Politics with Marc Ambinder

« The Promise (And Pitfalls?) Of Obama's Nobel Surprise | Main | Don't Overlook The Nuke Factor »

Oct 9 2009, 9:08 am by Marc Ambinder

But Should He Turn It Down?

At Slate, John Dickerson writes that the Nobel committee shouldn't have awarded the prize to Obama, and Mickey Kaus urges Obama to turn it down. Kaus's reasoning is politics: Obama's narcissism problem -- Kaus's bolds -- will be exacerbated. 

This tracks with one argument I'm hearing and reading from Democrats and others who are skeptical of the prize: it will turn the volume and enthusiasm level all the way to the extreme end of the dial for conservatives -- overmodulating at 110%; the resulting hyperpolarization will hurt Obama's agenda. (Representative of this opinion: "I think it will feed not just conservative dislike but the growing concern of independents and elites, that he is a man of rhetoric, a work of imagination, but as of now an unaccomplished statesman. The smartest thing he could do is turn it down. It will backfire on him.'")

Another objection -- one that I'm hearing from smart folks from all ideological corners -- is less about politics and more about the prize: there are hundreds of human rights activists -- thousands -- who are more deserving the prize. It isn't just the prize of Arafat and Carter. Its the prize of Sakharov and Walesa, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ang San Suu Kyi and Shirin Ebadi -- people who risked their very lives for the sake of human dignity. A third objection -- mostly from some liberals -- is that Obama, on executive power, on transparency, on state secrets, is just like President Bush, and so an award that rewards him, or the country, for sin expiation is premature, at best, and moronic, at worst.

On the other hand, turning it down, even meant as gesture of humility, will not be interpreted as humility. Obama will probably say that he hopes that America lives up to the promise of the word.

:: Comments (37) :: Share This

Comments (37)

evietoo

There is exactly zero chance he will turn this down. Zero.

And I hope the wingnuts keep it up. The "backlash" with come back right at them.

Jessica (Replying to: evietoo)

The backlash is amusing considering that just weeks ago the public cruicified Kanye West for saying someone didnt deserve an award.
I am in no way comparing the two awards--instead, I am comparing the inappropriateness of the reaction. Disagree with the man all you want on policy, but you don't boo when someone recieves an award. Its tacky.

james stotts

obama made a bold, decisive move when he decided to tear down our missile defenses in e. europe. as i see it, that's huge, in that it yielded such political dividends w/russia--and the nobel prize committee seems to agree that arms reduction is what this is all about. nuclear weapons are the prime destabilizing force in international politics, in global politics. obama's approach is paying off in terms of reducing the number of existing nukes, and in finally forming a concerted front to recon and curb iran. facilitating this impossibly delicate nuclear ceasefire is no small feat, and something our last president blithely disregarded at europe's, s. korea's, israel's, and the middle east's peril.

we have 1+1/2 centuries of peace here, including on our borders. obama's reaching out to chavez and zelaya means something, too (it feels good to be on the right side of a military coup every once in a while). it's a very different approach than the entrenched pattern of reagan warmongering in latin america.

america is not winning the peace prize, we're the ones waging two wars, selling the world it's weapons, stealing their wealth, and financing its sweatshops. in those arenas, the president is really not in a position to create change, is not one of the key players.

Pineview1997

Now look, the Nobel Committee probably should have waited till, say, we close Gitmo or really begin pulling down in Iraq, but there's no way in hell Obama should turn down the Nobel Peace Prize out of fear of a childish conservative hissy fit. The second objection - that there are more deserving people or better previous winners (both current and historical) - well, that goes for just about any damn award, doesn't it? Is Elfriede Jelinek a better writer than Borges? Was "My Fair Lady" a better movie than the "The Godfather?"

Marc, your last paragraph is the only one that makes any sense.

james stotts

obama made a bold, decisive move when he decided to tear down our missile defenses in e. europe. as i see it, that's huge, in that it yielded such political dividends w/russia--and the nobel prize committee seems to agree that arms reduction is what this is all about. nuclear weapons are the prime destabilizing force in international politics, in global politics. obama's approach is paying off in terms of reducing the number of existing nukes, and in finally forming a concerted front to recon and curb iran. facilitating this impossibly delicate nuclear ceasefire is no small feat, and something our last president blithely disregarded at europe's, s. korea's, israel's, and the middle east's peril.

we have 1+1/2 centuries of peace here, including on our borders. obama's reaching out to chavez and zelaya means something, too (it feels good to be on the right side of a military coup every once in a while). it's a very different approach than the entrenched pattern of reagan warmongering in latin america.

america is not winning the peace prize, we're the ones waging two wars, selling the world it's weapons, stealing their wealth, and financing its sweatshops. in those arenas, the president is really not in a position to create change, is not one of the key players.

jmbreland

What a charming egalitarian gesture! What's next? A Nobel Law Enforcement Prize for Barney Fife?

Deborah

Has anyone ever turned it down? I don't see that working--it's not like you get to re-award it to the person of your choice. He'll get all the negatives of turning it down--ungrateful, bypassing opportunity, admitting his own weakness, etc--combined with all the negatives of being awarded it in the first place.

A few of these complaints are ridiculous: Narcissism--come on, there is absolutely nothing that can happen or not happen that will not be interpreted as narcissism from those who have already put that filter on. I know one reporter already compared the first press conferences of the last few presidents and, golly gee, turns out Will's proof of narcissism--I's and me's--was lowest for Obama, highest for W. But in Will's red-colored glasses Obama is narcissistic and W modest. The same for hyperpolarization--have you been paying attention? Have you listened to Republicans explaining that they must vote against any health care bill that is budget neutral and has no public option because it is, gosh darn it, still a health care bill? Someone yesterday had a fit that bills would be worked out in committees run by the majority party--like all legislation, forever--and thus he couldn't vote for anything? Did you miss Stephen Hawking's failure to be dead from lack of UK healthcare?

Sure, wring your hands about oh golly maybe the timing is all wrong. I'm not sure the prize is a good idea. But it's an idea that has already happened, so deal with that.

Nelson Alexander (Replying to: Deborah)

Sartre turned it down, just for the record.

slowp

IMHO, today's Nobel Peace prize went to BHO, but the Swedes were really giving it to the American voters, for taking the nuclear codes out of the hands of warmongering ignorant fool Republicans.

It's a reward richly deserved, if I don't say so myself, and on my own behalf I'd like to thank the Academy.


Pineview1997 (Replying to: slowp)

Here, here! Plus it'd would've been really fun to put on the resume.

tsg (Replying to: slowp)

It's actually the Norwegians who give out the Peace Prize.

jb (Replying to: tsg)

And its the Democrats who used an atomic weapon.

minew

Conservatives will predictably take this several steps too far, such as comparing Obama to Don Knotts as above. Headlines like "GOP, Taliban Decry Obama Nobel" will run before the end of the day and can hardly hurt him. Fits right in with last week's "GOP Cheers US Olympic Defeat."

Deborah (Replying to: minew)

We need a pool on the first GOP talking head to explicitly wish for a terrorist attack that costs many American lives.

Sean Healy

Sooner or later Barack Obama is going to have to kill the hell out of some country, just like every other American president. And then he's going to look like a big hypocrite and the Nobel people are going to feel like fools. But, then, they're used to that. Arafat took his prize and then engineered the Second Intifada and added 'inspired and applauded suicide bombing' to his list of accomplishments (right below 'murdered schoolchildren in their classrooms' and 'helped destroy the sovereignty of Lebanon'). God, who'd want this award anyway?

wagonjak (Replying to: Sean Healy)

Is that last name Healy or Hannity Sean? You have the same nasty, unbalanced, unreflective voice as his so I suspect you're both the same person...

ottovbvs

The usual conservative sour grapes and uproar will just serve to reinforce the ever hardening public view (see latest polls on Republican appro) that this is a group of people uninterested in cooperation and civility, and only interested in mud slinging against a widely liked (even when he's not approved!) and respected president. For some reason and contrary to all the evidence they continue to believe this is productive. Of course he's not going to turn it down. This stuff by Kaus and Dickerson (both of whom are long time Obama critics), and Ambinder is really classic panty twisting stuff. What world do you guys live in.

Sandlapper

I love the way that closet wing-nuts like Halperin look for reinforcement of their opinion from their compatriots like Kaus. "I must be right, because this other tool agrees with me!"

mesquito66

Everybody is forgetting the Beer Summit.

Pineview1997 (Replying to: mesquito66)

Haha, cheers!

j

As long as the Nobel prize keeps the national conversation on "Just what has Obama accomplished so far?", which it inevitably will, I think it's bad for the administration. Last week's SNL skit has just gained a lot more attention.

OGLiberal

Kaus is just a whiny contrarian who claims to be some sort of liberal but who hates everything Obama does. He just needs to shut the eff up.

As I said in another post, the reaction of most Americans will be, "Cool, our president won the Nobel prize." And then they'll ask themselves, "So why do conservatives and arsehats like Mickey Kaus hate him for it?"

slowp

I think we can all agree that today is a day for all Americans to stand tall with pride.

Heh heh heh.

market karma

the quick morning office poll of around 20 shows 40% thought "thats nice" and 60% thought "for what?"


This is a mixed bag for the administration-- I believe that the news cycle will spend the next week analyzing "did he deserve it" -- relative to the accomplishments of past winners, it is hard to make a strong argument that he did deserve it, and pretty easy to point out he didn't. This will feed the developing meme of "more celebrity than substance" that Obama is facing.

Heck, an actual celebrity -- Bono -- probably deserved it more.

OGLiberal (Replying to: market karma)

Ahh, the snap office poll. Much like the "guys I hang with at the coffee shop" poll. Sorry, but most Americans will fall into the "that's nice" category - we partisans...and if you're posting here, you're a partisan and/or a political junky...are a small minority in this country - and then will wonder why conservatives hate Obama for getting this award and why media elites think that it's a bad thing for Obama.

The right wing and the Beltway media - partners in absurdity.

ottovbvs (Replying to: OGLiberal)

I'd say you have it about right......most Americans who tend to like being liked are going to say great, the president (who is widely liked even by those who don't approve of him) picked up the Nobel........the uproar on the right is ridiculous and coming only a week after the cheering because Chicago DIDN'T get the Olympics just serves to cement the popular perception that the Republicans are a lot of angry little people who are ONLY interested in scoring political points.

Nelson Alexander

The Critics Have a Moral Blind Spot. It Isn't Just About International Relations.

What many critics seem to miss is the fact that Obama has accomplished much more than most world leaders simply by personal example. His books, his speeches, his success against the odds, and his obvious instinct to unify have meant a great deal to Africans, the African Diaspora, many young people, and racial minorities all around the world. He embodies and acts upon the very best in American history and the human rights movement, and I think the world was hungry for this.

There has always been an element of idiosyncrasy to the prize. I mean, Kissinger? So why begrudge the choice? To turn the prize down would be an insult to the many people worldwide, African-Americans and young people in particular, for whom Obama's example means so much.

As for the American right wing, they loath Obama, Scandinavia, peace, and anything international. So let them wail and gnash their teeth.

gbarto (Replying to: Nelson Alexander)

A few days ago, a column in the NYT (I believe it was "The Ethicist") was calling for the Nobel committee to start rescinding awards, starting with Kissinger's. I think that would be misguided, and I think too much outrage over this would be misguided. If conservatives are smart, they will limit themselves to tongue and cheek remarks about him being at least as worthy as Carter, Gore, Arafat and, yes, Kissinger.

The biggest blind spot we all have in this is that the committee is an assembly of mere mortals doing their best to move the world toward peace. How well they do will determine whether the award confers prestige on the recipients or reduces the prestige of the award over time.

Speaking as a conservative libertarian, I can't really muster any outrage over this - it's par for the course for internationalist organizations to go for the headlines with a decision like this. It is sad, however, that it comes on the heels of Obama turning away the Dali Lama at the behest of the Chinese.

PorkBelly

So the sitting US president wins the Nobel Peace prize and the media discusses how it is a political liability?

Apparently, I now live in Bizarro world.

OGLiberal (Replying to: PorkBelly)

My thoughts exactly. Is that Superman with a backwards S on his shirt over there?

HLM

Obama should turn it down on the grounds that black Americans can't possibly be qualified for the award. That would make the right wing happy, I am sure.

Joel

John Dickerson and Mickey Kaus? Really?

What does Terry McAuliffe have to say on the issue?

Tim in SF

This is good news for John McCain.

rbottoms

Why of course turning it down is the wisest course of action. The Republicans will moderate their rhetoric and cease encouraging citizens to show up at events where Obama is speaking armed with handguns and rifles. Hannity and Beck will cease their apocalyptic rantings and Limbaugh will offer both cheeks to be kissed.

Grow up. Get real.

There is nothing in the world that will lower the level of bile and hatred coming from elected GOP officials except to un-elect even more of them in 2010. They hate Obama along with everything, and anything he does.

It may be contradictory for the recipient of a peace prize to think in terms of bringing a knife to a gunfight, but that's exactly what the White House has been doing the last eight months.

There's another adage that applies for the Democrats in general and Obama in particular: Peace through Strength.

cassandra

'On the other hand, turning it down, even meant as gesture of humility, will not be interpreted as humility. '

Heads Republicans win, Tails Democrats lose. .. there's your rightwing meme.

Hellmut

Wouldn't it be nice if President Obama could appease Republicans by turning down the Nobel peace price?

I am afraid that Republicans in Congress have been working against Obama 110% since January. In that regard, the Nobel peace price won't make a difference one way or another.

Democrats who are worried about that need to stand up for themselves and fight back.

slowp

Is there somebody who still gives a sh*t what Mickey Kaus thinks about anything?