The political world awoke this morning to a collective, confused "What the..." Bottom line: the pressure
on President Obama to Get Things Done has just been ratcheted up by several orders of magnitude.
Let's stipulate that the response from political conservatives in America is going to be predictable and uninteresting. (The Swedes have a habit of awarding the prize to Democrats that most provoke the ire of conservative partisans. And to Yasser Arafat.)
Domestically -- well, it's easy to overthink this: figuring out how to
graciously accept one of the world's most coveted honors is not the
worst dilemma to have, and in a sense, the Nobel committee was
recognizing and validating the identity that Americans -- a bare
majority of them, yes -- held on election night: a collective rejection
of the past eight years, through democratic means, and the act of
choosing a president who stood for something completely different -- a
rejuvenation.
The start of the administration coincided with the onset of a deep
economic recession, which usually correlates with a deepening anxiety
about American identity, a return to isolationism, a mistrusting of the
the way the world evaluates the country. For months, the Obama
administration has been trying to keep America out of that gutter, at
least on an elite level. Politically, independents who distrust Obama's
policies and yet like his style -- the way he fits into our historical
conception of the presidency, the way he inhabits the values of
pragmatism, the way he is restoring America's credibility in the world
-- will be just fine with the newest Nobel laureate.
Most
salient will be, I think, the way that the White House handles this
unexpected...pleasure?.....given that, in a way, it has the potential
to be interpreted as a reward for the type of hubris that this
president, with his extraordinary self confidence, is prone to. This
is an interesting communications challenge to have: peace prize
recipients seem like they ought to be humble and modest; Obama is many
things, but he's not terribly self-effacing. Winning the award is one
thing; figuring out how to use it to accomplish things, to pressure
Iran, to bring the Palestinians and Israelis back to the final table,
to bring the bloodshed in Darfur to a close -- this is what Obama needs
to figure out.
"It says that he is an inspirational leader," one of Obama's closest advisers e-mails about the award, "but more important it
signals the value of the cause, and [the] real opportunity for peace [and] progress
that lies ahead."
And as irritating as this may be to European diplomats,
regaining some stature at the United Nations, or among the peoples of
the world, even with this aspirational prize, is probably going to help
the President internationally. It's one thing for the cognoscenti and
perhaps other governments to allege that the Nobel Peace Prize has been
devalued; it's quite another to assume that citizens of the world truly
believe this. Will a majority of Americans be proud of their president? Will they be collectively
skeptical? (As in: I like the guy, but how is he like Nelson Mandela?
And aren't there two wars on? And what about Twitter?)
Sometimes,
the public reacts independently of the media narrative; at others, the
public follows the media narrative. The media will most likely try to
find Republicans who are furious and sneery and Democrats who are
wetting themselves -- an orthogonal path that doesn't clarify much and
doesn't reflect the diversity of thought among at least Democrats,
particularly those who don't think Obama really has turned the page on
the Bush era. Democratic partisans for once, will have fun taunting
Republicans who aren't happy for Obama: 'why are you siding with the
Taliban?' -- the Taliban having denounced the award, of course.
But, as Matthew Cooper points out,
from a legislative standpoint, the Nobel Peace Prize is not going to
impede the passage of health care reform, or today's push for a
consumer finance regulatory agency, or most other parts of his domestic
agenda. It's probably going to help.
The
award citation suggests that Obama's statements and speeches, rather
than his accomplishments, were meritorious. (Speechwriter Ben Rhodes,
now a senior National Security Council official, gets the shout-out
here, as does Jon Favreau, the president's chief speechwriter.)
Sign a petition now - nobelpeace.eu !
Not the Swedes! The Norweigans! The Peace Prize is decided by the Norweigans, the rest of the prizes by Swedes.
/Mathias
As you said it's possible to over think this......from the right the reaction will be the usual knee jerk pettiness mixed in with hyperbole from the usual suspects. So what's new. Otherwise generally speaking Americans like to be liked and feel their country is accorded respect. I would have thought this played to those emotions rather than against them.
We must travel in very different circles. I have yet to talk to anyone on any side of the political spectrum who doesn't think the award was stupid by the Norweigians and embarrassing to Americans. The consensus I hear everywhere is that he should turn it down. Even then most people I've talked to so far think this is a lose/lose for Obama.
You want hubris and narcissism? Turning down the prize to make the wingnuts in this country happy would be seen as an act of hubris and narcissism by most of the rest of the world, including by many folks in this country. And if he did turn it down, the wingnuts would turn on a dime, saying, "Well, I guess even the Nobel Peace Prize is too good for The One."
I expect the wingnuts to react like schoolchildren to this. The ultimate result of their immature reaction will be that Americans who aren't Obama haters - ie, most Americans - will forget their doubts about whether or not Obama deserved this honor and will instead start to ask themselve, "Just how insane are conservatives in our country?"
The most saddening thing is the response of the Beltway media. The new CW among the media elites appears to be, "Winning the Nobel is BAD for Obama." Are you effing kidding me? Winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a bad thing????
At the end of the day, the reaction of most Americans - ie, the tens of millions of people you didn't run into at the coffee shop and the office this AM, Tim - will be, "Cool...our president won the Nobel Peace Prive. Now why are Republicans losing their minds?"
The Peace Prize committee has well and truly Jumped the Couch (and Shark) this time. How many times does one need to say $%#@ &@! to George W. Bush?
Haha, just once if it's face-to-face would be enough for me.
To Marc and OGLiberal:
The nomination deadline for this was in ........... EARLY FEBRUARY!!
So he was nominated just after his taking the office of President. Care to defend that? If you can intellectually do so?
This worldwide BJ that the Prez is receiving is hilarious
OK...I'll take a shot. First of all, is it Obama's fault that he was nominated in February? Second, if you have an issue with this decision, take it up with Nobel committee. My point was that the wingnuts are trying to lay blame for this at the feet of Obama while the media is treating this as some sort of "problem" that Obama brought on himself. My first reaction was, "this is a bit premature." But I'm now more flabbergasted by the reaction of most of the folks on the right (McCain and Pawlenty appear to be exceptions) and the Beltway media.
Finally, whether you agree with or not, simply getting elected on the messages he promoted during the campaign last year was probably all the committee needed to make their decision. And with a prize like this, I think the committee is allowed to take into consideration additional actions since the nomination - eg, the Cairo speech, the non-proliferation stuff, talks with Iran, attempts to kickstart the Israeli peace process, etc. You don't have to agree that these are good things but then you are not the committee.
I think Obama was just as shocked by this as anybody...and his acceptance of the honor was duly humble, noting that he didn't do nearly as much as others who have won this award and noting that now he, the United States, and the world in general has to go out and prove that this honor was deserved.
Finally, do you think it's a bad thing that the world is starting to like, respect, and trust us again? Or should our foreign policy just consist of swinging around our johnsons, bombing a few countries, and giving everybody the middle finger if they don't like?
Most salient will be, I think, the way that the White House handles this unexpected...pleasure?.....given that, in a way, it has the potential to be interpreted as a reward for the type of hubris that this president, with his extraordinary self confidence, is prone to. This is an interesting communications challenge to have: peace prize recipients seem like they ought to be humble and modest; Obama is many things, but he's not terribly self-effacing.
Well, Obama just gave his response now, and I think he came off as quite humble and self-effacing.
And I think it's entirely reasonable to celebrate Obama winning the award, while still recognizing that he (and America as a whole) still has a long road ahead of him when it comes to achieving peace.
And, as you stated, Marc, the Republican response has been entirely predictable and uninteresting, and only proves that the party is stuck in a state of perpetual pettiness.
Darius:
So you have no response to the fact that the nomination came just after his inauguration? Correct?
Are you arguing that this award is to be given for me "hope"? What about real efforts at peace such as former Pres Clinton. While I disagreed with him on many things, one thing I will give him major kudos for is really laying it on the line in attempting to get a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
What has Pres Obama done that is even close to that? Name one thing beside speaking eloquently.
"perpetual pettiness" - no, not really. Not even a card-carrying Rep myself. Just not a naive pansy like the libs out there.
Again, hilarious.
Again, take it up with the committee. Myself...I'm proud that an American president was given this honor. I think this was premature and somewhat undeserved, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
And I guess that in order to not be a "naive pansy", we all have to follow the foreign policy line I outlined above in my response to your previous post. I think one of the biggest chickens**ts on this planet is Dick Cheney yet he's hailed as a tough guy hero by the wingnuts. Sitting behind a desk/keyboard and calling for the pre-emptive killing of foreign nationals who have not attacked us and who pose no real threat to our national security - without, of course, volunteering to do the killing yourself - or putting us into a position where this might be our only choice (ie, treating diplomacy as a joke) doesn't take courage at all. In fact, it's evidence of extreme insecurity and cowardice.
I will agree with you on one point - Bill Clinton deserves to win this award and probably should have gotten it already. But then you probably don't really want Clinton to win...you just want to use his failure to get the honor so far to degrade the fact that Obama won it.
Direct quote from you - "Finally, whether you agree with or not, simply getting elected on the messages he promoted during the campaign last year was probably all the committee needed to make their decision. And with a prize like this, I think the committee is allowed to take into consideration additional actions since the nomination - eg, the Cairo speech, the non-proliferation stuff, talks with Iran, attempts to kickstart the Israeli peace process, etc. "
So you are saying the premise for this award now is giving eloquent speeches and the fact that someone is elected?? Actual concrete results, or even concrete efforts (ex. Clinton) are not the measure anymore. Gee, I've heard of dumbing down education but this takes the cake.
And what efforts to kickstart the Israeli peace process?
Yes, the main critique here is with the Noble committee. It has been (since Arafat, et al) a laughingstock; and this further confirms it. The phrase "jumping the shark" comes to mind.
As for the world "respecting" and "liking" us. Gee, I can certainly see the dividends of that already .... the Iranians are stopping their nuke program, as are the N. Koreans. The Russians and Chinese are going to put pressure on the Iranians for our ceasing the missile defense shield plan for E. Europe. And the Israelis and Palestinians are stopping killing each other. The Euros are all going to meet their climate change goals (which most of them previously had not been even close to meeting), etc, etc.
OH... wait, no they're not. My bad.(NOTE - the sarcasm there)
This desire to be liked/loved is almost pathological on the lib left. It's much like the abused spouse who returns home again and again. "oh, it's not his fault, it's all me". Laughable.
And it led to the election of someone who has not achieved much (if you honestly look at his record) compared to other political leaders. The thought process must be, "in only we elect him, they will all love us and all our problems will be solved"
I can see libs singing "Kumbaya", holding hands and roasting S'mores at the fire.
HILARIOUS
Dude, this ain't the 60s and your caricature is freaking ridiculous. I know that the government of North Korea is insane, that the Russians are less than honest or trustworthy brokers, and that the Iranian ruling regime has no love for us or Israel and has not been upfront about their nuclear ambitions. But I also now that NONE of these the countries are a threat to our national security to the point that we need to abandon diplomacy right now, take a belligerent stance, and threaten military attacks or extreme sanctions that hurt the general populations of these nations whenever they do something we don't like.
The countries from whom we need to earn back our respect are not Iran and North Korea but our allies who can help us in our efforts to diffuse the nuclear ambitions of these two nations. The more we are liked and respected by the people of these nations, the more free their politicians will be to cooperate with us, to follow our lead in even in cases when it's something they would really rather not do - eg, sending more troops to Afghanistan. They need to trust us in before they start doing this...and Obama is starting to earn back that trust. But it takes time so I don't expect to see changes overnight. Yeah, it's easy to invade another country or bomb the heck out of it. But in doing so, you turn off a lot of your friends and find yourself occupying nations years after you kicked off your quick, "this makes me feel like a man", fix.
This isn't about wanting to be liked/loved so we can all go to a Dead show, drop acid, and tell each other how much we love each other. It's about accomplishing our nation's goals without always having to go it alone or resort to military solutions that often only make the problem worse. You get to that by having your allies both like and respect you. You don't get there when they fear and/or resent you. (and let's face it...our European allies, Russia, and China are never going to fear us in a way a banana republic in Central America might fear us...we aren't going to "scare" these nation's - our most important allies - into going along with whatever we want to do)
Surrounding Iran with large US military forces in two nations that border that country, refusing to talk to them, and calling them "evil" certainly did a lot to slow down their nuclear program during the Bush years, huh? Well, I guess we could just bomb them. Yeah, that's the ticket. That'll go over well with our allies and with the Iranian people. The talks that occurred a couple of weeks back, talks that included US diplomats, represent the furthest we've gotten with Iran diplomatically in 30 years. It's only a start and there is a long way to go with no guarantees, but isn't that an accomplishment itself, even if it isn't Nobel worthy?
Finally, if the Obama administration isn't trying to kickstart the Israeli peace process, why is George Mitchell spending so much time over there talking with both sides. It's more than the previous administration ever did on that front. And it while it won't be easy, it will likely lead to talks similar to those that occurred during the Clinton administration. It might even get results.
I'm not saying the committee's choice was a perfect one. I would have preferred they waited a bit longer to see the results of these early efforts. But while I'm sure there are people out there who are more deserving than Obama this year, Obama isn't undeserving. And how this reflects poorly on Obama is beyond me.
I don't see how the timing of the nomination is relevant. The Committee didn't vote in February, and was free to consider everything he's done since then.
I agree that at this point the Prize is mostly for not being George W. Bush (or John McCain), but that's certainly not Obama's fault. Maybe the critics should blame the previous administration for letting America's image sink so low.
I swear, I if I had heard this news last night, I could have written every response from every side of the political spectrum. American politics is not becoming dangerous. It is becoming predicatable and tedious.
What I find well and truly sad is all those that attack the eminent judges of the Nobel Peace Prize to be in fact acting the same way themselves. People who can still not accept that the republicans lost the election.
It was not President Obama's choice to be selected, but how could Bush have ever been thought of ever as a Peace Prize Winner?
eh, predictable...
OGLiberal:
Well thought out post. My counter is short (have to run and meet an old bud) and multi-pointed -
-I have nothing against diplomacy either. You forget The Bush admin diplomatic efforts towards (Libya and her nuke program - dicsontinued; multi-nation efforts dealing with N Korea; multi-lateral efforts to get our European allies to tow a harder diplomatic line on Iran; just to name a few)
-Agreed, you want to get nations to go along with our goals in a common way; BUT ... in the modern world the big kicker is what do you do if a nation has no intent of cooperating as in the case of the Russians or the Chinese with Iran?
-You forget that the Euros, etc were not too fond of us during the Clinton administration either. Go back and take a look at old media coverage.
-The US is both admired and disliked for one big reason - we're the big boy on the planet. And it all too often falls on us to lead (ex. the Yugoslavian civil war where we had to drag in the Euros to bomb it to a halt) A phrase I heard recently is "when you decide, you divide"
-As to our allies working with us; what about the case of Afghanistan where they are bound by the NATO treaty. Yet many have only token forces that are not engaged in combat ops unlike our Canadian, Brit, Dutch and Belgian allies who are in combat ops?
-My critique of the "messiah" complex around Pres Obama stands. Look at many of the praises for him both from media around the world as well as voters who supported him, and the direct impression you get is that simply by his occupying the White House will make things so much better and we will automatically be so much further down the line to solving the multitude of problems. Well, the real world doesn't work that way. Neither Kim Jung Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor Medvedev, or Hugo Chavez, etc will honestly give a rats ass about this prize.
-Look at the praises heaped on Pres Obama by the Noble committee. They speak of its power for what could be. WTF!!! Again, classic lib thinking or I should say dreaming.
And to Jaybs:
-no this has nothing to do with Pres Obama winning and the Rep party losing the election. So stop patting yourself on the back and offer up a worthy defense if you can.