Obama and the Peace Prize
This morning it was announced that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve been in a state of shock and am still not quite sure what can possibly be said. Only that it feels like a terrible mistake, a profound blow to an institution with so much potential for recognizing and encouraging good in the world. Obama isn’t even halfway through his first term, and one should hope that his most important accomplishments still lay ahead. In his time in office, as Jake Olzen wrote here yesterday, he has taken ownership of the disastrous wars that he inherited. We are still waiting for a definitive break with the endless militarism that has been American policy since World War II. We are still waiting for heath care reform, for a sensible energy and environmental policy, and for a real solution to the economic crisis—all things that were promised on the campaign trail.
Perhaps most troubling of all, though, is the impact that this prize could have on Obama’s ability to accomplish these vital goals. His efforts have already begun to polarize the country and Congress in profound ways. This nod from Europe—from countries deeply mistrusted by the American Right—may only inflame their fears that he is trying to implement a European-style welfare state (which, of course, is far from the truth of his disappointingly modest proposals). I imagine that the Nobel Foundation hopes to support Obama in his efforts, particularly in his work for nuclear nonproliferation and international cooperation. I’m glad they are. But they should also be able to recognize that this prize may not be the best way to do so.
At Waging Nonviolence, we try to shed more light on the remarkable work of people all over the world fighting for peace. This announcement only shows how much what we offer is needed. It shows a lack of imagination. There are so many others for whom receiving this award would have been more deserved and who could have done more good with the attention and money that it represents. I suspect that even Obama might agree.
These are just a few initial reactions. We’re still thinking through how to respond, and we’d love to hear from you. What do you think? And is there anyone else you think the prize should have been given to?
It is my understanding that President Obama was awarded this honor not for what he will do as President in the next few years and not for what he has done in a few short months as president but what he has done over the last year. He has offered a world in turmoil a sense of hope and a potential of peace. President Obama, through his campaign and election of the Office of the Presidency, has lifted the heads of many people who were loosing hope in the United States and what this Country stands for on a global stage. I would call this the Audacity of Hope.
I do have some sad feelings that this award was unable to recognize some of the peacemakers that have inspired me like Marshall Rosenberg, Thich Nhat Hanh or Michael Nagler because I believe this individuals work could be brought into mainstream light by such a global award. I am still happy that Obama has been recognized for giving the world a key element of peace: Hope.
I agree that the ability to inspire hope is a key element of achieving peace. It’s very easy to become discouraged and I believe that while words are an incredibly powerful tool for inspiring people, ACTION is much more powerful. I would have preferred someone to win who has led by example and not just rhetoric. All the people who you mention above, Rosenberg, Nagler, and Thich Nhat Hanh (along with countless others who aren’t mentioned) work for peace every day and have made it their business to promote and try and obtain it. In my opinion they, too, have the “Audacity of Hope” and inspire it in a much more concrete, and less hypocritical way. To say that Obama deserves the prize because of all the beautiful words he used last year while completely disregarding the fact that he’s CURRENTLY waging two wars, escalating one of them, and increasing defense spending is disingenuous. Perhaps his words have inspired people to hope for peace, but how have his actions inspired hope for peace for the Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis? As a friend of mine pointed out earlier today if you like his books or his speeches—perhaps he’s more fitting for the Nobel Prize for literature?
Yeah, the idea of a prize for literature has been floated by Newsweek. As a writer, I would be disappointed by that too. Sure, the books are nice, but are they really what we want to hold up as the highest in literary craft? I hope not.
Joe, I don’t mean to sound snarky when I say this, but what hope has he offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan with his pursuit of indefinite war or the people of Pakistan with his daily drone attacks or the people of Palestine, whom he turned his back on during the dreadful siege last year? When you say he’s given the world hope, I think you’re really only talking about our European allies. A good portion of the rest of the world is still suffering under the same policies and has little reason to share in the hope-filled sentiments of the Western elites, who were mostly just sick of dealing with the Bush Administration.
To be brutally honest, I think the only kind of hope Obama has inspired is false hope. This presidency is a world class marketing machine. Let’s not forget that the Obama campaign was named “Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008″, beating out huge corporations like Nike and Apple. Both companies do terrible things, Yet we continue to buy what they are selling us.
This business of hope has, I think, distracted the Left from being consistent with its attacks on injustice. Naomi Klein highlighted a perfect example of this On Democracy Now today:
I am partly relieved by Obama’s always-gracious remarks: