Peace, dude

I had to check the link to make sure it wasn’t a joke that I wasn’t getting. That’s just bizarre.

I would’ve thought “repeatedly bombing countries you haven’t declared war upon” might be a sticking point for the committee too, but that just shows what I know.

4: The funny thing is, the Peace Prize Committee has done just that before. They didn’t award a prize in 1948, I think it was, because there were no suitable living candidates.

@3, 5: You’d think POTUS would have got wind of something like this, given he’s POTUS, fercrissakes…

My gob is well and truly smacked here. The ghost of LBJ, who actually achieved a considerable change for the better in American society while also running an endless unwinnable war, must be wondering what he did wrong.

OTOH, the Peace Prize was terminally discredited when it was awarded to Kissinger, so what the hell.

Once you read it’s happened you see it was inevitable: three of the last eight have gone to US politicians. To put it another way, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale are the only Democratic presidential candidates not to have won it since the Vietnam War (when, historians will recall, satire died as Henry Kissinger won it).

And…

Eistedfodd admirers – no prize was awarded in 1966, 1967 and 1972.

I am so looking foward to the next 24 hours in the blogosphere… from a safe distance, anyway.

Obama is a fly-killing ninja. As such, he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Embarrasing and ridiculous, gladdened though my heart was by his election victory, and sure though I am that I will never see a more sympathetic American president. Iraq goes on, Afghanistan intensifying and spiling ever more into Pakistan, yet to prove his bona fides on Israel-Palestine or climate change or indeed civil liberties…

Some excellent speeches which have restored nuclear disarmament to the international agenda – but no actual achievements on this front yet.

I guess this will be a political liability more than anything to him?

If the Nobel is delivered in the manner of US foreign policy, they’ll be picking razor-sharp shards of it out of wedding guests in Maryland

And the GOP will get plenty of help from idiot stenographers like Gibbs and Cowell, who wrote the story Maria linked to, and who repeat Republican talking points for them unprompted. Check the last graf in the first version of the piece, which they removed (to their slight credit; what was it doing in there in the first place?) literally just as I was typing this:

‘Only a week ago, President Obama suffered a blow to his prestige when the International Olympic Committee, meeting in Copenhagen, awarded the 2016 Games to Rio de Janeiro despite a personal appearance by the president to promote a bid by Chicago. CNN quoted Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, as saying on Friday: “Oslo beats Copenhagen any day of the week.”‘

I should be able to draw the conclusion that the prize is inappropriate–which I do–without having to hear the adolescent slur that it’s all a part of the great big international ego trip that is the Obama presidency. I admit Salient’s vision of the GOP’s nutcases swinging about wildly is amusing, but still.

And I’ll add OT that if the graf does at least quote Emanuel correctly, Obama needs to stuff Biden in his mouth, or vice versa. You’re supposed to be defending the castle, dumbass, not picking up the cannonballs and carrying them the rest of the way in.

This article is sobering about “aspirational” Nobels: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/30/dangerous_prize

WTF?? What in God’s name were they thinking?

The ghost of LBJ, who actually achieved a considerable change for the better in American society while also running an endless unwinnable war, must be wondering what he did wrong.

Wake me up when Obama has actually achieved any meaningful change in American society.

Can he, though? I don’t see any way he can “respectfully” decline it.

My worry; does the award give Obama more impetus to get stuff done, or is it just a slightly embarrassing prize for him turning up and breathing?

Third option: it’s a big “F- you” to Bush and the Republicans.

The nobel committee should win the nobel prize for satire.

Nah, satire has been dead since they awarded the Peace Prize to Kissinger.

Ooh, I like the idea of awarding a Nobel Prize for Satire. This needs to become a meme, stat.

For all the concerns that the Nobel Peace Prize is undeserved, or at the very least premature, it seems to be quite inline with the founder’s wishes:

“to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

In short, this award seems to be reserved for heads of state more than the average joe. Whereas there are people we’d prefer be honored, not many folks have the sort of stature as envisioned by the founder, Alfred Nobel, to actually qualify for the award.

That said, while I have my own reservations about this pick–namely that it will provide fodder for his political enemies–it seems that Obama certainly qualifies for the award in the spirit that it was originally intended.

Declining it very publicly is the only possible way of making political capital out of this. (I know that, with other Nobel Prizes, there is no way of vetoing one’s nomination, and no real way of declining in advance).

Ridiculous. It would be hilarious if, as several people have said, it didn’t create sucha risk of bad consequences.

Good to see the Nobel Committee back on the paint fumes.

I don’t think this will matter for Obama at all, either way. I don’t think he should decline, either (because that would just create more of an uproar and distraction)
I do think it’s a terrible, terrible move for the noble peace prize.
Because
a) the remaining shred of legitimacy it may have had with some conservatives is now definitely (and, sad to say, justifiably) gone and
b) what a waste of resources. The prize can do actual good if awarded to some lesser known person or entity – to provide moral legitimacy and in some cases even important funding. Shirin Ebadi was such a case. Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo were. The anti-landmine campaign arguably, too.

Not good at all.

to be fair, “being a lincoln” is not going to win anyone any pacifism prizes

Obama’s contribution to world peace really was nothing more than not being George Bush.

Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Declining it very publicly is the only possible way of making political capital out of this

I don’t see this at all. Let’s be clear – this is the Nobel Prize For Not Being Bush. It is the big “welcome back” from the international community, which has more or less written the USA off over the last eight years. Throwing it back in their faces can’t be done respectfully because it’s clearly not a prize for Obama’s achievements, any more than Krugman’s was for new trade theory; it’s a prize for America, for not being Nixonland any more.

And the political capital will create itself. The wingnuts are going to go apeshit about this. And they’re going to do so in the nastiest way possible and damage themselves badly. Specifically, I predict that they’re going to do enough “affirmative action” jokes to irritate the black vote into showing up for a midterm in the same numbers they did for the Presidential. The jujitsu approach of acting graciously and allowing his enemies to demonstrate what kind of people they are is Obama’s chief political strategy.

a) the remaining shred of legitimacy it may have had with some conservatives

Norway to conservatives: the culture wars are over and you lost.

…any more than Krugman’s was for new trade theory

I agree with everything you’ve written so far but this? I’m surprised that anyone (outside of American conservatives) would think that Krugman’s prize was that premature. Is this view common?

Kissinger was a war criminal and just kind of a monster overall. But he did, in fact, do quite a bit to de-escalate the Cold War. Obama “changed the mood?”

On the plus side, Obama can basically dust off the Cairo speech and give it again:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West America and the world includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam the rest of the world are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

Et cetera.

“Surely it ought to be a basic criterion for winning a peace prize that you shouldn’t be currently fighting a war, or at the very least that you shouldn’t be increasing your commitment to a war you’re already fighting?”

You are my new hero.

I suppose it could be worse. After all Henry Kissinger was given (I am unable to write “won”) a Nobel Peace Prize.

Well said, David. At least Jimmy Carter’s and Al Gore’s years of “Not-Being-Bush” credentials offered the committee more of a fig leaf than this award does.

What a howler…You begin to wonder if an international organization can damage their brand further after nominating Arafat as a recipient but then they elect Obama after he’s been president for 11 days!!! The balloting closed 11 days after he had been elected. Hilarious.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/nobel-oblige-in-peace-prize-careful-what-you-dont-wish-for.html

Obama and his people would never, I hope, be so stupid as to casually dismiss a large chunk of the 47% of the voting population who cast a vote for someone besides Obama

Are you seriously trying to claim that every single McCain voter is so rabidly partisan that they would regard it as a disgrace (rather than an honour, which it palpably obviously is) if the President of the USA were to accept one of the world’s highest honours, on behalf of the USA?

Actually, early indicators of the impact are disappointing. LGF looks subdued. Malkin’s comment thread has already broached the “affirmative action” jape, but there’s nothing really creative yet. Redstate isn’t that insane either. They’re all essentially going “WHAT!??” at each other.

Perhaps they need to work through the Kubler-Ross cycle a bit further before they really freak.

It begins! Free Republic:

“President Barack Obama has been named the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and winner of baseball’s National and American League Cy Young Awards.”

By the way, how long until Obama reveals that his real name is Nicolae Carpathia?

Are you seriously trying to claim that every single McCain voter is so rabidly partisan that they would regard it as a disgrace (rather than an honour, which it palpably obviously is) if the President of the USA were to accept one of the world’s highest honours, on behalf of the USA?

Hardly. I am, however, claiming that treating the Peace prize–or allowing conservative stooges to set us up to treat the prize as–a victory lap in the continuing culture wars will almost certainly not win Obama one vote or one sympathizer, but rather will make his job harder. While a graceful, humble declining of the award will rob his opponents of ammunition, and will perhaps win him a vote or a sympathizer here or there. (Besides, I would be astonished if anything more than a tiny percentage of McCain voters would agree with you that the Nobel Peace Prize is “one of the world’s highest honors.” )

Umm, LGF is no a longer hard-core crazy right wing website.

But here’s some more Free Republic:

I am surprised they didn’t give him the prize for science to because of his amazing ability to READ a teleprompter.

I thought affirmative action was just an American phenomenon.

Who would of thought you could accomplish to much in life just by being black and able to read.

And in another sense, he deserves it to: For bowing to a Saudi king (did it close to, if not within the 10 day window). In a sarcastic sort of way…

I think they felt sorry for him, and gave him the medal as a consolation prize for not being able to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

And Barry, there’s plenty of confirmation for your hypothesis:

If he truly had America’s interest at heart he would tell the committee thanks but he can’t accept the award and promptly order the 40,000 more troops that the General requested to Afghanistan.

OK, I’m done exposing this thread to carcinogens now.

I can see plenty of democrats and independents feeling vague distaste about the whole thing.

I can see basically everyone who has been advocating for withdrawal of armed forces from Iraq and agitating against escalation in Afghanistan just cringing at the news, or at least feeling awkward about it.

The jujitsu approach of acting graciously and allowing his enemies to demonstrate what kind of people they are

It’s a great approach – a year on he still strikes me as cooler than any POTUS has a right to be. But I wonder how it plays with people who aren’t predisposed to like leftish intellectuals. I suspect that to a lot of people his shtick comes over as “acting gracious and cleverer than you” (“I think it’s important to realise that I was actually Black before the election”…), and I suspect a lot of those people aren’t particularly charmed as a result. But if you can’t exclude ignorant bigots, who the hell can you exclude?

Oh yes, there we go:

Obama HUMBLED?

Mr. ARROGANT, RACIST with the chip on the should ENTITLEMENT?

Obama is a sorry excuse for a human being and EVERYTHING you should NOT look up to or want your kids to emulate. Obama is EVIL. I wonder … is their an international ACORN group pulling the strings for this insane stuff?

Free Republic, the Web forum for people who really don’t like republics or freedom.

37- fairly is not completely and, though I don’t care much what he actually would have thought, your quote surely does anything but disqualify Obama. Maybe, see 44 – there should be an addendum – “The prizes might shock those with a pure AngloSaxon angle on anything.” If this prize makes US/UK citizens realize that there is opinion out there which is not voiced from a US/UK point of view, the prize will not be as ridiculous as I first thought ;-)

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news.

They’re disappointing me. I was expecting lots of One-World-Government stuff, rootless cosmopolitan, transnationalist, loved by foreigners, etc…but it looks like most of it is just going to be blackity-black-black-black. Yawn.

C’mon, wingnuts–you’ve never let me down before.

C’mon, wingnuts—you’ve never let me down before.

They’re not as creative as you give them credit for, I’m afraid. It really is the blackity-black-black that by far most sticks in their craw. “Black person in charge” is like antimatter in their bizarro mental universe.

Besides, I would be astonished if anything more than a tiny percentage of McCain voters would agree with you that the Nobel Peace Prize is “one of the world’s highest honors.”

but that was 47% of the American population, and most of them don’t know what the Peace Prize is? Christ, Russell, if you think America’s like that, why do you still live there?

The race angle is actually the crucial clue to make sense of this farce. It’s not about GWB at all.

It’s a belated attempt to spit on Woodrow Wilson’s grave.

He should graciously accept it. Acknowledge that there is a long way to go towards achieving true and last peace. Then move on to another topic.

Most people on right think the Nobel Peace Prize is a complete joke after it was awarded to Yaser Arafat in 1994.

dsquared: “Are you seriously trying to claim that every single McCain voter is so rabidly partisan that they would regard it as a disgrace (rather than an honour, which it palpably obviously is) if the President of the USA were to accept one of the world’s highest honours, on behalf of the USA?”

Russell Arben Fox : “Hardly. I am, however, claiming that treating the Peace prize—or allowing conservative stooges to set us up to treat the prize as—a victory lap in the continuing culture wars will almost certainly not win Obama one vote or one sympathizer, but rather will make his job harder. While a graceful, humble declining of the award will rob his opponents of ammunition, and will perhaps win him a vote or a sympathizer here or there. (Besides, I would be astonished if anything more than a tiny percentage of McCain voters would agree with you that the Nobel Peace Prize is “one of the world’s highest honors.” )”

So far, the rightwingers seem to interpret ‘graceful’ and ‘humble’ as ‘weak’ and ‘unamerican’. Frankly, how about we do the best that we can, and let the sh*theads freak?

We’ve had 8 years of letting the id rule the country, and it didn’t turn out so well.

Damn HTML thingies.

Wow. We all fall a little deeper down the rabbit hole.

“First, perhaps us liberals should care less about what you right-wingers think – and much less so after the administration of George ‘Deciderer’ Bush. When we’ve cleaned up the mess you left us, we’ll have a moral requirement to listen to you.”
uhm – who is the “you” in that sentence? If that refers to me, I’m most likely considerably to your left, which is why I’m not particularly excited about a centrist pol with already high exposure getting a prize that could do a lot of good for a lesser known genuine progressive. (cf. also the comments about actual Obama policies above).
And yet, I do think it’s worthwhile to try to maintain some common goals with at least parts of the conservative movement, especially where human rights, democracy, and poverty reduction are concerned. That’s of course very limited, but think of someone like Aung San Suu Kyi as a good example of how this can work. I just don’t see the prize having any effect whatsoever if it’s not viewed as somewhat nonpartisan at least.

“Second, you’re talking as if the right cared about the Nobel Peace Prize; my take is that they scorn it, because they value war more highly.”
who is “they”? Dick Cheney? Maybe. The entire conservatice movement? I don’t think so. And note that I said “last shred of…”

And as for d2 scenario – really? You think that? In which country have you lived these last months? I think right-wingers will spew, liberals will be outraged by some of their more crazy spewing, blacks and young people will still not show up in large numbers for midterm elections and median voter types won’t care. The political effect of this for US politics is going to be zero.

Btw. there is a precedent for declining the nobel peace – Le Duc Tho refused the 1973 prize with Kissinger (and Kissinger apparently attempted in vain to return it. Apparently the runner up in 1973 was Helder Camara, which brings me full circle: The alternative to giving the price to politicians is often to give it to genuine progressives, sometimes even actual leftists like Camara.

It would have been better if the Nobel Committee had waited a few years to be in a position to assess the impact of President Obama’s peace initiatives before considering him for a prize.

He should, right now, choose some family bankrupted by their child’s illness to give the money to and accept the award, while insisting on his unworthiness.

On reflection I think Obama has now done precisely the right thing, by accepting the prize (which really creates far less to-do than turning it down would do) while making it clear that he knows it’s not a reward for his personal achievements (which he rightly describes as modest compared to some of the past winners) but rather a call to action. As much as I often disagree with him, the man does have a lot of class and he can generally be relied on to hit the correct tone on occasions such as this.

Look at the other bright sides: at least you won’t have to say WTF? to this specific BS 2 or 6 years down the road:

“He’s just doing it to earn his place in history as the President of World Peace.”

It’s not hard to make the prize committee rational: (a) the prize is an effort to intervene in the world, not a retrospective evaluation of accomplishment, and (b) the U.S. administration seems to be at a decision moment over escalation in Afghanistan, among other things. It’s a transparent effort at positive reinforcement.

There’s also a larger point about the cultural economy of awards. Annual awards are publicity machines. You want publicity, you need controversy. What would be more boring than prizing a succession of uncontroversial do-gooders?

I am pretty sure that it can’t be an award for not being George W. Bush. To pick just one example, Maya Angelou has been not George W. Bush for longer and is also more different from George W. Bush than President Obama. For example, Maya Angelou has never been President of the United States, a prominent feature of George W. Bush’s life, while President Obama has. Also her last name is even longer than President Obama’s, while “Bush” is very short. If there were to be an award for not being George W. Bush she would beat out President Obama by a landslide, and would be comparable in her ability to give an acceptance speech afterwards.

I hereby nominate the Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo for the Ig Nobel Award for Peace in 2010.

@114: On the other hand, the gap between the number of people he _could_ have killed and those he actually _did_ is probably greater than anyone else you can name.

Except maybe the head of maintenance at the Aswan or Three Gorges Dam..

What has Obama done to deserve the Peace prize?

Um…How ’bout this: He kept the world’s largest nuclear arsenal out of the hands of John McCain, a man whose idea of foreign policy begins and ends with bombing runs.

Hell, they should give BHO the NP Prize for each of the next 3 years, too.

Final thought of the day: This award, obliquely or not, inadvertently or not, is Oslo’s gift to Americans without health care.

OK, can’t resist one more final thought of the day:

Nobel died in 1896 and did not leave an explanation for choosing peace as a prize category… Scholars who studied Nobel have said it was Nobel’s way to compensate for developing destructive forces (Nobel’s inventions included dynamite and ballistite)… the Irish Republican Brotherhood, an Irish nationalist organization, did carry out dynamite attacks in the 1880s and he was instrumental in turning Bofors from an iron company to an armaments company whilst he owned it.</b

So, while I sympathize with and even share the concerns of akatsuki and others, I’m not specifically convinced that Alfred Nobel would be spinning in his grave about this.

And (to be romantic for a moment) if the conferral of this award in any way helps to ensure that there is no U.S. escalation in, and in fact there is withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from, Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be entirely within the bounds of reason and propriety for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize committee to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize committee with the 2010 Peace Prize.

salient, LOL!

I think that removing the neo-cons from power is clearly an accomplishment well deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

@121 (Mars) and 126 (Jorgen),
Gee, you are both so right. This man of hope and peace (yeah, right) has kept the bomb out of the hands of someone who actually knows what hell war is, and at the same time does nothing to keep it out of the hands of whacko extremists like Kim of N Korea or Ahmadinejad (sp?). Now that he has been annointed the prince of Peace (prize) he will sit back while the Taliban get the bomb when they take over Pakistan.

PARITY FOR ALL guarantees nothing but chaos!

His acceptance was classy. But you guys are missing the point. They are awarding him the prize now because they can’t be sure of later.

I would argue that the award of the Nobel Prize is perfectly logical. Bear with me as I try and do a behavioral experiment – just as a thought experiment. Supposing you have control of the board. Supposing you were a member of the Nobel Prize committee. Naturally, you felt a certain sense of responsibility about things, but also felt that you had some measure of control over how you would like to see things go moving forward. Now take a look at this website : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm. On the site, you have a slider. You get to move the slider up and down. Isn’t it perfectly logical to say that whereas you don’t know for sure that climate change is going to cause an increase in temperature of 7 degrees, the expected losses from not acting are extremely high (given that the damage function is convex), and so you would rather go with hope, change and the possibility of action? You want to consider the possibility that the world years from now might look like the figure on the right rather than the figure on the left. Is it really illogical to say that you would rather err on the side of caution if the question is one of not letting the climate in Africa get shot to hell and quite simply one of avoiding catastrophe?

@ Erisian 10.10.09 at 6:35 pm

Your pal McCain also knows what hell it is to get caught taking a bribe…

epignosis 10.10.09 at 3:19 pm

” Could not help but notice that the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded during 1939-1943. Was there no “hope and change” person available. Perhaps it was to the benefit of Norway that some nations remained capable of waging war to purchase freedom for others less capable.
Perhaps, respectfully, the awarding committee members should be asked their opinions.”

Oh, so you’re a WWII vet? And if American, one who went to the UK in 1939 or so, volunteering to fight against fascism (i.e., not waiting for two years).

Cardinal sins against grammar aside, Alan Grayson somehow pre-emptively nailed this:

America understands that there’s one party in this country that’s in favor of health care reform, and one party that’s against it, and they know why. They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, Republicans would blame him for overpopulation. They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.

Alan Grayson Obliquely Predicts Nobel Peace Prize, Tells Bacon Joke

And here’s the follow-up, in which Grayson again expends whatever admiration he had accumulated by wishing for Barack Obama to win another couple Nobel Peace Prizes for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I wish we lived in a world where this guy was categorically out of line…

My initial swallowed comment had a bit of snark about the Nobel Peace Prize for War Crimes.

Salient, This dailykos diary has a Rachel Maddow clip wherein she makes the case for Obama’s prize for 11 minutes. The case consists of campaign rhetoric, immediate post-election rhetoric and beating McCain: other than beating McCain, it is all rhetoric, much of it unremarkable in substance (though not delivery) for a liberal and much of it undermined by subsequent actions. Well, OK, he’s taking to Iran. I do not think Maddow is joking. The author of the kos diary said this brought him almost to tears. There is a lot of this around.

Could not help but notice that the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded during 1939-1943.

No, the Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst were not known for being eager to facilitate demonstrations of liberal internationalism.