Nobel Peace Prize (The Obligatory Response)

This came as a surprise.  Not an entirely welcome one — though certainly not an unwelcome one — but a surprise nonetheless.

Across the leftist blogosphere, the general consensus has expressed itself in words like “undeserved,” “premature,” “meaningless,” “idiotic.” I don’t necessarily agree.  As the Norwegian Nobel Committee pointed out, Obama has made an extraordinary change in the tenor of American foreign relations; after the macho, hawkish, we-go-it-alone-because-you’re-all-cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys paradigm of the last century or so, Obama’s genuine effort to relate to other players on the world stage is a breath of fresh air.  And I don’t know if this will prove to have any genuine effect on international policy (I’m inclined to rather doubt it, based on, among other things, the proposed escalation in Afghanistan and the seemingly stagnant Middle East peace process), but with this radical shift in expression, there is greater hope for a globally conscientious America than there has been in a very long time.  Corollary to that, the paradigm shift in Obama’s rhetoric is now a precedent, as the hawkish superpower macho-man stance became in the early years of the 20th century; presidents after Obama, seeing the warm reception of global inclusion and respect, may take it to ever-greater heights.  And after a few terms of this (or a few dozen), we might very well see America grow into a new role in the world — as quiet mediator, not overbearing drill sergeant.  Likewise, I don’t even need to explain that such a paradigm shift might be increasingly reflected in actual policy, making for a more tolerant, less aggressively capitalist, more peaceful, and yes, more liberal society.

It would also be a grave oversight to shrug off the immense spiritual impact Obama has had on a vast swath of Americans, and on the political world: the reintroduction of hope into a pessimistic, same-old-same-old sea of disillusionment.  Again, however much it is justified by actual policy (and I’m not sure I can pass judgment on that quite yet), such a breath of fresh air has itself been a radical sea-change in the way many of us view our country, our world, and our own personal and global futures.

That being said, I do believe this prize was undeserved — in part because the above is not necessarily enough to qualify Obama as, in the words of Alfred Nobel’s will, “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.”  A shift in expression, however dramatic, is rarely enough to have an immediate and profound effect, certainly not enough to qualify as “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.”  Obama’s actual policy has regrettably paled in comparison to his outreach in terms of peace, though I hold out hope that this will change; his stance on the wars in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, Iraq, his seeming blindness to the rights of the LGBT community, and his seeming reluctance to challenge the free market system (not to mention his shameful refusal to meet with another Nobel Prize winner, the Dalai Lama) all make me wonder if he has done enough yet for “fraternity between nations” or within his own nation to qualify.

The point will be raised, inevitably, that the Peace Prize is meant not necessarily as reward but as encouragement to continue; I can’t disagree with that, and it certainly makes the choice of Obama a little less oblique.  But it seems to me that such a prize would be better awarded, like the Macarthur Genius Grant, to a figure with a) a grander mission, b) a more immediately tangible effect, and c) less name recognition/prestige/relative global support.  The prototypical Nobel Prize awardee, in my mind, would be 1992 recipient Rigoberta Menchú Tum; her struggle for the rights of Guatemala’s indigenous population was grounded and hands-on, with immediately tangible manifestations, but she was an unknown enough figure globally that a Nobel Prize could help garner funds and support for her cause.  In this case, the prize was effective encouragement to continue a noble battle; Obama is well-known and popular enough that the prize is, under this particular criteria, virtually irrelevant.  Better to award it to one of the many tireless, brilliant humanitarian organizers in the world right now than to send it off to an already prestigious, not-yet-effective sitting president.

All that said, I appreciate the Oslo nod to a transformational American figure; it is a fitting emblem of worldwide hopes for a changing American role, and one that I hope will inspire Obama to, domestically and abroad, follow through.

---