Politics
When Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, the right wing went nuts-- figuratively and in some cases literally. I don't know what was going on with them but suspect they had hoped Europe had turned against Obama because of Chicago's loss of the Olympics. I think the Olympics related to a lot of things but Obama's popularity wasn't one of them.
According to Wikipedia, the peace prize is given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize (monetarily worth over $1,000,000 which Obama said he will give to charity) is awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament.
Yes, I understand Obama hasn't been president for long, but he has been working toward those goals. One of his first trips overseas was to the Middle East and places presidents don't always choose to go like Cairo where he gave a major address. He got flak from the right in this country, but he was making a statement that he has stuck with every since. Look at what he does and you see a steady course toward the kind of goals the Nobel Peace Prize is set up to highlight.
What I think the Nobel committee was saying was meant for us in the U.S.A as well as for him. They want us to not place ourselves above them but alongside, to operate with treaties we have agreed upon, to work for peace, to care about climate change, and to want to be part of the world community, not seek to either pretend it doesn't exist or dominate it.
The Nobel committee knew Obama committed himself to these causes and I think that is what they probably based the award upon. It really is for the new direction of this country. Obama was elected by many people on that platform. Yes, the right didn't want that, but they lost this time. They have another chance to earn the disdain of Europe by electing someone like Sarah Palin next time.
The committee may have thought, with the power of the United States still impressive, Obama has the most opportunity to make a positive difference toward real dialogue between countries, toward peace. Why is 'that' a bad thing? Or more accurately, to whom, is 'that' a bad thing?
Ironically Limbaugh actually said , in this case he's on the same side as the Taliban because they also didn't like Obama getting the award. I don't know how many times I have had conversations with my leftie friends and family where we have said we saw that connection between extreme fundamentalists who always seek to go back rather than forward, who seek power rather than cooperation. Did Limbaugh just figure out that he has more in common with the Taliban than either want to admit.
Oh, I know Limbaugh loves women. He'll be a judge of Miss America and doesn't that prove his liking for women. How could he be like the Taliban? They dislike women. Well, they both love a certain aspect of women, but that doesn't mean either respect women. On his show, he has been more an example of misogyny than liberated thinking. Women are okay in their place and behaving appropriately by his standards which means parading down a runway in a swimsuit, I guess.
The right seems to fear this award will impact Obama's ego. They have decided that if he is admired by others, it will make him be egotistic-- something that is evidently okay in Limbaugh who proudly says it's how he is. It was also okay when Bush said he was the decider and didn't care about polls or what anybody else thought, where he said he only needed to discuss war policy with his Father in heaven, but not ask advice of his father down here. That's not egotistical?
The right thought Obama went to Europe to try to get the Olympics because of his ego. How about a different reason? Perhaps his wife and two women (Oprah and Valerie Jarrett), women who have helped him in the past, asked him to go? How many men turn down their wife in such a case? Especially not men with loving relationships. To see the right take joy in the United States losing out was exactly like when they took umbrage that the United States was honored by having a leader the world admired. This is patriotism?
It's hard for me to understand how the right thinks. They have decided we on the left hero worship Obama and I guess this plays into their fears. Some are waiting for an antichrist and when Europe likes one of our leaders that makes him potentially that person? I mean this whole thing makes zero sense to me.
We on the left did vote for someone hoping they could improve our image in the world. Well it obviously happened. That's bad? Most people know that to have a good relationship in their community is important. They want to be respected and trusted. Why can't they see that applies on a world scale also.
Thank you Norway for encouraging the rest of us!
20 comments:
Rain,
You have hit the nail on the head. Clearly an article on top of the Nobel Prize given to Obama. My two cents is this: Obama was nominated for this award shortly after he took office and it took a long process of elimination of hundreds of other nominations when eight months after the nominations the winner was named. In light of the very short time he was in office when the nomination was made, I believe this is a recognition of a far reaching fundamental change from our former imperialist nation. Because of geography we had frontier expantion and we developed an aragant imperialist expansion policy. We were wasteful and insensitive and even cruel in our policy to native peoples. Our arrogant behavior hit an all time high with President Bush preceeding Obama. President Bush contrasting so much from Obama makes the change very noticeable and admired. The admirable part is that the majority of voters are represented by Obama. We can all take a bow for Obama's prize.
You guys summed up why the right and even many on the left were dismayed by the award. Rain said Obama is working towards goals. I thought the award was given for achieving goals. Everyone tries to do good things, but actually acheiving your goals is a different story all together.
And Parapluie hit the other reason he won, he is not George W. Bush.
All of the people talking about him winning the Heisman trophy or getting the Lifetime Achievement Oscar this year shows what a political statement this really was.
Actually, ingineer, it is often given for working toward them. Did you read the creed and if you look at who has won it, often they got it years before they achieved their goals. The United States well may turn back from this course in the next election but this is what obama was elected to do. Look at how he went this year to countries to work toward peace. Yes, he's not Bush and he's not Sarah Palin and you all have a chance to undo that next time and elect another like Bush and Cheney.
And of course, it's political. What else could it be? These goals are political goals as are those of bomb bomb bomb as a solution to anything. Even the desire for peace is a political goal obviously not desired by all.
Obama has nothing to apologize for in receiving it as some like Beck would suggest and the right simply should rethink where they are heading and is perpetual war a way to avoid high taxes? It seems to me the right has contradictory goals there.
Maureen Dowd's column today is funny on this topic from a different perspective: Gandhi Wuz Robbed
I do not think he should apologize, it is just meaningless really. And maybe I did not use the correct wording earlier. He had not even had time to try to do anything when they voted on this. He simply said he was going to try and to me, that is not enough to win an award that should mean something.
When I listen to the criticism of Obama I think "Damned if you do or damned if you don't." He can't win.
The 'right' also remind me of that old joke about Clinton. Clinton was in a rowboat with the Pope and the Pope's beanie blew off. Clinton got out of the boat, walked ovr the water and got the Pope's beanie and returned it. When Newt Gingrich heard about it he said, "See - I told you he couldn't swim."
I think the best thing for the rest of us to do is just ignore the sour grapes and move on.
Rain . . .
Ingineer66 has it spot on.
Parpluie missed:
(1) "former imperialist nation"?
(2) "arrogant imperialist expansionist policy"?
(3) "the majority of voters are represented by Obama"?
If holier than thou Jimmy Carter can get it, why not Obama? Or would Jimmy think that's racist?
Dixon
You guys see it that way because you are right wing oriented. You might see this differently if it was a conservative who had come in with various ideas and had the world praise them for it. Obama has done a lot this year to set a course and it's been one of the things Republicans have hated so much.
Basically it's an award given by those who decide the criteria. And it is sour grapes as Darlene said to find fault with it.
Maybe so-called conservatives need their own award, one that favors who did the most to start a war that year :) Or had the most threatening bombastic speech, offended the most people in one speech... Give a million dollars and perhaps you will get attention for it, as well as compete with the Taliban for putting up candidates... many who don't want to fight in their own wars of course (like Limbaugh) or pay for it (like most right wingers today).......
And if it was truly meaningless, why did the right wing go so nuts over it? They'd have simply ignored it.
I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.
Yes Obama has done a lot this year. He has tripled the Federal Deficit and helped the unemployment rate to approach Ten Percent. And as for an award for starting a war, maybe this one is for the guy that is trying to lose a war. He wanted the stimulus passed in a weekend and healthcare reform passed in 2 weeks, but he is saying it may take him 3 months to decide whether to listen to the commander he picked to lead the war? He is so busy acting like the mayor of a city that he does not have time to be President of the United States.
Webster says " imperialism 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. direct terriorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas." Our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is an imperialist act. It is not about winning. It is about the Middle East being under the thumb of the British Empire and we are an extenton of the that type of engagement. It has never been won and never will be. So you ask how do you deal with their acts of terror against us and the world? Well let us eliminate devine intervention. There is something we can do as people. Much research has gone into conflict resolution. And I think Obama can employ more and more conflict resolution with less and less military imperialism. The charities that Obama can help fund can be selected to help open up people to working together.
I know it is hard to see what a departure Obama has made because we are so close to it. Woodrow Wilson faced the same myopic public opinion. But today where would we be without having had the League of Nations and the United Nations?
The question is not whether Obama should get the Nobel. For every international prize, there are many nominations, and one person gets it. The fact is that he was nominated. The rest followed. It doesnt mean that the others nominated were bad. Regardless of who one supported.
As a hesitant outsider looking in, it seems to me that those that oppose Obama getting the Nobel, keep evaluating him vis-a-vis his internal rating in the US.
But I think, a huge part of the world is impressed by his thinkng. his ascent into a place that was looked upon with doubt earlier, and he does exude a sense of someone who will stick to his promises. As seen by the outside world.
The Nobel is about a world view. It is not a US prize. Despite the fact that the majority of the winners often appear to be in the US. And Talibanesqe comments of those like Limbaugh, who , under the guise of my-enemy's-enemy-is-my-dear-friend , cannot look beyond the Right, need to be ignored.
Good addition to the vocabulary, Parapluie, which is an important part of any dialogue.
I really appreciated your insight, Ugich. You put that very well and I hope everyone reads it as an outside of the US insight into what the Nobel Peace Prize means. Sounds like some educating is needed.
As for your comments, ingineer, I will address them soon in a new blog although not the next one as it's written--actually the next three but soon. This though is about the Nobel and not a place to discuss the political mendacity of the right wing in the US.
The Nobel Prize in some instances is a political award in that political considerations come into playe.g. Yasser Arafat. Please, this man wanted peace or strove for it ? Even Medals of Honor in the military have to be cleared and you better believe that they put the political litmus test on it (in some instances). My brother who is a disabled veteran told me so. Desmond Tutu (who deserved the award) received it years before aparteid was overthrown in South Africa. Jimmy Carter decerved it too. We cannot rule the world through the barrel of a gun and we have to learn that lesson at some point or go the way of empires throughout history. Might does not make right !
The short comings of the League of Nations lead to WWII so after all of Obama's peace and love talk, I guess we can expect a large global war with millions dead and the utter destruction of the enemy. Then we will be able to have the long term peace and prosperity that will bring our economy out of the hole that is being dug.
What you said had nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize which is not the United Nations doing. The problems of the past can be laid a lot of things and the League of Nations is not remotely all of them
Rain,
Obama's Nobel Prize is okay. He sold himself with rhetoric. It was awarded before he actually did something and the European's in general like the idea that someone took the USA down a peg. Time will tell if Mr. Obama's far left agenda is what America needed right now. Many of our citizens agree that he is. At times I think its many except for me. But time will tell.
Parapluie and many from the left consider our country to be an "Imperialist Nation" yet the one thing we have not done is grab and hold more geographical territory. Yes, America has displayed it's power many times over, and several times it was a mistake to do so. And there's no real arguement that we have also acted in a haughty, arrogant manner, particularly as regards our efforts at diplomacy.
Last point. The Republican Party is without a clue. They don't just speak with a forked tongue, they revel in the muck. Instead of developing a stalwart leadership and returning to traditional and more conservative principles, the Party announced today that their next campaign strategy will be to attack Nancy Pelosi. Instead of a plan to bring spending under control, these jerks want to attack Pelosi? Amazing!
Dixon
I was commenting on an earlier comment on the League of Nations. I know it was not related to the Nobel.
And Dixon you are very correct. What can we do when the leadership of the opposition party is acting like complete morons. The party needs leaders to stand up and tell everyone what we stand for and how we are going to do a better job than the ruling party. To just attack and not show leadership is not how we are supposed to operate. Although that is what the Democrat plan has been for the last 8 years and they now control all branches of the government so maybe it will work, but I do not like it.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not know the criteria for this Nobel and I was surprised by the announcement. I believe he is a change agent, and that he has the potential for making a huge difference over time. On the other hand, most of Europe, I gather, is far more pro-Obama than Americans are.
The prize is what is is at this point. I hope it does build a wider and stronger platform for diplomacy.
Post a Comment