This morning when I checked my Facebook page, the first thing I read was Rose Marschak’s status update: Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize. I thought it was some kind of joke, because the last I heard, leaders don’t win that award unless they’ve actually been in office for more than 9 months. This is, after all, an award that has previously gone to the likes of Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. I mean, don’t you have to have been around for a while? Don’t you have to have actually accomplished something? My reply to Rose’s post was: I hate to rain on everybody’s parade, but I think this is a bit premature. Soon, one of her friends replied that she agreed but surmised that perhaps this was the Swedes way of making sure Obama would not renege on his promises for greater cooperation and multilateralism. Then, my friend Mark posted: This is just the Swedes way of showing appreciation that Obama is not George W. Bush. Fair enough, but considering Bush is not a hard act to follow by any means, isn’t this nomination demeaning the gravity of the award itself?
Later that afternoon, I learned from Facebook friend Brian Rogan that the nominations were submitted on February 1, 2009. Which means that Obama was nominated when he’d only been president for two weeks.
WTF?
Is the world so desperate for hope that they have to crown an American whose leadership skills are yet to be seen? Is the world so desperate for hope that they have to crown an American leader who is still waging two wars in the Middle East – one who has, indeed, just decided to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Do lofty speeches of peace and reconciliation really warrant such a distinction? I don’t get it.
Don’t get me wrong, I hold nothing against Obama. After all, he never volunteered for this award and seems just as genuinely surprised as the rest of the country. Apparently his spokesman’s only comment this morning to this latest news was, “Wow.”
Clearly, the world is in love with Obama and his charisma extends beyond our own shores. A recent poll catapulted the United States to the #1 position of most admired country, up from position #7 last year. Hell, we haven’t been this popular in Europe since D-Day. Suddenly, it’s okay to be an American again.
But what worries me is that this is a president who has yet to be tested, who had so little political experience when he was elected last November. Expectations are high and popularity can only get you so far. Can the world really afford to believe in a Messiah?
Later that afternoon, I learned from Facebook friend Brian Rogan that the nominations were submitted on February 1, 2009. Which means that Obama was nominated when he’d only been president for two weeks.
WTF?
Is the world so desperate for hope that they have to crown an American whose leadership skills are yet to be seen? Is the world so desperate for hope that they have to crown an American leader who is still waging two wars in the Middle East – one who has, indeed, just decided to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Do lofty speeches of peace and reconciliation really warrant such a distinction? I don’t get it.
Don’t get me wrong, I hold nothing against Obama. After all, he never volunteered for this award and seems just as genuinely surprised as the rest of the country. Apparently his spokesman’s only comment this morning to this latest news was, “Wow.”
Clearly, the world is in love with Obama and his charisma extends beyond our own shores. A recent poll catapulted the United States to the #1 position of most admired country, up from position #7 last year. Hell, we haven’t been this popular in Europe since D-Day. Suddenly, it’s okay to be an American again.
But what worries me is that this is a president who has yet to be tested, who had so little political experience when he was elected last November. Expectations are high and popularity can only get you so far. Can the world really afford to believe in a Messiah?
8 comments:
Glen Greenwald reports his reaction to the prize and gives a good summary of recent military events in order to evaluate both Obama and the award. Incidentally, Glen Greenwald is totally OUT (i.e., an honest commentator, unlike the average neocon Warrior-Fanboy) and has a Brazilian partner, just like that other George.
Thanks George. I did read that the other day. Very astute.
What's a Nobel prize?
@ Anonymous: Google it. Jesus.
President Obama's speech to the United Nations Assembly on September 23, 2009:
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," he said. "We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
i get kind of worried lately that this guy is gonna be all talk and no action. couple of weeks ago he was pitching chicago for the summer olympics, the other day he was defending the right of homosexuals to do military service, but somehow i don't get the feeling he gets anything done. granted, i don't live in the states, but i see obama very comfortable in the role of a 'rock star' - someone who's great with the masses, knows what they want to hear and (even better) knows how to deliver the right lines at the appropriate time...
as for the nobel prize - premature is an understatement.
I have nothing against Obama, in fact I LOVE him, (yes, I think I might even be a bit of a fan-girl when it comes to him), but I too don't see how this award is justified. And I think it will be a burden (like he doesn't have enough of those already), rather than an uplifting experience for him. I had a similar feeling to you actually, I thought "My God, it's not like he's freakin' Jesus!" Give the poor man a break!!
On the topic of the Nobel-commitee just wanting to make a political statement, I think that could be about right. Wouldn't be the first time either. This year's Nobel Literature Prize went to Hertha Mueller, an German/Romanian author who wrote about her life in soviet Romania before she escaped to Germany in the 1980s. And guess what? It just so happens to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nobody in Germany, appart from literature-insiders, has even heard of her. *rolls eyes* A similar case happened with the Turkish "winner" Orhan Pamuk (don't quote my spelling please), critics had the suspicion that the Nobel-commitee just thought it was about time that someone from Eastern Europe/Arabia gets the Literature Prize...
@ Ana: Yes, I totally agree. Nobel prizes can be enormously political. This is something I was not aware of until recently. I always thought, for some reason, that Nobels were really different from other awards and had integrity. But I guess not as much as I thought -- they are susceptible to the same politics as many other awards. But still, I generally respect them. Past recipients were definitely worthy, although I do think it's curious that Mahatma Ghandi never won the award, even though he was nominated several times. They should give him the award post-humously if they haven't already. Most Americans are still kind of scratching their heads over this latest news. Even Obama has said so in his latest acceptance speech.
@ Nick: Many liberals are really disapointed in him already too. So far none of his talk has resulted in anything concrete and, as far as the Middle East goes, he's behaving just like Bush, continuing the same policies. He is, indeed, a rock star, but it's time for him to actually act like a leader and take decisive action. Like with gay rights. Gay people in this country view their number one priority is to have the right to get legally married. But so far he hasn't actually said he supports it. He's due to speak before a gay organization soon (or already has has) and is not expected to even address the issue.
As filmmaker Roger Moore has said, "Congratulations! Now earn it!"
Post a Comment