Nobel committee jumps gun with Peace Prize
(Last updated: 10/11/09 7:20pm)When President Barack Obama was campaigning last year, many compared him to do-gooders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The hope among many was that, one day, he would be listed among those great figures.
This past Friday, however, the Nobel committee seemed to think Obama already earned his place among the great by awarding him the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.
Frankly, the committee jumped the gun by awarding Obama the prize. In an attempt to justify Obama’s policies and perhaps give the award new relevance, the committee simply did themselves, Obama, and the prize itself a huge disservice.
Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.” Jagland is right that Obama is trying — very hard — to promote peace in this world. But he doesn’t have much to show for it at this point, especially in the past year.
Obama spent the past year running a multimillion-dollar presidential campaign. Now that he’s in office, he has an entire staff of people working for him, funded by taxpayer dollars. Any results of peaceful diplomacy on his watch are the product of dozens of staff members working to inform and advise him. Although the work Obama has done, and will do, certainly is important, it’s just not quite as impressive as that done by lone crusaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa.
Realistically speaking, the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn’t be used as an affirmation of being on the right track. It’s not an investment in the future — that’s what loans are for. And an affirmation of a good platform usually is called “winning an election.”
Winning the Nobel Peace Prize actually might be a step backward for Obama and his efforts toward peace. The award simply invites further scrutiny to Obama’s record in office. In an attempt to justify Obama’s efforts for peace, they’ve only magnified what he has not yet accomplished. A Nobel Prize does not overshadow the fact that Obama has not yet closed Guantanamo Bay, pulled out of the war in Iraq and is considering sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Already, Obama’s opponents are jumping on him for winning the prize. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has even said that winning the Nobel Prize is a “greater embarrassment” for Obama than losing the Olympics. But winning the award is not Obama’s fault. Before pouncing on him for supposedly “tarnishing” such an esteemed award, they should remember that he is responsible only for that which the Nobel committee awarded him — nothing.
Yet we would have been happy to see Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize 20 years from now, after he has left office and most of his legacy is behind him. But the fact of the matter is that he simply has not accomplished enough in his life to merit such a prestigious award.
Although Obama has done little to earn the prize, he has all the resources necessary to bring about peace at his disposal. He has most of America behind him, a majority in Congress, and apparently five adoring Norwegians who have great expectations.
Let’s just hope Obama acts on them.
Originally Published: 10/11/09 7:20pm
donna byrne
10/11/09 9:04pmobama getting the noble peace price is a joke! he has done nothing for this country or man kind to deserve it. He is has and continues to put our country in more debt then we have ever seen. Putting more people out of work, one example: the farmers in Ca. ( just turn on the water!). He puts America down every time he opens his mouth; if he hates his country so much he should do us all favor and leave it, there are communist countries that would except him and he’ld love it there.
...View full comment »
randrew
10/11/09 9:58pmdonna, that was quite the rant.
I agree with the premise of the article that he should not have won the award.
Unfortunately, as I look at recent award winners I feel that the voting group is putting politics ahead people who truly deserve the award.
As a side note, doesn’t it feel strange to award a Peace Prize named after the person who developed TNT.
randrew
10/11/09 10:04pmPoorly written paragraph above should read.
“As I look at recent award winners I feel that by selecting Obama the voting group is putting politics ahead people who truly deserve the award.”
1HappyFool
10/11/09 11:31pmThe committee probably thinks they can influence a US president to advance their agenda. Either that or they think they can further castrate him or the US. Did I just repeat myself?
Zeke
10/12/09 9:44am“Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, whom the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former Army medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan – a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.”
Yes, an orator who has done very little over 9 months definitely deserved to win over this man.
...View full comment »
Tim
10/12/09 11:31amAs seen above, Obama’s win provides the perfect platform for Republicans to criticize him. Who cares that the economy and job growth have nothing to do with the Peace Prize, let’s trot them out as reasons he should not have won. It also supports the Republican view that Obama will never be criticized.
Zeke
10/12/09 11:50am“As seen above, Obamaâs win provides the perfect platform for Republicans to criticize him.”
Hmm, except that I voted for him as a non-Republican moderate. Guess you’re one of those people who votes every four years and then ignores the candidates you voted for?
“Who cares that the economy and job growth have nothing to do with the Peace Prize, letâs trot them out as reasons he should not have won.”
Peace is more than just tanks and bombers.
...View full comment »
common sense
10/12/09 1:12pm“there are communist countries that would except him and he’ld love it there.”
Donna needs to move to some country where they’ll “except” her for not knowing English.
Award was premature. But Obama is less of a jackass than Bush, though only slightly, so I guess that means something.
Tim
10/12/09 1:58pmZeke- Right, a guy commenting on a university article is clearly the kind of person who pays little attention to politics. I’ll refrain from referring to people who criticize Obama as Republicans from now on.
I would think that a person could have a poor domestic fiscal policy but a peace promoting foreign policy. I don’t see why those are mutually exclusive. It certainly would provide doubts that Obama could implement his foreign policies, but he could be good at one and bad at the other.
Well, I’m sorry that you feel you can’t criticize Obama, although you appear to have little trouble doing so.
...View full comment »
Rick
10/12/09 3:01pmRepublicans are like Kanye West, saying somebody else should’ve won. Why do you care? Political agenda, maybe? It’s almost certainly good for America. You have a problem with that?
re: rick
10/12/09 10:54pmAnd democrats were like Kanye West, saying that Gore should’ve won the election in 2000 and that Kerry should’ve won the election in 2004. What’s your point?
come on!
10/13/09 12:52amI admit, I would not have voted for Obama on this one. But let’s get real. Go take a few minutes to research who past winners of the prize were. Many, many, other people were awarded before they achieved anything great, but what those people all had in common is that they were offering a new inspiration. Some rather shady people were also chosen. Say Henry Kissinger? Half of the world views him as a criminal.
...View full comment »
Rick
10/13/09 7:04amMy point was bleeding obvious. The prize, however shaky the rationale, is good for America. Republicans are sticking their noses into something that isn’t their business. It is childish to point out that Democrats have acted the same way in the past. We should be concerned about what is good for America—not cheap political gain.
Alex
10/13/09 8:57am“My point was bleeding obvious. The prize, however shaky the rationale, is good for America. Republicans are sticking their noses into something that isnât their business.”
Kindly explain how the prize is good for America. I’m curious as to how this leads to an improved economy, job creation, improved health care, or racial equality. Is China going to suddenly open up their trade now?
...View full comment »
MaximumBob
10/13/09 4:40pmJust another leftist group giving a fellow leftist the reach-around. Nothing to see here.
I detest Bill Clinton, but at least he accomplished something worthy of the nomination, if not the award. He lost out to an affirmative action hire. This is absolutely beautiful.
re: rick
10/13/09 6:47pmAlex -you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.
Rick – If you’re going to call someone “childish”, at least make an argument that doesn’t liken a political party to a rapper.
Tim
10/14/09 9:56amAlex and re:Rick-
...Well, the award is a validation of the foreign policy path Obama has chosen and an encouragement to other nations to embrace the same ideals. It could possibly lead to increased international cooperation although it’s unlikley an award can accomplish that.
That is basically what Obama said by the way.
Of course it won’t single handedly solve any of the problems you discussed, but sometimes symbolic moves are significant even if results aren’t seen immediately.
View full comment »
MaximumBob
10/14/09 10:02amTim,
Obama was nominated less than two weeks after he was elected. No accomplishments to his credit, other than getting elected. If that’s the criteria, then every US president should win this award.
You’re right, this isn’t a travesty.
It’s a joke.
Tim
10/14/09 10:58amBob-
Where did I say he accomplished anything? Even 2 weeks into his presidency, Obama had made it clear what is foreign policy would be. You may believe the award should only be given after an individual accomplishes something, but the history of the award says otherwise. So by your standard the award has long been a joke and is nothing to get upset about.
Alex
10/14/09 12:51pmSo, Tim, by your reasoning anyone who tries really hard to do well should get the prize? What then would you say to the people who have actually done great things to create peace in the past year? Take a look at this list:
http://nobel-peace-prize-news.newslib.com/story/2155-3248538/
Can you possibly, seriously think that Obama was more deserving than these people? This isn’t a matter of comparing Obama against other people, or against GW Bush (which is what everyone seems to be focusing upon), but comparing his “achievements” against those who have actually DONE SOMETHING to earn this award.
Obama has reached out to nations, but so have other leaders of the world.
...View full comment »
Neo-cons
10/14/09 1:37pmI guess neo-cons will now start calling the Nobel Prize a “leftist/liberal/communist/fascist” agenda. That seems to be the answer or rather the blame for everything they disagree with or know nothing about.
Probably because no neo-con would ever be held in the same esteem around the world. More like inbred/intolerant/narrow minded monkeys they’ve devolved into despite their lack of understanding of evolution.
Pat
10/14/09 1:53pmWow. Donna Byrne: When did they get the internet in the trailer?
Tim
10/14/09 2:27pmAlex-
...That isn’t what I said and it isn’t really my reasoning anyway. It’s the reasoning of the Nobel Prize Committee. It seems clear that they take more into account than accomplishments. The award has been used to encourage and promote agendas the Committee agrees with. Again, people are free to disagree with that view, but this isn’t the first time the award has been used in that manner.
View full comment »
MaximumBob
10/14/09 2:36pmTim,
The long history of the award DOES NOT indicate anything other than real accomplishments. Take a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s award and tell me it wasn’t earned. However, the recent history has been nothing more than a nod to leftists and terrorists, regardless of accomplishment or promise.
And, again, you’re right.
...There’s absolutely nothing to be worried about.
View full comment »