Both Sides, Now
Oct 10th, 2009 | 12 responses
UPDATE BELOW:
So, in the 36 hours or so since the world found out that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, we have been reading, hearing, talking, and writing about the seemingly near-universal feeling of disbelief, leading to various degrees of displeasure for many, that he was nominated for the award only two weeks after he was inaugurated, and won it after only nine months in office.
That response is so widespread that I became curious to know what the dissenters are saying — dissenters in this context being those who believe Pres. Obama was an appropriate choice for the Peace Prize, and think he deserved to win. I am not referring here to the official responses from Democratic leaders — I mean, whatever their private opinions might be, one would expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, et al., to be unreservedly enthusiastic in their public statements. But what about media pundits, bloggers, and others such-like?
Joan Walsh was just as flummoxed as everyone else initially, but the merit of the decision grew on her (my emphasis):
In recent years the Nobel Peace Prize has more often honored promise and encouraged progress than it marked concrete, permanent achievements in the realm of world peace. So the prize went to President Carter’s ultimately unsuccessful 1978 Middle East peace drive; and to the same still uncompleted effort by Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi won the prize in her jail cell, but the point was to support democracy in Burma (and 18 years later, she is still under house arrest).Thinking about the Northern Ireland Catholic and Protestant “Peace Mothers” who won the award in 1976, years before real peace accords, I suddenly saw Obama’s win as strangely humble, and personal: One man trying to reverse the bloody tide of recent American history.
Obama’s prize is a measure of how far the Bush administration pushed the United States, and the world, away from peace. So far away that Obama’s small but fervent efforts in the opposite direction — new diplomacy on Israel, Palestine, Iran, Russia and North Korea; slow but steady withdrawal from Iraq and now a painful reappraisal of the increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan; a pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons; new initiatives to the Muslim world — could win him this prize. …
And the derision from the right? Forget about it, Walsh advises:
The right-wing’s idiocy about Obama’s Nobel win is no longer even interesting. … The country will move on without them. I loved what French President Nicholas Sarkozy (not always an Obama fan) said about why the U.S. president really got the Nobel Peace Prize: “The award marks America’s return to the heart of the people of the world.” That deserves a prize.
Rachel Maddow argued forcefully in the “Mind Over Chatter” segment of her MSNBC show last night that Pres. Obama deserved to win the Prize (h/t, ePluribus Media). As she so often does, Maddow effectively demolished every single reason Obama’s detractors have given for why he should not have gotten it. I urge you to watch it for yourself (below), because any summary of her argument that I could make will fall short.
Via James Fallows comes the Ignorance Is Bliss Award — or to paraphrase Fallows, the Google Is Your Friend Award:
The Washington Post’s lead editorial today argues that a more deserving winner for the Nobel Peace Prize would have been Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman whose death during the Iranian uprising became a worldwide symbol, comparable to the Tank Man of Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Defensible point, though obviously purely symbolic in its own way too. As the paper says, after arguing that the selection of Barack Obama is an expression of hope rather than a post-achievement recognition:
“The Nobel Committee’s decision is especially puzzling given that a better alternative was readily apparent…. A posthumous award for Neda, as the avatar of a democratic movement in Iran, would have recognized the sacrifices that movement has made and encouraged its struggle in a dark hour.”
Would it have been so hard to mention the complicating fact that Nobel prizes are only for still-living people? And that this is a basic element of discussion when, for example, the literature prize rolls around each year? (After John Updike’s death in January, one of the Post’s own writers noted that among the sadnesses was that Updike would never be recognized with a Nobel prize.) And that therefore the omission of Neda is not “especially puzzling” at all? The FAQ page at NobelPrize.org (yes! there is such a site) makes this clear:
“Is it possible to nominate someone for a posthumous Nobel Prize?
“No, it is not. Previously, a person could be awarded a prize posthumously if he/she had already been nominated (before February 1 of the same year), which was true of Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931) and Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize, 1961). Effective from 1974, the prize may only go to a deceased person to whom it was already awarded (usually in October) but who had died before he/she could receive the Prize on December 10 (William Vickrey, 1996 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). See also par. 4 of the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation.”
And this paragraph is the very first thing that comes up on a Google search for “posthumous Nobel prize.” According to Google’s meter, it took 0.24 seconds to find that info, and it would have taken maybe another fifteen seconds to change the sentence in the editorial to say: “Although the Nobel committee ordinarily rules out posthumous awards, an exception in this case… [and make the argument].”
Nice to see the WaPo still striving for those high journalistic standards.
UPDATE: JustOneMinute’s Tom Maguire brings up another teeny-tiny problem with Fred Hiatt’s recommendation: Neda Agha-Soltan was killed in the aftermath of the Iranian elections, which took place in June 2009 — and the deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1, 2009.
12 Responses to “Both Sides, Now”
In order to have a good debate around the merits of Obama's winning the Nobel, we all have to come to understand the purpose and reason for the honor. Those who view the Nobel Peace Prize as an award given for past accomplishment with no further action necessary will not agree with those who see the honor going to someone who is in the progress of promoting peace.
Obviously the Nobel Prize for Literature would go to someone who produced literature worthy for that reward. However peace is an ongoing process. Entering into treaties is not enough because countries (like the USA did under the Bush administration) can break them.
Because much of the World views the President of the United States as the most powerful (and influential) figure in the world, I think many people are glad to embrace an American President who they feel will listen to them. Or perhaps they are just happy that there's not a trigger happy president, like Bush, who will threaten their country if they don't do what he wants.
So I think the Nobel Peace Prize given to Obama is meant to put Obama in a more powerful negotiating position when it comes to dealing with other countries. After all it is a prestigious honor. As an example, if Obama stands up to leaders who trample their people, Obama will be seen as more authoritative than other leaders because he does have the peace prize. Part of having that prize is world recognition that he wants to promote peace.
Given that the Republicans claim the president should stand up to other world leaders one would think the GOP would be happy that Obama has another tool in his chest to help the interests of the US.
Per Joan Walsh:
“The right-wing’s idiocy about Obama’s Nobel win is no longer even interesting.”
What interests me about Joan Walsh, and most others defending Obama's Nobel, is the pretense that it's only right wing idiots who can't fathom the award. It also seems telling that she, herself, opines that this honor is a measure of the Bush Administration — a “legacy” which is trotted out at every turn to explain any lack of progress on any front, despite any of Obama's other efforts.
Aung San Suu Kyi is proving a popular choice in the Symbolism vs. Achievement competition as well, most bluntly summed up by a BBC guest professor who observed that Aung San Suu Kyi got a Nobel Prize and she didn't achieve peace in Burma either! Maddow makes the lack of success argument, too, but I doubt that either she or Walsh would characterize that heroic woman's efforts as “small.” When one of the Nobel committee members said outright that Carter's prize was intended as a slap at George Bush, I'm not sure why a certain skepticism about the politics of the award is unwarranted. I remember thinking what a shame it was to demean the Carter honor in such fashion. Personally, I think it was actually less about Bush this time around.
When it comes to turning tides, I'd suggest that the American electorate did that at the polls, and how long Obama can continue riding that wave is anybody's guess. As with the Nobel, his disappointed critics on more than one issue hardly hail exclusively from the right. To Maddow's point, I'd note that George W. Bush persuaded a lot of people to elect him too, in the middle of the wars she mentioned, and that GWB, himself, had his share of critics on his own side of the aisle. Once again, the pretense that Bush's critics on the left were uniformly calm, cool, and collected simply doesn't pass the laugh test any more than a flat denial that Obama derangement simply doesn't exist would.
As a minor aside, I doubt that Sarkozy would be any more likely to express official surprise or reservations over the choice of Obama than Democratic leadership here would.
I saw your link over at JustOneMinute and enjoyed your post here!
JM Hanes
Thank you, JM Hanes.
[...] [...]
Aung San Suu Kyi, received the N. Peace Prize because the Nobels dont have an award for Holy Person.
Holy?
One religion's “holy” is another religion’s sacrilege.
“holy” is completely irrelevant regarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
Very well reasoned. Thanks
[...] Both Sides, Now (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Hey there FT, and thanks. I know you've stated many times how you think about such matters before. I think differently. Holy means dedicated to a sacred principle. Aung San Suu Kyi is a Buddhist and strives to live it in full, not as rote. I've been looking at her books this week, and I think there are iconic people FT. They exist and have impact on many others even when they dont have impact, say, on you or me. Yet others are strengthened because those particular people exist, even if one or the other such person, perceived as holy, is in prison.
One could argue whether such iconic reach ought exist or not. I think one can only say such matters exist for oneself, or not. For you, they do not… but they may in some ways quite differently, depending on who inspires you and why. For me, I see holiness in various people. I also have a strong bs detector for phonies who bleat.
You may be right, I dont know the timbre of the people on the Nobel awards committees… they may not value holiness, or potential, or leaders' reach by decent intents, either. But, some may. We'd have to meet them and speak to them privately, in order to know.
dr.e
F_T, your anti-religiousness is causing you to take Dr E's statement far too literally. All she's saying is that Aung San Suu Kyi's activism against the Burmese government is a significant step forward for global peace — even if she did not manage to single-handedly end that regime's rule. Aung San Suu Kyi is the human epitome of someone who works for peace, and peace is a sacred value. That does not mean that Dr E is advocating for “Holy Person” as a category in the Nobels, or that she is pushing one religion over another, or that she is pushing religion at all.
[...] Both Sides, Now (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
“in the 36 hours or so”
It's a dreadful shame that the figure you use is accurate for the behavior of so many; there ought to be a decimal point included.
“Rachel Maddow … “Mind Over Chatter””
False advertising!