Nobel to 54% of U.S. voters? Update
Bill Mazzella has admonished the blogettes for not mentioning the Obama Nobel Prize. So let it be mentioned with Adam Nagourney summing up the reactions and pros and cons, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/us/politics/10assess.html?hp
The intent [or perhaps intention--per Jimmy Mac below (is there a Nobel for grammar?)] of the award is one of the reasons I voted for Obama; he would slow down the rush to empire and work to straighten out the disasters of 2001-2009. That appears to be more difficult than anyone imagined. I admire Obama’s serenity and calmness in the face of the cultural and political idiocy he has to work with. Maybe David Axelrod is onto to something when he opines that maybe it was awarded to the U.S. voter for bringing Obama to office.
Update to the cynics: Just remember Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (North Vietnamese) got the Nobel in 1973 for ending the slaugher in Vietnam, some 4 years after Nixon promised (falsely) to end it during the ’68 presidential campaign. Tho declined to receive the award.
I cioncur with Mrs. Steinfels, though I thoughgt the use of the word “idiocy” was banned here, even when appropriate.
It needs be added that there’s abroad consensus that the award is also still another “kick’
at the Bush/Cheney “idiocy.”
This is one reason the neocons jumpedup so loudly immediately after the announcement( of course, it’s coupled with their intransigence in fighting all things Obama.)
So the appreciation of the President in vast sections of the world is put down as weakness for not standing up for a strong America as these self styled patriots proclaim.
Real challenges lie ahead no doubt, but I join in an expression of pride in this selection!
The nature of empire and the speed with which it comes is all relative, isn’t it? Congrats on your award. What should we do with our cut of the prize money?
Donate it to community organizing.
I think it is a positive commentary on the American voter and what might be, with the message that Obama is trying to bring to the country and the world. I was surprised at first, but it really can be a vote of confidence for the United States of America. Is it a “pay it forward” award? In this case, I hope it works!
While I respect the president on many accounts, I feel the awarding of the prize was far too premature (especially since the nominations were due in early February). Why not give it to him in two or three years after he (hopefully) has made MAJOR strides toward building peace on the international stage.
If Axelrod is right is saying that the award was really to the voters, then the committee should have given the prize to the American people, and our president could have accepted it on our behalf.
The weaker angels of my nature believe that this award was a way for the Europeans to have gotten a “vote” in our election.
Given the way the U.S. has conducted itself in the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world should have a “vote” in our election. Anyway, the Norwegians got their ballots noticed.
“The intent of the award –”
I suppose that this is Grammar 101, but are “intent” and “intention” interchangeable — or are there Rules and Regulations about when to use either?
The pressure, the pressure. . .
This makes getting the “most likely to succeed” award in high school look like a piece of cake. . .which was always why I was glad I didn’t win it. . .
This a resounding repudiation of Bush/Cheney who introduced preemptive war into the US lexicon. Reagan was not like this at all. He worked with Gorbachev and other countries. He knew that isolationism and triumphalism is a defeatist foreign policy. This is a vote for the American people. Some very good people got deceived by the undeniable lying about Iraq. Early for history to make a judgment. But this is a no brainer. Obama gave the people somesone to make a choice with.
He certainly is having his challenges. Harry Truman warned Ike about the intransigency of bureacracy. The fact that Oslo had to send a message is to the shame of Bush/Chaney. This is why their followers are so vocal in opposition
Jimmy Mac. –
Good question. One of the most important philosophy books of the 20th century is Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Intention”. Linguistic analysis at its most acute. Highly complex subject.
Oh, how our standards for what counts as working toward world peace have fallen! Leave it to us narcissistic Americans to pat ourselves on the back for thirty seconds of good judgment at the voting booths. It’s almost as shameless as calling conducting two wars, maintaining one of the largest nuclear arsenals, failing to regulate one of the most aggressive capitalist economies, giving up on proposing a true public healthcare option, and allowing public education to slowly crumble all indications that the seeds of peace are being sown. Most likely to succeed, indeed! Look out world, here come the children of God!
Have they fallen? Since August 1914. September 1939. Oh youth!
Let me ask Eric, did you vote last November?
The award does seem aspirational at best.
Recently, I have had what strike me as brilliant ideas related to economics. It will be difficult to sleep tomorrow night as I wait with anticipation to see if the Nobel in Economics will come my way so as to recognize the potential of my brilliant ideas.
Yes, I did vote. I voted for Obama, but I would hardly consider that my contribution toward advancing world peace. Also, I did say OUR standards, not those of the Nobel committee. Just because past generations were/are willing to accept sub-standard exemplars of peacemaking, doesn’t mean future generations should just swallow the precedent. Oh age!
I have to say that my first reaction to the Nobel announcement was “But he hasn’t done anything yet!” But the award shows that the rest of the world is energized by America reengaging with the world. On one hand, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of that feeling. On the other, we’ll see if the rest of the world is ready to step up to address our shared problems. Will they help us with heavy lifting or leave it to us to do the hard things?
Of course, anyone who wants to side with the Iranians that President Obama is not ready for the award – strange bedfellows indeed!
Not to be too agey, Eric, you said “are” not Our. This completely clarifies matters. “Our” is exactly who?
I am glad you voted for Obama. Compared to the alternative, I think it was a vote for less war, and maybe more peace. But to agree with the temper of all the remarks; this is indeed an aspirational award. The rest of the world hopes we will stop making so much war. But then…wait a minute. What are the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Usbeks, Takis, etc. planning to do about Afghanistan?
http://www.slate.com/id/2232026/
Apologies for the mistake. I am sincerely blushing with embarassment, by the way. Indeed, an error of youthful haste.
Also- http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/obamas-nobel-mixed-blessing-best
Which leads to http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stash/what-gore-thinking-morning
t the time Gore won his prize in 2007, it seemed like a well-deserved recognition of his heroic environmental activism. But now that the prize committee has basically announced that anti-Bush symbolism is an important criterion, doesn’t it take the sheen off his prize a bit?
On the Lehrer news hour the day of the Nobel announcement, Zbigniew Brzezinski (whom the tv announcers persist in mispronouncing) said he was delighted with Obama’s Nobel, but added that now it is up to the Pres. to earn it. That struck me as nice balance between the honor conferred by the prize and the aspiration implicit in that honor.
Another news program made the point that Obama is the 3rd African-American to win the prize, the others being M. L. King and Ralph Bunche. The latter won it for his work in the Israeli-Palestine conflict — in 1950, 59 (!!!) years ago. So much for at least some aspirations.
Speaking of aspirations, I would like to add Go Phillies! but I’m sure that’s out of bounds in a non-partisan program like this. And probably bad luck.
My suspicion is that the Nobel committee is no more prescient than Lincoln Steffens in 1921. Upon visiting the Soviet Union he declared: “I have seen the future and it works.”
The committee should take another tack. Before making awards they should require two secular miracles, listen to a Devil’s Advocate, and avoid predictions about international relations.
Americans shoulder the burden like no one else in the world. We are not narcisstic, and the use of that word is overworked. Our roles in the World Wars were reluctant at best, and were necessary for peace. Come on, let’s not lose sight of the individual’s ability to dig in and help this president as well as the rest of the country/world by fulfilling our individual roles to the best of our ability!
“This a resounding repudiation of Bush/Cheney who introduced preemptive war into the US lexicon. Reagan was not like this at all.”
It is not germane to the topic, but you should stick to things you have a passing familiarity with. President Reagan’s (and Bush’s for that matter, unless he was president on August 2, 1964) foreign policy is clearly not one of those things based on this grossly inaccurate and absurd statement.
Wow! Patrick Lang has a temper tantrum of Norwegian proportions. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/10/the-nobel-committee-and-obama-1.html “Early Christmas present for the “Republicans”; “patronizing”
Maureen Down gives us her funny take on Clinton and W’s reaction to Oslos decision. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
All kidding about Nobel’s for attempted Chemistry, or intended liturature aside, can someone please outline what concrete actions and policy changes have been accomplished (I’ll give Obama the benefit of 9 months instead of the two he was in office for before the nomination)?
As a Canadian, our love affair was short lived. We have been fighting the ‘buy American’ claus in the stimulus package since its inception and your recently appointed ambassador to Canada has no foreign policy experience, no background in Canadian relations and his only experience with Canada was a childhood trip into Ontario. But he is, no big surprise, a Chicago lawyer and Obama fundraiser. This nepotism would not have been tolerated by the media if it was anyone but Obama.
As far as I can tell, Obama’s plan to continue the Bush funding for aids in Africa, the use of predator drones in Pakistan, or his food aid program based on buying locally produced staples or continuing the long standing tradition of US presidents working for ‘peace in the middle east’ are amongst his major policy initiatives. But of course there is also the reversal of the Bush ban on abortion funding outside the US, and the semi-surge in Afghanistan. And of course the health-care reform (not that I am opposed to US health care reform per se, I just wonder and worry about the proposed direction of some aspects of the plan).
Bill Mazzella’s above article from the NY Times does a good job at demonstrating that the award is more a kick at Bush than a confirmation and affirmation of Obama’s policies. I have been slowly developing a sense that it doesn’t matter what Obama does (even if he followed a WWGWBD philosophy), only that he is not Bush.
But of course there is also the reversal of the Bush ban on abortion funding outside the US . . .
Abortion funding outside of the United States was prohibited before Bush was president and remains prohibited now that Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy. That is just a fact.
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html
Ross Douthat’s piece in the NYTimes this weekend mentioned other candidates who seemingly would be more deserving:
“Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s heroic opposition leader; or Thich Quang Do, the Buddhist monk and critic of Vietnam’s authoritarian regime; or Rebiya Kadeer, exiled from China for her labors on behalf of the oppressed Uighur minority; or anyone who has courted death this year protesting for democracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12douthat.html
They all seem to be admirable people. But the whole thing – not to mention Al Gore’s winning the award a couple of years ago – leaves me pretty confused as to what the award is actually for. Peace at any cost? Justice? Pacifism? Enviromentalism?(!) What is it supposed to be honoring?
Margaret: Your statement,
Given the way the U.S. has conducted itself in the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world should have a “vote” in our election.
is not worthy of your usual high level of civility; seemingly articulating a disgust with America only diminishes your stature as a Christian. And I don’t know about you, but the day some other country tries to subvert our constitution is the day I, well, no other way to say it, go to war (figuratively speaking of course). By the way, Obama hasn’t accomplished anything yet:
He lied about getting the troops out of Iraq, he lied about passing a climate bill, he lied about holding unemployment to 8%, he lied about closing Gitmo, and he lied about passing a health care “reform” bill by September (Note that I am deploying the type lexicon that you and yours used against President Bush, as in “he lied about WMDs in Iraq).
Other than that, I liked your past.
What did Mother Teresa accomplish? There is still hunger in Calcutta.
Desmond Tutu before he was given the prize?
The peace prize is not like the other prizes. Sometimes it is based on hope. It is a vote for a change of tone, away from the racism MLK confronted, the indifference Mother Teresa faced, the apartheid Desmond Tutu fights.
So before asking ‘What has Obama accomplished?’ ask ‘What is needed to bring peace?’ Is a change in tone by “the most powerful man in the world’ irrelevant to that effort?
One more. Hmm…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6869506.ece
Barack Obama’s Nobel peace prize is snub to Bill Clinton
Bob Schwartz: let’s see:
Steinfels: “Given the way the U.S. has conducted itself in the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world should have a “vote” in our election….is not worthy of your usual high level of civility; seemingly articulating a disgust with America only diminishes your stature as a Christian”
Steinfels to Schwartz: Have you tuned into the Cardinal Newman society recently? This is peanuts compared to what they think I’ve done to diminish my stature…which, of course, isn’t that tall as it is!
Schwartz “but the day some other country tries to subvert our constitution is the day I, well, no other way to say it, go to war (figuratively speaking of course).”
Steinfels: So what do you plan to do about the American political leaders who have already subverted the constitution.
Steinfels rejoins: And then because it’s a slow news day, let me really get your America First radar turned on: people with dual citizenship can vote in the elections of both nations. So let’s see, Israelis with American passports; Palestinians ditto; Iraqis…Afghanis. etc. What do you say to that?
Jim McK,
I think some distinctions should be drawn between intention, action, and achievement. Mother Teresa famously said that God does not ask for success, but rather, faithfulness. Now, I take that to mean that for one to be faithful, one must do good works, but not necessarily with the expectation that those good works will always be successful in achieving their good ends (because of factors beyond one’s control). So, no, Mother Teresa did not have to rid Calcutta of hunger to be worthy of recognition as a peacemaker. On the other hand, good intentions are not enough to warrant recognition, but good intentions must be turned into good works. I think one can reasonably expect the peace prize to recognize good action without falling below the threshold of celebrating mere good intentions (or the creation of a mood) or holding it to the too lofty standard of successful achievement of good ends. I think the figures you mention did more than create a particular hopeful tone, and they certainly did less than usher in the kingdom of God. Presumably, they did all in their power to strive toward ideals of peace. I’m not sure that Obama has done or is doing all that is in his power to work toward peace.
Well, Margaret:
Our constitution allows people with dual citizenship to vote in our elections, so they are not therefore subverting it. As for the American leaders who have subverted our constitution, well, our constitution provides for impeachment if that is the case. As for going to war, that would be as a citizen activist.
I’ll have to check out the Newman society and what they have to say about you. But regardless, I’ve always thought your heart was in the right place; its just that somewhere along the line I believe you’ve absorbed a modicum of a certain corrosive outlook on America and the institutional Church. I hope that doesn’t sound patronizing because I certainly don’t mean it that way. Incidentally, I’ve been reading Commonweal since the early sixties, when it had that plain-wrapper cover. Oher than that, it has not changed much.
I agree with Eric’s assessment of the worthiness of individuals for this prize. I hope our president delivers more as time goes on to grow into this prize. It will not only enhance and prove his own worthiness, but it will boost the United States’ esteem in the eyes of the world. I think Obama is a good choice and I hope he feels the pressure of that choice.
Eric, I pretty much agree with your distinctions. I even lean toward the position in your final statement. But I am not a member of the Nobel commission, so my positions do not make a whole lot of difference.
The Nobel commission has given the award to individuals not because of what they have done or intend to do, but because they have heard a voice of peace coming from someone. Given that, it seems rather odd to say Obama has not done enough to earn this reward. It’s like saying Michael Phelps should not be given an Olympic medal because he cannot run very fast.
Obama offers a new hope. (isn’t that from Star Wars?) Even if I could not hear that message, I can accept that the Nobel commission does. I hope that their recognition will spur him to work for peace. Perhaps it will affect his decisions on Afghanistan. This award has been given before to strengthen the voice that speaks for peace. Even if it is not a decision I would have made, I hope it works to make Obama more of a peacemaker and to bring greater peace to the world.
“I hope that their recognition will spur him to work for peace. Perhaps it will affect his decisions on Afghanistan. ”
Forgive me if this sounds anti-peace – it’s not – but I hope that this award has no effect whatever on his Presidential decisions.
Here’s why: whatever the worthiness of the bestowal, the Nobel Peace Prize is an individual honor. As President of the United States, President Obama doesn’t have the luxury, especially in these perilous times, of pursuing individual honors, even retroactively. Every single action and decision he makes for the next 3+ or 7+ years needs to be made with one and only one criterion in mind: the best interests of the United States. He must subsume all personal ambitions and desires to his country’s needs.
A Nobel Prize could become a distraction. I’d much rather see him do things that make the Norwegian committee rue the day they voted for him, if those things further the interests of the United States.
Jim McK, I share your hope.
Just want to respond to Bob S. , not that it will make a difference, that many Americans, especially those on the right, have little insight into the import of how we’rwe viewed abroad – that’s why we were stuck for years with ‘unilateralism.’
I continue to find the editorials here to be well above average and only died in the wool conservatives would see little appreciation thereof.
So it goes….
“… for ending the slaugher in Vietnam…”
Huh? That would certainly be news to the South Vietnamese who died in Campaign 275, the Ho Chi Minh Campaign, the Cambodia-Vietnam War, the Sino-Vietnam War, and in the purges. The history of the region I am familiar with records only an end to American involvement in SE Asia, not an end to the slaughter, if you are defining that as the killing of large numbers of people.
Bob and Jim,
It is probably sinful to equate being Christian with being an American. In fact, sadly, we consume a substantial amount of the world’s resources which does not in any way correspond to our numbers. It is always about being a Christian first. Remember it was a lot of greedy Americans who caused this great recession. Further, when asked about why he passed a tax break exclusively for the super rich, Chaney exclaimed: “We deserve it.”
Lincoln rightly said it is not whether God is on our side but rather whether we are on God’s side. Nationalism has always been the cause of war. It in incumbent on Christians to avoid such nationalism.
MAT: So sorry. I should have said “ending the U.S. slaughter in Vietnam,” which of course would have included the U.S. military slaughtered there.
Bill:
Can you show me the text where Jim or I asserted that being Christian equates with being an American?
“So sorry. I should have said “ending the U.S. slaughter in Vietnam,” which of course would have included the U.S. military slaughtered there.”
No need to aplologize. People always forget about the three or so million killed by the various liberal governments in and around SE Asia after the U.S. ended its participation in the Vietnamese-Sino civil war.