Print
February 9, 2010 | 8:47 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:08 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 2:12 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:24 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 10:40 am -
February 9, 2010 | 10:10 am -
February 9, 2010 | 2:31 am -
February 8, 2010 | 5:05 pm -
February 7, 2010 | 9:15 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:40 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 3:06 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 1:15 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 11:35 am -
Reinhold Niebuhr at TNR
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (16)
First off, that's "Republican blogger Mickey Kaus" on first reference, please.
Second, yes, Obama should decline the prize. It's silly to award it to Obama at this point, and surely even Obama knows this. It's the kind of typically ham-handed European effort that can only hurt the recipient in the American political context.
If the Nobel crew wanted to honor an American president, they had two much better options: Bill Clinton for his post-presidential charity work and as a make-up for the Peace Prize he should have won in 1999 or 2000 for his efforts in the Northern Ireland peace process; or George W. Bush and President Obama for their efforts that saved the world from a new Great Depressio ... view full comment
First off, that's "Republican blogger Mickey Kaus" on first reference, please.
Second, yes, Obama should decline the prize. It's silly to award it to Obama at this point, and surely even Obama knows this. It's the kind of typically ham-handed European effort that can only hurt the recipient in the American political context.
If the Nobel crew wanted to honor an American president, they had two much better options: Bill Clinton for his post-presidential charity work and as a make-up for the Peace Prize he should have won in 1999 or 2000 for his efforts in the Northern Ireland peace process; or George W. Bush and President Obama for their efforts that saved the world from a new Great Depression, with the concomitant misery, conflict, and death they prevented by stopping a global economic collapse that was, at several points last fall and winter, literally hours from happening.
Should he turn it down? My god, only in this political environment does an American President winning the Nobel Peace Prize be a bad thing. We should be honored and gracious that an American President, for only the fourth time (3rd while in Office) has won this excellent award. While it was certainly a slow year for peace (No great treaties, etc.), I'd say Obama's efforts to recommit the US to working in the international framework, end torture in the US, restart efforts at nuclear disarmament, and the triumph at overcoming American racism, etc.
Should he turn it down? My god, only in this political environment does an American President winning the Nobel Peace Prize be a bad thing. We should be honored and gracious that an American President, for only the fourth time (3rd while in Office) has won this excellent award. While it was certainly a slow year for peace (No great treaties, etc.), I'd say Obama's efforts to recommit the US to working in the international framework, end torture in the US, restart efforts at nuclear disarmament, and the triumph at overcoming American racism, etc.
Sorry, cut off there. etc. ...are a decent enough resume for the award.
Sorry, cut off there. etc. ...are a decent enough resume for the award.
-
"Should he turn it down?".
Hell no.
Remember Brando, The Godfather and the Oscar? And he won from a short list of nominees:
- The Ruling Class - Peter O'Toole
- Sleuth - Michael Caine
- Sleuth - Laurence Olivier
- Sounder - Paul Winfield
The list for the Peace Prize had over 200 contenders, I'm sure the candidates mentioned by others were included and four decades from now few of this years nominees will be considered more worthy than Brando in '73.
But the Peace Prize has never been awarded on comparable terms to an Oscar, a Heisman or the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes (which are received decades after their achievements).
view full comment
-
"Should he turn it down?".
Hell no.
Remember Brando, The Godfather and the Oscar? And he won from a short list of nominees:
- The Ruling Class - Peter O'Toole
- Sleuth - Michael Caine
- Sleuth - Laurence Olivier
- Sounder - Paul Winfield
The list for the Peace Prize had over 200 contenders, I'm sure the candidates mentioned by others were included and four decades from now few of this years nominees will be considered more worthy than Brando in '73.
But the Peace Prize has never been awarded on comparable terms to an Oscar, a Heisman or the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes (which are received decades after their achievements).
Hey, I'm superstitious and fear the jinx factor. Plus the risk is that it may raise the bar of expectations or perceptions of what will be considered as worthy accomplishments.
However, isn't it the cynic's definition of a commendation that it's a tribute that we pay to achievements that resemble, but do not equal, our own? Well, it isn't a trophy or a contest that has ever been associated with quantifiable standards. Further, many were disqualified by death, the prize must go to a living person.
But considering the two wars, Iran and Middle East - South Asia challenges I'd rather President Obama face these with an International Imprimatur that no living and current leader can bring to the table. Yes, it will make him appear larger than his actual power but it will mean others will be smaller in comparison.
His life has been a series of expectations that were met against the odds. If this were another case where someone was wagering he'll prove them right, it's not as risky as it appears.
"Do not bet against Barack Obama"
-
But Crock, Obama's "efforts to recommit" have not yet resulted in any significant accomplishments, torture appears actually to have been ended in 2004 by the Bush administration, which though it despicably kept in place the legal rationale for torture nonetheless ended the practice, and Obama's nuclear disarmament efforts are (A) much too early in process to know whether they're worthy of honor and (B) largely a continuation of the policies of the second Bush administration (much to the consternation of conservative hawks).
Look, I think Obama is doing a great job on almost all fronts. He has so far been the second-best president of my lifetime, and I have high hopes that over the course of ... view full comment
But Crock, Obama's "efforts to recommit" have not yet resulted in any significant accomplishments, torture appears actually to have been ended in 2004 by the Bush administration, which though it despicably kept in place the legal rationale for torture nonetheless ended the practice, and Obama's nuclear disarmament efforts are (A) much too early in process to know whether they're worthy of honor and (B) largely a continuation of the policies of the second Bush administration (much to the consternation of conservative hawks).
Look, I think Obama is doing a great job on almost all fronts. He has so far been the second-best president of my lifetime, and I have high hopes that over the course of a full term he will be the best chief executive of my lifetime and quite possibly a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. But to date he is not, yet, and this is the kind of silliness that will tend to discredit the value of the Peace Prize. Not just on the American right, where stupidity and malice are so ubiquitous that there's nothing decent people can do to reason with them, but also around the world, where cynical regimes will feel slightly more free to suppress the laureates and potential laureates who oppose oppression and violence. Given that the finalists seem to have included advocates for Afghani women's rights, I think a polite and humble declining of the award would be in order.
Besides, the Americans most deserving of Nobel honors are writers, who've lately been locked out of the literature prize. The president shouldn't want to receive an award from a body that openly excludes other Americans from consideration on the basis of nationality.
But Michael, Brando had just starred in The Godfather. Show me the bit where Obama did the equivalent of starring in one of the best movies of all time and we can talk.
And honestly, what a terrible list of nominees! Forgettable performances by three great actors who must have been nominated for name alone, plus a strong but still derivative performance by the oft-underrated Paul Winfield.
So the true analogy would be if Barack Obama had just achieved one of the five most important advances in peace in world history, and also there were no other successful peace-promoters in the world at all that year. Then the Brando analogy would hold.
However, if Obama wants to go Full Brando and se ... view full comment
But Michael, Brando had just starred in The Godfather. Show me the bit where Obama did the equivalent of starring in one of the best movies of all time and we can talk.
And honestly, what a terrible list of nominees! Forgettable performances by three great actors who must have been nominated for name alone, plus a strong but still derivative performance by the oft-underrated Paul Winfield.
So the true analogy would be if Barack Obama had just achieved one of the five most important advances in peace in world history, and also there were no other successful peace-promoters in the world at all that year. Then the Brando analogy would hold.
However, if Obama wants to go Full Brando and send an American Indian activist to decline the award in person, I'd be all for that.
Rhubs, I can't say I'm an expert on American writers and the Nobel Prize for Literature, so I'll have do defer to your judgment there. I disagree on your idea of awarding it to Bush and Obama for fighting depression; if anything I'd say Gordon Brown would deserve it for that far more than Bush, who largely didn't do anything and instead let Hank Paulson run the show, while Brown was at the forefront of saving the financial system, and forced Paulson to scrap his plan and build a better one. I mean, it possibly would have been nice to find a way to award it to the repressed dissidents in Iran but they weren't able to do so for the Hungarian revolutionaries or the Prague Spring either.
I th ... view full comment
Rhubs, I can't say I'm an expert on American writers and the Nobel Prize for Literature, so I'll have do defer to your judgment there. I disagree on your idea of awarding it to Bush and Obama for fighting depression; if anything I'd say Gordon Brown would deserve it for that far more than Bush, who largely didn't do anything and instead let Hank Paulson run the show, while Brown was at the forefront of saving the financial system, and forced Paulson to scrap his plan and build a better one. I mean, it possibly would have been nice to find a way to award it to the repressed dissidents in Iran but they weren't able to do so for the Hungarian revolutionaries or the Prague Spring either.
I think he's as worthy as any for the accomplishments I listed, and the idea that it will sully the prize (the same arguments Conservatives made when Jimmy Carter and Al Gore won, by the way) and somehow enable greater repression of other Laureates is absurd. As if regimes would decide whether to repress more or less because Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
'Barbs and Crock both make good points. I'm going to take cynical position and suggest that the Nobel committee is just throwing Obama a bone after the crushing defeat and subsequent fallout of the highly visible administration supported failed bid for Chicago as Olympic host. Regardless of his choice, if Obama turns the award down, the discussion/distraction here should take some of the sting of that loss. Summarily, I'd go with those that say the award might be more appropriate later, say after being elected to a second term where his accomplishments would have had more fair review, in addition to being elected again.
'Barbs and Crock both make good points. I'm going to take cynical position and suggest that the Nobel committee is just throwing Obama a bone after the crushing defeat and subsequent fallout of the highly visible administration supported failed bid for Chicago as Olympic host. Regardless of his choice, if Obama turns the award down, the discussion/distraction here should take some of the sting of that loss. Summarily, I'd go with those that say the award might be more appropriate later, say after being elected to a second term where his accomplishments would have had more fair review, in addition to being elected again.
I agree with Rhubs. The Nobel Committee treats American literature with nothing short of ignorant contempt. Obama should have turned it down politely and said that he would take it after the literature prize is given to an American at some point (doesn't have to be right now).
The dumb and prejudiced remarks a couple of years ago by the committee chair (?) would lead you to believe we didn't have a Philip Roth, a John Updike (then), a Joan Didion, a Gary Snyder, or a John Ashbery, or indeed anyone worthy of consideration.
I agree with Rhubs. The Nobel Committee treats American literature with nothing short of ignorant contempt. Obama should have turned it down politely and said that he would take it after the literature prize is given to an American at some point (doesn't have to be right now).
The dumb and prejudiced remarks a couple of years ago by the committee chair (?) would lead you to believe we didn't have a Philip Roth, a John Updike (then), a Joan Didion, a Gary Snyder, or a John Ashbery, or indeed anyone worthy of consideration.
No - you don't turn this down. So far, Obama is handling this just right. He will use this as an opportunity to advance worthy iseas and goals (the very reason of course that he is receiving the award). It is a gesture of hope by those who have chosen to award the prize to Obama and it is a hope that accords with our own. Let the man accept the award in recognition of the aspirations, if not achievements, it is meant to honor.
Neil
No - you don't turn this down. So far, Obama is handling this just right. He will use this as an opportunity to advance worthy iseas and goals (the very reason of course that he is receiving the award). It is a gesture of hope by those who have chosen to award the prize to Obama and it is a hope that accords with our own. Let the man accept the award in recognition of the aspirations, if not achievements, it is meant to honor.
Neil
If Doctorow hadn't just published the limpest novel of his career, he'd be at the top of my list of American writers I'm kind of offended haven't received a Nobel. Instead, I'm starting the campaign for a Nobel for David Rhodes, since the Nobel folks seem to prefer to reward American writers who can be called regionalists rather than writers who appear to European eyes to be attempting any sort of "national" American literature.
If Doctorow hadn't just published the limpest novel of his career, he'd be at the top of my list of American writers I'm kind of offended haven't received a Nobel. Instead, I'm starting the campaign for a Nobel for David Rhodes, since the Nobel folks seem to prefer to reward American writers who can be called regionalists rather than writers who appear to European eyes to be attempting any sort of "national" American literature.
Um, Toni Morrison won the prize in 1993. Given the vast amount of literature churned out across the globe, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a 16 year hiatus.
Um, Toni Morrison won the prize in 1993. Given the vast amount of literature churned out across the globe, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a 16 year hiatus.
Um, has any other national literature "across the globe" been personally dissed by the chairman of the Nobal Committee? I hadn't noticed it.
We're taking open prejudice here, not a hiatus. And I think it's worth saying that the Prize is given for a lifetime's work, not just to what's being "churned out."
Um, has any other national literature "across the globe" been personally dissed by the chairman of the Nobal Committee? I hadn't noticed it.
We're taking open prejudice here, not a hiatus. And I think it's worth saying that the Prize is given for a lifetime's work, not just to what's being "churned out."
Whether the prize was "premature," and Obama should turn it down, are distinct questions. The former may be debatable, but I am increduluous that anyone would seriously suggest the latter. That would be a diplomatic disaster and would be inconsistent with reaching-out for which he is being recognized. At it would not silence the hissing from the Republican viper-pit.
Whether the prize was "premature," and Obama should turn it down, are distinct questions. The former may be debatable, but I am increduluous that anyone would seriously suggest the latter. That would be a diplomatic disaster and would be inconsistent with reaching-out for which he is being recognized. At it would not silence the hissing from the Republican viper-pit.
Obama's Nobel Prize award, granted on the basis of "he makes us feel good," gratuitous gesture without content and intention without demonstrated accomplishment, especially since Obama's administration proposes ramping up the Afghan war, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oprah-isation, the H1N1 of American cultural imperialism, continues its baleful spread around the world.
Obama's Nobel Prize award, granted on the basis of "he makes us feel good," gratuitous gesture without content and intention without demonstrated accomplishment, especially since Obama's administration proposes ramping up the Afghan war, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oprah-isation, the H1N1 of American cultural imperialism, continues its baleful spread around the world.
-
Note to cansv:
Find someone to treat your AOD (Anti Obama Disorder). Yes, you will probably survive the next three years without therapy. However, there is no reason to suffer from hopelessness and despondency when most of the world is clearly exultant and proud of the direction of the US. Plus, people won't question your sanity when you don't hold positions which coincide with the Taliban. Beck and Rush can make a buck off this and they have bodyguards. Leave the foolishness to the professionals.
Good luck and stay away from sharp objects.
-
-
Note to cansv:
Find someone to treat your AOD (Anti Obama Disorder). Yes, you will probably survive the next three years without therapy. However, there is no reason to suffer from hopelessness and despondency when most of the world is clearly exultant and proud of the direction of the US. Plus, people won't question your sanity when you don't hold positions which coincide with the Taliban. Beck and Rush can make a buck off this and they have bodyguards. Leave the foolishness to the professionals.
Good luck and stay away from sharp objects.
-