An Unbelievable Award

I, like most of the world, was stunned to awake to the news this morning that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he had been nominated just two weeks after assuming the presidency. Of course the internet has lit up with both ordinary people and pundits weighing in on this amazing development. Seeing as I got off of work early today, I thought I’d summarize some points I’ve made in various conversations.

The first point I’d like to address is the efforts by Republicans like Mike Huckabee to reign in criticisms by his party of Obama, lest others interpret it as mean-spirited grumbling from the right. This is of course a response to the contention by many commentators that the Republicans came off as shill and bitter by cheering the Olympic "loss,” because it disrespected the president. While I (a) think that it was beneath the office of the presidency for Obama to make a personal pitch for Chicago, and while I (b) think that his decision to go to Copenhagen was an unneeded political risk (which came true when Chicago came in dead last), and while I (c) think that from an economic standpoint Chicago actually won by losing their bid, I too agree that some were too giddy in Rio’s victory because of their personal dislike of Obama’s policies.

That said, if we as Americans were supposed to be united in our disappointment that Chicago lost the Olympics, I think it is fair to apply the same line of reasoning to today’s news. If Obama’s failure to bring the Olympics home wasn’t just a loss for him, but a loss for all of us, I think it is equally true that his win today is a loss for all of us, for the simple reason that if we’re all united behind our country and its leaders, we ought to be upset for the reason that the Nobel Committee gave for giving Obama the award—that he's not former President Bush. Now, you may disagree with Bush’s foreign policy, and I certainly didn’t agree with everything that he did, but as Americans we ought to respect him as much as we do Obama. For us to pretend that Obama’s peace prize is anything but a thumbing of the elitist European establishment’s noses at Bush is to be disingenuous (blatantly more so even than the Nobel Prize Committee’s awarding the prize to President Carter or Vice-President Gore, both of whom had at least made notable efforts at changing the world for decades, with tangible results [especially Carter’s leadership bringing about the 1978 Camp David Accords) vice the two weeks Obama had spent in office when he was nominated.)

This leads me to my second point, that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a politically-charged process; if for no other reason that peace often comes through political channels (not to slight good people like Mother Teresa or MLK, Jr.). No one should be surprised that the committee wanted to take another stab at Bush, even though he has admirably refrained from inserting himself into either domestic or global politics since leaving office. After all, Bush represents that which Europeans hate the most about Americans—that we lead from the front, aren’t afraid to throw our weight around, and certainly don’t kowtow to the policies or politicians of other countries (or the UN for that matter). Remember, to Europeans we are still the young, brash upstarts of 1776 and deep down inside many of them are insanely jealous of the youthful vigor our country has, the vibrant democracy and melting-pot multiculturalism we have maintained, and the ascendant role America plays in international politics. Quite simply, they wish they were us, and Bush did nothing to soothe their bruised egos.

Further, the Nobel Prize Committee has awarded this prize before based on potential rather than on results as a way to hopefully spur further efforts at making peace (cf. the 1994 prize awarded to Yasir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for their peace-making efforts in answering the Israeli-Palestinian problem). Unfortunately, as in the 1994 prize, the committee has often struck out when doing so, which just waters down the importance of their award.

The third point I’d like to make is that even though I disagree with much of Obama’s agenda, I can't help but feel sorry for him this morning. This award will hang around him like the proverbial millstone. If anything, it will further unite his critics here at home, especially regarding his decision on Afghanistan. No matter his decision there, he was bound to upset a huge chunk of his constituency. If he decides to send more troops in hopes that a surge will work as it did in Iraq, he will upset many of the doves who think we should sharply curtail our footprint in Afghanistan and it would belie his image as a peacemaker. If, on the other hand, he decides to change the direction of our mission in Afghanistan and pull back our troops, he leaves himself open to greater criticism from hawks who think he’s gone soft and is too worried about his standing with the European Establishment, too worried about his image as a peacemaker. Further, by receiving this award, Obama is virtually guaranteed to seem like all the bigger failure when the Iranians (inevitably) develop nukes, and when the Israelis and Palestinians (inevitably) continue to fight it out no matter what he says or does (which is not his fault any more than it the fault of any of our past presidents).

In their blind hatred of Bush then, the committee has set Obama up for failure. This award just adds to the global expectation that he will somehow save the world, which isn’t his job in the first place. Therefore, while many of us may applaud his rhetoric and change of tone in the international political arena compared to his predecessor, Obama will now no longer be judged just based on his words, but on what he actually produces. As a result, this is a watershed moment in his presidency. So far, many of us have given Obama the benefit of the doubt. After all, he isn’t Bush, and that’s good enough! He’s said all the right words and delivered wonderfully hopeful speeches about peace. He’s reached out to Russia, Iran, etc. But now he simply has to produce, or he’ll join the (too long) list of past awardees who have failed to produce.

END NOTE: I think that Obama struck the right tone in his speech this morning. He knows that he isn’t deserving of the award and isn’t afraid to say it. Personally, I wish that he would refuse the award, but know that there are many legitimate reasons for him not to do so. Further, I think that he probably knows that this award doesn’t give him any greater authority or legitimacy in his various diplomatic efforts. Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda, nor Hamas give a hoot about his shiny new medal.