut-tutter about how accepting the prize would cause Obama to be perceived as narcissistic--unlike anything else he does, including eating breakfast--and will make the polarized right even more polarized and loud, tut tut. I mean...have they not been paying attention the last few months, as we kept setting new peak-wingnut highs? And does anyone seriously think governing so as to win over the silliest and most extreme on the right, to a mythical extent that they'll dial it down and say he isn't a narcissist after all, is a good idea?
I'm not worried about what the wingnuts think. They're going to hate him no matter what he does. I'm worried about how this might be used to further delegitimize his presidency and undermine his agenda. If even strong Obama supporters are saying "what the fuck?!" then it doesn't strike me as a very good thing.
Damn those well-meaning Swedes!
It's also funny when conservatives behave exactly according to their negative stereotypes.
I read Richard Feynman (Nobel in Physics) talking about how he wished that before they announce the prize, they'd call and ask you if you want it. He basically just didn't want all the attention it would bring him, but once it's been announced, it would be a even bigger deal if you didn't accept.
Morning Joe ( Joe Scarbough) started the show by laughing and calling the award not any good anymore........ and Marrissa Tomey looked better getting the academy award than Pres Obama receiveing the Nobel. I wish people in America realize how the rest of the world ( We all live in) see us. This is a response from the WORLD about him being elected after the last horrible 8 years, they are saying thank you America for opening your eyes. This is about giving him a boost to continue to fight for Peace and Hope in the world.
The Nobel committee is right.
It's astoundingly early, but they're right.
There will be a lot of complaining, but they're right.
The man has a lot of work to get done, and it's definitely time to deliver, but they're right.
We shouldn't say it often in public, because it will give him and us swelled heads, but they're right.
He is who we thought he was. They see it, and they're right.
One could say that it's too early or that it's carrying coal to Newcastle. Philip Roth could say WTF.
The Committee said that Obama gave the world hope for a better future and every single cyinic on this planet knows that this is true. He deserves the Prize. For himself and as the representative of the American people who voted him into office.
They might be right 7 years from now. Right now, it's frankly a ludicrous award. Obama has done nothing to deserve it yet. If, in 7 years, he's ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed along non-proliferation and lowered the stocks of nuclear weapons, managed negotiations with Iran and North Korea successfully, and rebalanced US policy towards Israel, then I'd have no problem with him getting the award.
But right now, all of those potential accomplishments are just that, potential. They aren't even in the green shoots phase; they're still just seeds in the ground.
While I think this could have good entertainment value, I think it's absurd. And, while I'm not sure how much cache the award still carried, it can only cheapen it, at least in the near term.
I'm sorry, this does seem like a bit of a joke. I like him. I voted for him. I'll do it again. But this is absurd. The Nobel Peace Prize? Really?
Couldnt agree more. I hope Obama agrees, too, although it'll be interesting to see how he threads that needle.
I mean, it may outdo the lunacy of giving the PEACE prize to Al Gore for a Global Warming lecture (I know he did more than that lecture). I'm sorry, I find it very difficult to take the award seriously. Twice in three years its gone to prominent American politicians for essentially not being George Bush. I think that's adolescent. And embarrassing. The president needs to accept it on behalf of a lot of people. Even George Bush. I think he almost has to say good things about George Bush in the acceptance speech.
Oh, I agree. Not only should he mention Bush he should invite him onstage as he accepts the award. Then he should punch him in the kidneys when Bush isn't looking. He'll be winning Nobels every other year for the rest of his life if he does that.
Agreed. It's early days, yet... And I still think it's kind of sad that George Mitchell doesn't have a Nobel for his work brokering a settlement in Northern Ireland.
It's also sad that Mohammed Bah Abba keeps getting snubbed. Rather than making a powerpoint or delivering hope (change is in the mail), he just invented and marketed the zeerpot (a $0.40 refrigerator requiring no electricity which is becoming widely used in Africa).
But actually helping people tends to fly below the radar of the prize committee...
But would that be Peace or more in the lines of another prize....I'm not sure we have anything that applies to smart low cost technology. It makes people's nutrition better, helps girls stay in school, good for storing drugs....Okay, I changed my mind. Abba should get it.
I'd never heard of the zeerpot before, but having looked it up, it's brilliant. You're right, he SHOULD be getting more recognition than he does.
Plus, if he got a million bucks, he could travel all over the world on a "hey locals, check out this refrigerator you can build for cheap" tour. Right now, all he can do is build local franchises.
He brought Russia back to the bargaining table with Iran by removing a useless provocative missile shield program that served no purpose other than furthering defense spending and making moldy cold warriors jizz their pants.
That's impressive for his first 9 months.
Using technology we do have to address a threat that exists now rather than technology we hope to someday have to address a threat we may someday have--the man's a lunatic I tell you.
Or, sane.
Not where I would have expected the committee to go, but I do get what they're doing.
Is what they're doing using a supposedly prestigious award as a weapon to remind us all how much they used to hate us. I find this whole thing condescending, childish, and embarrassing.
Breaker--I understand what you're saying. I'm more amused by this than proud. But I think his impact is greater than most of us are really acknowledging. I totally agree on Al Gore though.
I do think it's worth stating how bad, exactly how counter productive to peace George Bush was, intentionally and unintentionally.
I'm certainly no fan of George W. Bush. I understand what his election and re-election did for anti-American sentiment throughout the world. But honestly, I'm not about to accept a passive aggressive admonishment from the Scandanavians of all people.
If you were Iranian, would not the election of "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain seem a very good reason to step up pursuit of a nuclear deterrent? (Remember, he was the sane one on the ticket)
I would suspect the Europeans are right in applauding a more conciliatory rhetoric -- if nothing else it calls the Iranian bluff that nukes are necessary for their own defense.
Talk may be cheap, but threats are less so.
Why? As a country, we admonished George W. Bush from 2006 until the time he was out of office. Other countries can't?
In the wake of Obama's election, we saw actual movements towards moderation from Iran and Lebanon. We see Obama proposing the idea of stopping Israeli settlements--and is serious about it. He announced troop withdrawals in Iraq. Non-proliferation, while Bush was trying to develop bunker busting nukes. He's apologized for American arrogance.
I'm pretty ok with this on the whole. Is a lot of this award simply for being who he is, which I guess is kinda unfair, but it did have an impact.
Tell me this isn't about the Vikinks, Breaker. Shimon Peres said that "very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact." I think that's right and it isn't nothing.
It's most certainly a nice accomplishment, but for a first nine months. If at the end of his presidency, the foremost peace-promoting things he did was the missile-shield, and Guantanamo was still open and the Israelis and Palestinians were no closer to a deal and we still had several divisions worth of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq was still teetering, that wouldn't be much of a legacy. I don't think it'll turn out like that, but let's let the cards fall before we declare teh winner of the hand.
If the missile shield is useless, why does Russia care?
Are they simply looking out for us and making sure we don't waste our money?
From what I recall, I think we had a little bit of a problem when Russia had missiles in a country nearby to us.
Because the missile shield entailed American support and 'tripwire' troops in Poland and Czechoslovakia (erm, Czech Republic) -- i.e. true security guarantees for former Warsaw Pact countries.
Russia cares because they were last invaded via Poland and the Czech Republic. And because, "it couldn't happen here," doesn't translate into Russian with any fidelity.
Because it leads towards first-strike capability. If it works as advertised, you can first-strike with near impunity. Even if it doesn't, if your policy-makers think it does, they might be inclined to initiate a first-strike.
Dan W, Russia put nuclear missiles adjacent to us. We were mad because they had the ability to nuke NY without flying long range bombers.
You'll probably react differently if I point a gun at your head than if you see me putting on a vest.
Carrington, the only purpose of tripwire troops is to protect the Warsaw pact nations from invasion -- they are vastly too small to invade Russia.
Dob, so maybe the missile shield isn't so useless after all?
Absurd? Perhaps the threshold for absurdity has been severely lowered by internet discourse but I thought for something to be absurd it needed to be irrational and meaningless. The peace prize is for efforts towards peace not simply achievements. While I agree on the surface the award may seem premature but has the president not taken numerous meaningful steps? Maybe call it curiously early but absurd seems a bit strong to me. Giving GWB the peace prize would be absurd.
I agree also, on all your statements here, including the not-so-faint whiff of condescension.
And I also agree with many of the comments above that we shouldn't use any of the inevitable hysteria from the cable/am right-wing as a standard.
However when I use of the standard of "could I explain this to a fairly apolitical person in a clear and concise way", giving Obama this award at this point still comes out as pretty silly. Reducing the tensions vis-a-vis missle defense, and I get the potential thing, but this just doesn't feel right at this time.
It's a strange decision, but then again, it's a strange prize.
Some of its recipients number among the great figures of the last century, inspirations to all people in all lands. More commonly, it's been given to flawed figures who have done something genuinely worthwhile. And it's also been handed out to encourage even tentative movements toward peace, which have not always born fruit.
I think this prize falls into that last category. As much as I admire our president, his most notable achievements on the international stage to date have been in changing our posture - not in securing new treaties or substantive change. That's not to be underestimated. But I suspect the committee, surveying the international scene, decided that the most constructive thing it could do this year would be to strengthen Obama's hand, and lend him encouragement for efforts that have often brought stateside criticism. (Whether a prize this early in his term will in fact have that effect domestically remains to be seen; I don't think the committee has a terribly keen grasp of American politics.)
The committee chair said:
.Tough to argue with that.
Is it really only in the last year? I thought they looked further than that.
I'm torn.
After reading the Nobel committee's rationale and thinking more on it, I applaud the committee for a bold and interesting move that validates Obama's positive approach to diplomacy and world politics. I agree with sporcupine... Obama is who I thought he is when I elected him. He's a thoughtful and committed leader, and I congratulate him on the award.
But leaders don't accomplish amazing feats by themselves. I just wonder sometimes if the people in this country and, in the case of this prize, in the world are ready to do what needs to be done. And I sometimes fear that all of these expectations we place on Obama - world peace, saving the economy, saving the environment - are just a way of setting up a scapegoat when the big changes don't happen or, in some cases, just can't happen.
Well....shall we just look at NBC? Watched how Matt Lauer and David Gregory handled it.
Matt, in my observation, chunked it it all down to POTUS just not doing what George Bush did. It was interesting....I was like: "HOW in the Prez' moment do we get to George Bush"??? I do know, but it's difficult for them to let him just stand alone and to give some credit. And, Mr. Gregory says pretty much that it's more about "sizzle" than "substance". Chunking down what he's TRYING to set into motion re: nuclear proliferation, the full throated U.S. return to the U.N. and world connectedness, etc. "Sizzle" over "Substance". 'No. We here at the University of ARIZONA canNOT give him an honorary degree because of his lack of accomplishment!'
At CNN.com they are asking: "Does he deserve it?"
I swear.....Marvin said it SO well: "Makes me wanna holla - how they do my life".
But....POTUS smiles, smacks it DOWN when he sees fit so to do....and rooolls on.
The University of Arizona, in shiny liberal Tucson, didn't do a thing to President Obama. Arizona State University, over in the conservative Phoenix metropolitan area, did invite him to speak and decline to present an honorary degree (for University policy change reasons I won't belabor, that they probably should have considered before extending the invite).
Since there is the tiniest, diaphonous glimmering of occasional rivalry between these two universities, their sports franchises, and their communities, please attribute your ire to the appropriate target.
The Nobel committee just became the biggest and most successful troll of all time. Obama needs to seal the deal and announce his Islamic conversion in Oslo while simultaneously signing onto the ICC and ordering all our nukes be shot into space before returning home for a celebratory fiesta (redundant, I know) with Chavez and Castro.
Before this morning I had no clue that Mohamed El Baradei was so hated in the conservative community. People are acting like he's embarrassing company to keep when actually they're just embarrassed that he was right about Iraq... as far as I can tell.
I am a committed supporter of the President. I have much love and respect for the man and will work for him and his agenda.
That being said, when I opened this up, my literal first words (said out loud) were "Oh no."
I thought this would, in the spirit of the last year, be used heavily against him. I still think that. I also think its premature.
But, the "thank you for trying and not being bush" angle makes sense to me. I still have a feeling this will not go well for him/us.
And my first thought was "AHahahahaha. They're going to lose their MF minds."
Anything, everything, nothing, will be used against President Obama. It's the nature of the beast that is "Being First." I suspect he knew this when he ran for office and frankly, he's handled just about every criticism, lie, meanness, with measured aplomb. And by "measured aplomb" I mean he pays it absolutely no attention at all. As someone said up thread, he just rolls on.
Also, Ahahahahahahahahaha.
I know this Nobel award is premature but my weekend has gotten off to a great start hearing, reading and watching the conservative commentariat fulminate.
Jeez, you people...
Of course this is right.
The courage our President shows everyday standing up and saying what he believes, what he knows deep down to be right...
He speaks for peace. He speaks for rational thought. He speaks for us.
Especially us who don't have the courage to stand up next to him. Guys like me who hide behind this keyboard.
I applaud the Nobel committee.
I continue to be awed by this courageous man, Barack Obama.
That being said, when I opened this up, my literal first words (said out loud) were "Oh no."
Mine, too. The second thing I did was log on to Amazon's Kindle store and look for a book to read after I finished the one I'm currently reading ("The Year of the Flood" by Margaret Atwood) because I really want to be incommunicado after 9 this morning. I work with good people whom are, nevertheless, wingnuts and stuff like this exacerbates my sense of isolation. Might as well have something to read.
This is excellent news for John McCain.
Win.
Who wants to bet that either John McCain or Lindsey Graham will be asked questions about this on either Meet The Press, This Week of Face the Nation this Sunday ?
Also, this is a great occasion for Rush to haul out "black quarterback" analogies and for Glenn Beck to expose the ties between the Nobel committee and ACORN. From the right's perspective this is like being crowned king of Socialistan.
Too soon, but congratulations. And we have the added bonus of the people who last week were attacking Obama for losing international luster over the Olympics now ripping him for the most prestigious international award. And it'll just turn off people to the right even more. Sure, the average American will agree that this is somewhat premature, but they'll understand that Obama didn't actually give himself the award and will ultimately give him a pass as the right continues to whine and foam.
I echo Fe's comments above. From our isolated perspective, this does seem premature, but the Nobel committee's release makes it clear they rewarded it for what Obama had already accomplished.
This is about as objective a depiction of how America was perceived in the past 8 years internationally as one could ask for.
Consider what we might look like to the rest of the world. We talk in our newspapers and on TV about the "existential" threat of terrorism or Iran when by all standards neither terrorism nor Iran pose any existential threat to us. Both are bees buzzing in our ears. I don't mean to minimize individual deaths or anything, but nothing we are confronting today equals what the Soviet threat was. Not even close.
Add to that the previous administration's policy of pre-emptive war using the most powerful military ever in the history of the world. From outside of our country, this must have been a scary proposition.
Just by changing these policies, Obama has caused a huge sigh of relief across the world.
I don't think I ever quite realized how genuine the anxiety the rest of the world must have had the last 8 years until this morning.
Any Democrat could look good succeeding George Bush.
None of the others would have won this prize.
This one was strong enough to send Mitchell to the Middle East, Holbrooke to Af-Pak, and Clinton to State, while keeping Gates at Defencee and Petraeus in high command.
Remember when Joe Biden predicted that the world would test Obama in his first months? It didn't happen. It didn't happen because Obama worked the planet, the right way, from the minute he left Grant Park and started working on the transition. The world's monsters got the word that he wasn't a guy to challenge.
He actually is the best president of our lifetime, and we do actually already know it.
We hate this prize because admitting Obama is that good means we've got to do better ourselves.
"We hate this prize because admitting Obama is that good means we've got to do better ourselves."
Scorpucine I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what that means. Re Obama being the best president of our lifetime, I sure hope it turns out that way, and I'm optimistic, but he's barely been in office six months! I dont think even he would say that at this point. This is like voting someone into the hall of fame after winning the rookie of the year award.
Barack Obama would most certainly not say he's the best. But he is.
Bill Clinton couldn't have turned world opinion that fast. He couldn't have passed the stimulus, and he couldn't have assembled that cabinet, and he couldn't have gotten our enemies to be sure he was in command at a pace like that. Nor could Reagan or Carter or Nixon or JFK or Ike or Truman or FDR. Nor could Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or Mondale.
Obama's already doing it.
Now it's time for the rest of us to figure out what we can add to the equation on economic recovery and what we can add on passing health care and what we can add on closing Gitmo and what we can add on reversing DADT already. We've got the right guy at the top and we'd better be the right people at the grass roots.
I agree it may be premature in some ways, but I appreciate the Nobel committee doing this anyway. When the world's biggest out-of-control bull is now deciding to change policy and not bust up the global china shop, that is a substantive change for peace and the Nobel encourages the continuation of that.
Are we changing policy that much? Has Obama decided, finally, to end the occupation of Iraq? To pull our troops out of Afghanistan? To investigate and prosecute state-sanctioned torture, to repudiate it and call it unequivocally a war crime?
I agree that his speech in Cairo was excellent, and that his rearticulation of the US's already-existing legal commitment to total nuclear disarmament was a welcome message to the UN and the world. But how it going to look if Obama answers a question at a press conference about the prize by explaining why he's ordering 20,000 more US troops to be sent to Afghanistan?
He will explain that he's decided that's the best way forward for getting that country on a path to peace.
Four days back from a trip to a foreign country where I spent a good bit of time trying to explain the religious right and their opposition to universal health care. Stupidity doesn't translate well so many folks across the Atlantic just don't get the far right. It's safe to say that the world views Obama with hope that the nightmare of the last eight years is over and we've turned a corner where things can only get better. That's the opinion I heard.
I also know that if that award were decided by Americans, the Unibomber would have a better chance of winning than the president.
Given our paranoia about 'black helicopters,' imagine the kind of nightmares our behavior induced even in rather more right-thinking Europeans.
They were seeing Sarah Palin's groupies, and thinking 'blackshirts' -- whether or not it was a valid comparison, the thought wasn't the best one to have before going to sleep.
Especially because the phrase 'it couldn't happen here' provides far less comfort for a European with even a modest historical insight.
When I heard the news, I was astonished. As many have said here, I think, it is very premature -- he really hasn't done anything concrete yet, has he? Yes, with his rhetoric, he has created feelings of "hope" in the world, but nothing has come to fruition yet.
Still, after my intial reaction, feelings of pride for Obama set in. I am simply proud that this American black man has the international community in his thrall; he has seduced the world.
This seems like a collective "thank you, Jesus", after the Bush years.
Amen. And we'll understand it better by and by.
Bill Clinton must be livid
Let's face it. The Norwegians were bored and looking for something to liven up their weekend. So, they decided to poke the American wing-nut nest with a big stick and watch the resulting explosion.
Personally, I would like to have been a fly on the wall of Bill Clinton's house when he heard the news!
Why would Norway even know or care who Rush Limbaugh is? They don't.
I've always found it surprising what Scandinavians do indeed know about the U.S. (I once saw a broadcast in Sweden -- Swedish news -- that reported on some dog in Kentucky being lost down a well. Combine that with the fact that most younger Scandinavians speak English pretty darn well, and I wouldn't be surprised if politically-minded Norweigians did indeed know exactly who Limbaugh was.)
few things are a complete surprise thesedays....THIS is a complete surprise.
This award says more about what the international community has thought about the U.S. than anything Obama has done. This seems like yet another repudiation of George Bush. I voted for Obama, I respect my President, but think about it - this committee, hell people around the world, had such a low opinion of our country, that when we finally did something right (like elect a man with common sense) they give him an award! I'm not trying to take anything away from the President (he is a necessary step for this country to move forward), but my visceral response was "Damn, we fucked up a LOT."
I am not going to get any work done today, surfing the internet, laughing at the wackadoos losing their ever-lovin' minds. Good times to be had by all today.
That makes total sense - it's about how the world sees us and Obama, not (ironically) about how we see us and Obama. And it's definitely a big F*** YOU to Bush II.
Still drooling over all the loony toony right wing reactions. Oh BOY I feel just like, um, just like the right wingers felt when Chicago was not given the Olympics!
Puts him in the company of Henry Kissinger.
At least it's not an election year.
... That said, GAPeach is right about the thinking of the international community -- for many, the United States was beginning to seem like a rogue elephant (is 'bull in the China shop' a better metaphor?).
Given that impression, it makes all sorts of sense that the Nobellians would reward the fellow who appeared to rein in the United States' use of power.
-- the subtext to the Nobellian's thinking is that the United States ca. 2008 was the greatest threat they could see to world peace. Staggering thought... but then these folks have a very vivid impression of what happens when a great power goes rogue.
We're all Norwegians now.
I actually just did LOL. That's funny! Nice work brokensq.
They're giving a prize for Peace to a man leading a War in Iraq, a War in Afghanistan, and a War on Drugs against his own people?
I can't be the only one that feels like they're living in Oceania. War is Peace!
As I said, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. The peace prize is a curiously amoral honor -- had it been around in the 1880s, it would likely have gone to Bismarck after the Congress of Berlin.
It is not a prize for a 'man/woman of peace' but rather for someone whose actions most contributed to world peace.
It was either a 'slow news year' ... or we were really beginning to terrify the Europeans. I think the latter is the likely case.
Well, he did announce the troop withdrawal from Iraq. He did draw down the raids on medical marijuana. I have to assume that they might have done this to push him in the direction of peace on Afghanistan.
But the point is definitely taken.
Roderick Long has given the example of convincing a serial killer to cut back from 100 victims a year to 50. We can endorse the direction of change, but a policy of committing only 50 murders per annum is not exactly praiseworthy.
Well, all I can offer is that I was always against the Iraq War, largely against the drug war, and I think we should have figured out Afghanistan a long time ago. I do think that orderly withdrawals help towards peace in general. I'm not saying that nothing is his fault but these are all things that existed before he took over, and he seems to be moving towards scaling them down.
The Nobellians aren't necessarily pacifists, which means for them that war is not necessarily murder.
Nobel's riches came from his manufacture of high explosives, mainly for the Western Front. His horror arose from the _scale_ of destruction to which he had contributed.
(replying to Carrinton @11:10 here as comments only nest finitely)
Yes, yes. The serial killer is a loose analogy. None the less, the point remains that the absolute measure does matter, and I think it matters more so than the relative in both cases.
used to be hellfire rockets, now it's remote controlled peaceambassadors raining down universal love & understanding to the wedding parties below
Are peaceambassadors like Molotov bread baskets?
At least the Russians feel they can ask Obama to pursue a war on drugs for them in Afghanistan.
Give the man credit, he has pushed hard on nuclear non-proliferation. Our ambassador met with Iran's for the first time in a decade, and they managed to bang out a mutually-beneficial agreement about turning Iranian uranium into usable reactor fuel (that's also much less likely to be turned into bombs or bomb research). In arranging those meetings, he brought Russian pressure to bear on the Iranian situation, something that no one in thirty years had managed. He's got China encouraging North Korea to reopen non-proliferation talks, unthinkable two years ago, and lest you say this is more potential than action, NK of its own initiative offered to reopen talks on toning down their nuclear program, which is more than they've been willing to do in years. It's also a complete reversal of their previous belligerent-to-the-end stance on outside meddling in their nuclear ambitions, arguably attributable to the way Obama has made negotiations stylish again on the world stage. He did a 180 on a major world power's public image, and other countries are following his lead.
I don't necessarily agree with the award (I think it should have gone to womens' rights advocates in the middle east), but I think it's interesting in that it highlights the importance of how the US arranges its foreign policy. In eight years of neo-con truculence and refusal to engage, other countries followed and we got situations like the belligerent standoff with NK, the increasing hostility from Russia, the refusal to negotiate from Iran, China's refusal to back anything that might be considered positive to the US world agenda, etc. In eight months under Obama, there have been notable softenings in all those positions, as the world follows the tenor of the US foreign policy position again. I guess the argument is that getting the world to collectively tone down the self-righteous posturing and making such talks possible is the biggest contribution to peace of the year.
I have a lot of respect for President Obama. I think he has the potential to make a strong, positive impact on world affairs. But,
I think we need to expect MORE of people with his intellect and abilities, not less. This just looks like he's being graded on a curve.
I appreciate what the Nobel committee was trying to do, but I honestly thing this hurts Obama politically going forward. From now on, the standard joke will be something along the lines of "President Obama took his dog for a walk this morning...and won a Nobel Prize!" "President Obama watched SportsCenter over the weekend...and won the Stanley Cup!"
I think he should respectfully decline the award, saying that he hopes he will be considered again in the future after he has some concrete, world-changing accomplishments under his belt. I think that's the only way to lessen the political damage this could do.
I think he should respectfully decline the award, saying that he hopes he will be considered again in the future after he has some concrete, world-changing accomplishments under his belt. I think that's the only way to lessen the political damage this could do.
Meh, the wingnuts will somehow spin it into something negative anyways. They'll say he's so narcissistic that he thinks he's too good for the Nobel Peace Price or something like that.
It's not the opinion of the wingnuts that worries me. I'm thinking about the people who already like the guy, but who are saying "huh?!"
I mean, if we're going to give out prizes for not being George Bush, then I think I should get one. I've been very disciplined about not being George Bush.
I'd tend to raise the bar a bit: the prize is, essentially, for defeating an incumbent but increasingly erratic and irresponsible political party.
It's not that George Bush was George Bush, it's that the United States was behaving like a wasp-stung rogue elephant.
Not a particularly comforting view of our own behavior.
The sad thing is that simply having a president who actually participates in diplomacy is considered a major step forward for world peace.
It is not pretty out there. It's certainly strange to give the Nobel Peace Prize for vision and intention rather than legacy, but the vitriol out there just gets scarier and more rash.
Or, more "rush."
The Nobel Committee just pitched him a great big softball. The wingnuts are going to over-react. When they do, that will be twice in the last week that they've really been anti-American: cheering when Chicago lost the Olympics, and booing when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I have been laughing all morning about this, the absurdity, and the fact that it's going to drive the crazies 'round the bend. But the more I think about it, the more I think it is a deserved prize, apart from the minor significance of the committee throwing in its lot with his cause.
The Bush administration got really frightening, to me. It wasn't just about political differences. I had been taught from grade school that there was a morality to being American, that there were things we did not do. Under Bush, these things were knocked over like so many dominoes -- torture. Waging preemptive war. The absurd fiction that if we call people "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoner" we need pay no attention to their rights, because they have none. It wasn't just that the Administration did bad things, which administrations have always done -- it was the declared refusal to be governed by silly moral considerations.
Obama made it clear on his first day in office, when he announced that Guantanamo would be closed, that we had been off course, and that there is a necessary morality to being America - if not by virtue of our myths, then by virtue of our enormous power.
Just righting the ship was significant enough, not just in what it means to us, but in what it means to the rest of the world, to deserve the prize.
I seriously thought it was an Onion News Headline when I first read it. WTF????
I love Obama, but this is way premature. This is the first I've ever heard that the Nobel Peace Prize was about intentions rather than achievements. Perhaps that's always the case with peace work: very difficult to show a concrete achievement as some "proof" of the work one does. I'm also in a bit of disbelief that Obama is currently the most deserving person in the world in the realm of peace work, if intention is the standard. Maybe he's the most visible and powerful person advocating diplomacy as a tool.... but surely there are lesser-known, less-powerful people pushing for diplomacy in the face of conflict and fear, under more challenging, life-threatening conditions than our President faces.
And where are we on bringing justice to those who advocated torture? How can one award a Peace Prize to someone escalating troops in Afghanistan? I'm not saying that's the wrong path, it just seems to contradict the idea of awarding Obama a Peace Prize.
As a conservative my opinion is that the award is clearly not earned, clearly just the Nobel committee's way of saying F-U to Bush, and is basically a joke.
That said, I don't know why anyone would hold this against Obama. He didn't give himself a stupid unearned reward and its not his fault that others did.
Honestly, I have a hard time getting upset about this. Its just so obviously dumb I don't see why anyone takes it seriously enough to get their knickers in a twist over it.
And as a liberal i think it's cool and I don't think it's obviously dumb, but then again I'm not a conservative ;)
Its just so obviously dumb I don't see why anyone takes it seriously enough to get their knickers in a twist over it.
The Nobel was totally discredited long before Obama got the award. Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Award for his role in ending a war that he escalated (Vietnam) and Arafat won for . . . well I don't really know how. Nobel voters have been out to lunch for several decades now.
It's interesting to me that the detractors are giving so much credence to something that supposedly they hate so much. I'd say to those who are most vociferously against Obama getting this: if you have such a low opinion of what this particularly group of Northern Europeans think, why are you upset that Obama got this award?
I mean that question especially for some on the right wing who look askance at involvement in the U.N. at all, or even those during the Bush years who supported his "cowboy non-diplomacy" style. I mean really: if you disdain international diplomacy so much, who cares what the Nobel Peace Prize committee thinks?
I don't think this prize is really about Obama personally, I think it's purely symbolic of what his administration represents to many: a chance at a measured, calm, rational and diplomatic American presidency and foreign policy.
I see it as a nice gesture, no more no less, but I am proud that the got this prize. But it doesn't mean a whole lot, maybe he can parlay it into more "soft" diplomatic power. I am an American: how can I cannot be at least somewhat proud of our president getting this award?
somewhere in heaven, Big Maybelle is singing "Turn the World Around the Other Way..."