Why the Nobel judges love Obama
Is it really so surprising that the president won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Obama responds to the news of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize (Christy Bowe/Corbis)
What happened
Four of the Nobel jury's five judges on Tuesday publicly defended their decision to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said Obama deserved the award because his efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world, along with other actions, had "contributed to, I wouldn't say a safer world, but a world with less tension." (AP in The Washington Post)
What the commentators said
"The Nobel Committee did President Obama no favors by prematurely awarding him its peace prize," said Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. Even Obama acknowledges "he has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award." It's not Obama's fault "that the Europeans are so relieved at his style of leadership, in contrast to that of his predecessor, that they want to do all they can to validate and encourage it." Still, it's a shame to see such an important award devalued.
Giving Obama the Nobel didn't devalue it, said Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. He's just the kind of person the judges love—"goodists" who think all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstandings. Ever heard of Bertha von Suttner, Henri La Fontaine, Ludwig Quidde, Norman Angell, Arthur Henderson, Eisaku Sato, Alva Myrdal and Joseph Rotblat? No? Like Obama, they're "goodists" who never accomplished much before winning the prize, and they all subsequently disappeared as "footnotes of history."
But Obama is president of the United States, said J.P. Freire in the Washington Examiner, so the Nobel judges want something from him. That's why it's so clear that giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is an unacceptable example of foreign meddling in American politics. "If Obama is going to be tempted to consider peace, let it be because it is in American interests, not because he wants to hold true to Nobel's ideals."
Conservatives are livid that Obama didn't decline the prize, said Garrison Keillor in the Chicago Tribune. But the Nobel is just a compliment—the polite thing to do is accept it gracefully, as Obama has, and sit down. "The wailing and gnashing of teeth that you hear among Republicans" is mostly envy, because the other side elected "an idealistic, articulate young president who is enormously popular everywhere in the world except in the states of the Confederacy." Maybe they wish Dick Cheney had won—but they don't give Nobels to a man who "has shot somebody in the face with a shotgun."
Show: Oldest | Newest
16 Comments
Posted by kemardens, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 6:54 pm JP Frier: What a selfish and low article! Do you know any instances where the USA had meddled in the affairs of other countires? Not only are you disingenuos, but as journalist if that is your claim to fame, you clearly need a lesson in critical thinking skills, specifically looking at logical fallacies. Add ethics to that. You imply that gifts or presents recieved, are meant to be bribes. How can you defend such rubbish? Can you support with valid evidence that awarding the Nobel prize is bribery?
Posted by Nils Thompson, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:04 pm And the country suffers on because we only have ONE party that is making sense while the other one wallows in selfpity! I believe that the hope President Obama gives all of us through his attempts at restoring our economy and the respect for the U.S. around the world after the GOP brought us ridicule and contempt from around the world. If the GOP would just try to work for our country instead of constantly attacking the President's efforts...after all, the GOP did lose the election by many more than a few votes!
Posted by Howard, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:24 pm If the committee actually believes they awarded Obama because of his effort to heal the divide between the West and Muslims, then the committee should be expecting Obama to refuse the award because the award is widening the divide.
Posted by csouvan, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:25 pm The Writer has stated nothing than the logic. When any prize is awarded after a deed, it is a reward but if it is given because of a projected deed in the future, it's gambling. The loser is no one else, but Nobel. The prestigious name is then tarnished.But there is another logic, the Nobel judges know well Obama deserved a prize. It's amiracle that an obscure young half black politician with no real experience, no proof of where he was born, how he obtained his academic financial aids as a citizen or as a foreigner, has been elected POTUS.
Posted by grasspress, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:32 pm garrison keiller got it just right. the conservatives in this country or any country simply do not understand the concept of peace and cooperation. they like bullying and aggression, but they are always careful not to put themselves in harm's way, leaving that up to the children of others.i don't mind a bit if the nobel peace prize goes to a person who exemplifies the idea and hope of peace throughout the world! right on, nobel peace prize committee!
Posted by Houston, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:34 pm How does the United States feel that it has a say in who gets this award?? America is a nutty nutty racist country. America's input in trying to tell this other country what to do with their own darn Nobel prize is very STRANGE!!!
Posted by Robert, Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 8:08 pm csouvan wrote It's a miracle that an obscure young half black politician with no real experience, no proof of where he was born, how he obtained his academic financial aids as a citizen or as a foreigner, has been elected POTUS.And you want to know why the majority in the USA and the world consider the GOP to be stupid? It's ignorant idiocy like this racist comment. Why don't you contact the Hawaii Secretary of State who long ago validated the President's natural born citizenry. You would rather cling to your paranoid delusions.
Posted by Christian Response, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 3:08 am What's interesting is that Obama cancelled an appointment with the Dali Lama, a former Nobel Peace Prize winner himself, days after receiving the prize himself. What's the recent prize winner saying? Human rights violations aren't worthy of attention because I need to keep up good trade relations with China? Granted we need China to make our shoes, provide our steel, etc., and granted we don't need Himalayan Yakmilk, but human rights are human rights, and you don't need a Nobel prize to figure that out. Obama to the Dali Lama: 'Yo Mama!'
Post a Comment