It’s not often that the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize wonders whether he actually wants it. But that thought must have crossed Barack Obama’s mind when he was awoken at 6 a.m. this morning and told the stunning news. For Obama, winning the award after just nine months in office—for having created “a new international climate” of peace—is, at best, a mixed blessing. (Read Ed Kilgore on the confused conservative reaction to the news, Noam Scheiber on why 2007 winner Al Gore must not be too happy, and TNR's historical take on the Nobel Prize from our archives.)
At home, conservatives are already sneering that the award, granted on the basis of so little tangible accomplishment, further demonstrates Obama’s hollow celebrity status. Remember the McCain campaign "Celebrity" ad featuring Paris Hilton and images of Obama before cheering throngs in Europe? This time, however, the complaint feels less specious. This award would be vastly more legitimate and inspiring if and when, for instance, Obama is actually able to get Middle East peace talks moving again; or after, say, America and Iran reach a diplomatic rapproachement. Instead one suspects that even many fair-minded Americans (especially ones looking for a job) will roll their eyes. And you can be sure Stewart and Leno are already writing the jokes.
Overseas, the Nobel might help marginally--although in some ways not at all. It’s impossible to imagine the news from Stockholm moving either the Israelis or the Arabs to make peace-process concessions. (Neither Bibi Netanyahu nor King Abdullah are great sentimentalists.) The award is a useful affirmation to Obama's faith in internationalism on issues like global warming and nuclear disarmament. And it's likely to re-energize his standing in Europe, from whence it comes, and where such honorifics carry the most currency.
But there’s an irony here: Obama doesn’t need Europe’s help primarily for achieving world peace. He needs NATO support for putting a lid on Afghanistan, and Germany and France's backing for tough economic sanctions on Iran should diplomacy fail to defang its nuclear program. The most important impact of this prize may be a slight boost in Obama’s ability to pursue a war and confront his Persian rivals.
At best, then, the award is a mixed blessing. That’s why Obama should consider the advice of Chait, Massie, and others and, in a gesture of his humility, refuse to accept it. It would be the right thing to do in principle. It might also be smart politics.
Print
COMMENTS (17)
Refuse to accept it? That's rude. He should accept the award on behalf of others working for peace, donate the cash prize to some worthy international charity and get back to work.
Refuse to accept it? That's rude. He should accept the award on behalf of others working for peace, donate the cash prize to some worthy international charity and get back to work.
Can he do that and not have people say he's too arrogant even for the Nobel? I think Spence is on the right track here.
Can he do that and not have people say he's too arrogant even for the Nobel? I think Spence is on the right track here.
Not to be splitting hairs, but the news didn't come from Stockholm. The Nobel Peace Prize committee is composed of members of the Norwegian parlament, so the news comes from Oslo.
Not to be splitting hairs, but the news didn't come from Stockholm. The Nobel Peace Prize committee is composed of members of the Norwegian parlament, so the news comes from Oslo.
To refuse the award would mean putting his own and certian transitory political calcualtions above the broader responsibility Obama has as a representative of the victory of the lower classes of the world through non-violent means, the success of an alternative to violent revolution.
He should accept it on behalf of those who gave him this opportunity and out of respect for those who recognize his remarkable achievement to even be in this position as leader of the free world.
He deserves it now, in case his enemies among the former anglo-saxon ruling elites and their ignorant red-neck foot soldiers manage to have him assassinated.
To refuse the award would mean putting his own and certian transitory political calcualtions above the broader responsibility Obama has as a representative of the victory of the lower classes of the world through non-violent means, the success of an alternative to violent revolution.
He should accept it on behalf of those who gave him this opportunity and out of respect for those who recognize his remarkable achievement to even be in this position as leader of the free world.
He deserves it now, in case his enemies among the former anglo-saxon ruling elites and their ignorant red-neck foot soldiers manage to have him assassinated.
He should have accepted it on behalf of the American people, rather than himself, as an acknowledgement of the values and history of leadership that has inspired the hopes and expectation this award represents. And he should have been ready with a good answer to the question that ended his press conference, "What are you going to do with the money?" (That answer,of course, should not be "keep it." It should be something that demonstrates his commitment to and furthers the ideals for which he is being honored.)
Doing so would have been an alternative to declining to accept the award that would have actually demonstrated humility -- rather than just making a verbal claim for it. In terms of po ... view full comment
He should have accepted it on behalf of the American people, rather than himself, as an acknowledgement of the values and history of leadership that has inspired the hopes and expectation this award represents. And he should have been ready with a good answer to the question that ended his press conference, "What are you going to do with the money?" (That answer,of course, should not be "keep it." It should be something that demonstrates his commitment to and furthers the ideals for which he is being honored.)
Doing so would have been an alternative to declining to accept the award that would have actually demonstrated humility -- rather than just making a verbal claim for it. In terms of politics and PR it would have been the smart thing to do.
Crowley's right: the main benefit from this prize is to boost Obama's standing in the eye's of European leaders, by reminding them of how popular he is with their voters....which in turn gives him leverage in asking Britain & France to keep troops in Afghanistan, and with pressure on Iran.
Domestically, it makes it a little harder for the more leftist Democrats to disagree with Obama when he decides to send more troops to Afghanistan. Right wingers may have disdain for the Nobel, but lefties respect it.
Crowley's right: the main benefit from this prize is to boost Obama's standing in the eye's of European leaders, by reminding them of how popular he is with their voters....which in turn gives him leverage in asking Britain & France to keep troops in Afghanistan, and with pressure on Iran.
Domestically, it makes it a little harder for the more leftist Democrats to disagree with Obama when he decides to send more troops to Afghanistan. Right wingers may have disdain for the Nobel, but lefties respect it.
I’ve always believed the Peace Prize is for someone who has done inspirational things. In Obama’s case, making overtures around the world, viewing policies from a global as well as an American perspective, and generally acting as a statesman for one of the world's premier democracies is part of his job as president. I expect nothing less. Has the quality of American presidents declined so much that one who is thoughtful in manner is felt to deserve an award?
I’ve always believed the Peace Prize is for someone who has done inspirational things. In Obama’s case, making overtures around the world, viewing policies from a global as well as an American perspective, and generally acting as a statesman for one of the world's premier democracies is part of his job as president. I expect nothing less. Has the quality of American presidents declined so much that one who is thoughtful in manner is felt to deserve an award?
Mr. Crowley et al.: You are all completely nuts. You can refuse a Nobel Prize if you
want to express contempt for those who award it, or those who have received it,
but to do so for the kind of cockeyed political reasons mentioned above is just
totally self-defeating. And I think he has accomplished more internationally,
Afghanistan aside, than a lot of people want to realize. The speech to the Arab
world, his work with G20 and at the U.N., the decision on the nuclear shield, and maybe
even the Iran negotiations
have all made an impression on the world if not on TNR bloggers.
Mr. Crowley et al.: You are all completely nuts. You can refuse a Nobel Prize if you
want to express contempt for those who award it, or those who have received it,
but to do so for the kind of cockeyed political reasons mentioned above is just
totally self-defeating. And I think he has accomplished more internationally,
Afghanistan aside, than a lot of people want to realize. The speech to the Arab
world, his work with G20 and at the U.N., the decision on the nuclear shield, and maybe
even the Iran negotiations
have all made an impression on the world if not on TNR bloggers.
FWIW, I completely agree with mlottman. The idea that Obama should refuse the award is juvenile. It gives no thought to the consequences of doing so.
FWIW, I completely agree with mlottman. The idea that Obama should refuse the award is juvenile. It gives no thought to the consequences of doing so.
Let's see: an American original, immigrant background, up from considerable adversity, brilliant and succesful, is honored by the Nobel committee for his international diplomacy, and the conservatives dismiss it as a sham due to his "star power."
Which means they:
1. Are insulting the Peace Prize Committee's intelligence, and
2. Have not the good grace to express pride in the acknowledged accomplishments of an American statesman.
Shame on anyone going down this road. Show some bloody grace and nobility for once, and don't take the low road on the knee-jerk assumption that you can score points that way with the ignorant rabble you call your base. America is honored by this honor - America creat ... view full comment
Let's see: an American original, immigrant background, up from considerable adversity, brilliant and succesful, is honored by the Nobel committee for his international diplomacy, and the conservatives dismiss it as a sham due to his "star power."
Which means they:
1. Are insulting the Peace Prize Committee's intelligence, and
2. Have not the good grace to express pride in the acknowledged accomplishments of an American statesman.
Shame on anyone going down this road. Show some bloody grace and nobility for once, and don't take the low road on the knee-jerk assumption that you can score points that way with the ignorant rabble you call your base. America is honored by this honor - America created this man, and Americans recognized his talent, and America elected him. So:
3. Cast aspersions on the very country and values they claim to hold dear.
Writing after Obama accepted and listened to his speech: Agree with all who pointed out that it would be insulting to decline. Some talking head on NPR (can't remember which of their many news shows) thought the President's statement of acceptance was perfect. I think the prize serves to remind what we Americans were thinking and seeking when we gave our President one of the largest popular majorities of any Democrat elected President, and serves to remind that reality lies elsewhere than with the squawking wingnuts. I think President Obama was just right when he said that the prize was for all who supported the ideals of America and what America stands for, and a "call to action," not rewar ... view full comment
Writing after Obama accepted and listened to his speech: Agree with all who pointed out that it would be insulting to decline. Some talking head on NPR (can't remember which of their many news shows) thought the President's statement of acceptance was perfect. I think the prize serves to remind what we Americans were thinking and seeking when we gave our President one of the largest popular majorities of any Democrat elected President, and serves to remind that reality lies elsewhere than with the squawking wingnuts. I think President Obama was just right when he said that the prize was for all who supported the ideals of America and what America stands for, and a "call to action," not reward for past accomplishments.
Obama won the award because he flatters the European left by being as windy and shallow and gutless as they are. The Nobel Peace Prize was also given to Jimmy Carter, a failed president and an anti-Semite, and to Al Gore, an egomaniacal crank. With recipients like those the prize had already ceased to be an honor.
Obama won the award because he flatters the European left by being as windy and shallow and gutless as they are. The Nobel Peace Prize was also given to Jimmy Carter, a failed president and an anti-Semite, and to Al Gore, an egomaniacal crank. With recipients like those the prize had already ceased to be an honor.
Thank you mlottman, great response.
All of these hideous attacks on this great honor to our President are the pinnacle of self indulgent, preening, arm chair nobody-ism. To a person, the attacks have made me sick, there's not a single decent point in any of them. If anyone deserves a Nobel, it is our brave President.
(Crowley, you're just insulting here, harking back to some of TNR's darkest, most shameful past bullshit).
Thank you Mr President for your epic, courageous attempts to ease hatred and create a paths to understanding both in our nation and the world. As you well know, this is rarely respected until generations later (no good deed and all that).
I look forward to you continuing ... view full comment
Thank you mlottman, great response.
All of these hideous attacks on this great honor to our President are the pinnacle of self indulgent, preening, arm chair nobody-ism. To a person, the attacks have made me sick, there's not a single decent point in any of them. If anyone deserves a Nobel, it is our brave President.
(Crowley, you're just insulting here, harking back to some of TNR's darkest, most shameful past bullshit).
Thank you Mr President for your epic, courageous attempts to ease hatred and create a paths to understanding both in our nation and the world. As you well know, this is rarely respected until generations later (no good deed and all that).
I look forward to you continuing to live up to the promise of your Presidency by freeing our gay citizens from the institutional bigotry that demeans us all.
Wandrey,
I do wonder why Obama appears to be dragging his feet on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Perhaps he caculates that the fallout from an executive order (rather than legislative action) would be too much of a distraction from the other aspects of his agenda. But he has effected some progress with regard to gay rights, including the new bill that would expand the Hate Crimes Act to enhance punsishment for crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. Republicans violently oppose even that measure on the pretext that murder, battery and property damage are already crimes, and therefore hate-crime legislation is superfluous. But if that were the real reason for the oppositi ... view full comment
Wandrey,
I do wonder why Obama appears to be dragging his feet on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Perhaps he caculates that the fallout from an executive order (rather than legislative action) would be too much of a distraction from the other aspects of his agenda. But he has effected some progress with regard to gay rights, including the new bill that would expand the Hate Crimes Act to enhance punsishment for crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. Republicans violently oppose even that measure on the pretext that murder, battery and property damage are already crimes, and therefore hate-crime legislation is superfluous. But if that were the real reason for the opposition -- that the legislation would be superfluous -- then why is it so angry?
-
FLASH: The sneering and goofy talk from the right and the sarcasm or jokes from Leno or Stewart are part of the job description.
One doesn't need to wait for their reaction to any good news in any cycle. The script for radio talk shows and late night comedy relies upon a daily diet of events which are then repackaged to outrage, entertain or provoke and the result depends upon the medium that is on duty.
When the incentive to lampoon or criticize is cash money? When the environment is polarized and twitchy? When the best news has the potential to feed paranoia and boost ratings? Yes, even a Noble Peace Prize became a mixed blessing. The stock market rose by nearly 50% ... view full comment
-
FLASH: The sneering and goofy talk from the right and the sarcasm or jokes from Leno or Stewart are part of the job description.
One doesn't need to wait for their reaction to any good news in any cycle. The script for radio talk shows and late night comedy relies upon a daily diet of events which are then repackaged to outrage, entertain or provoke and the result depends upon the medium that is on duty.
When the incentive to lampoon or criticize is cash money? When the environment is polarized and twitchy? When the best news has the potential to feed paranoia and boost ratings? Yes, even a Noble Peace Prize became a mixed blessing. The stock market rose by nearly 50% since March (cue the comedy writers and Beck's Gold Bugs sponsers).
It is not smart politics to refuse credit, honors or be consumed by the fear that progress will be distorted for someone's professional gain. This administration can't operate with a goal to please the RNC or hope to be unfunny for comedy.
And the left can't take the bait when a few off kilter blabbers threaten doom or seek a causal relationship between our success and theirs. [HINT] When we win, they don't.
When Rush had to find common ground with the Taliban, that should have been a clue who's ahead.
Grow up. If someone would have said on Thursday, "I have some good news and bad news."
(OK, give me the bad news) "Well, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize."
(...what's the good news?) "That depends what your job is."
I'm just a volunteer, but I know my job...
-
Turning it down woud be a great move: but he won't do it.
Turning it down woud be a great move: but he won't do it.
Basman,
mlottman, sdemuth and others on this thread have articulated cogent arguments against the proposition that Obama should reject prize. Rather than engage those arguments, you simply state, without any reasoning, that turning it down would be a great move. Why is anyone supposed to be persuaded by that? I don't see how anyone could in good faith criticize the manner in which Obama in fact handled it, i.e., by stating that he did not think he derserves to be in the category of other prize winners, that he accepts it on behalf of all Americans who have been working for peace, and that he regards it as a call to action.
Basman,
mlottman, sdemuth and others on this thread have articulated cogent arguments against the proposition that Obama should reject prize. Rather than engage those arguments, you simply state, without any reasoning, that turning it down would be a great move. Why is anyone supposed to be persuaded by that? I don't see how anyone could in good faith criticize the manner in which Obama in fact handled it, i.e., by stating that he did not think he derserves to be in the category of other prize winners, that he accepts it on behalf of all Americans who have been working for peace, and that he regards it as a call to action.