Obama and Nobel

By Jennifer J. Foster

OK, all the buzz this weekend was about President Obama and his Nobel Peace Prize.

In case you missed it, it stirred a ton of controversy for a lot of reasons—not the least of which is that the nominations for the Nobel prizes were due Feb. 1.

Feb. 1—as in, 11 days after the president took the Oath of Office.

My immediate reaction was: I want to read the nomination form.

As the rest of the blogosphere reacted—

SIDEBAR: There was a lot of outrage, not surprisingly, but there was also some really funny reaction. A few folks remarked that the president could now be named Miss Universe, since he had the corner on the contestants’ fave platform—WORLD PEACE. Ha, ha ha. For my part, I was going to toss out some one-liners that as long as the award is being based on potential, the Nobel Committee might as well go ahead and give the president the prizes in economics, medicine and literature; after all, he’s been trying to get the U.S. to lead the way out of the global financial meltdown, he’s made an overhaul of the U.S. health care system his top domestic priority behind the economy and—well, let’s face it. His memoirs are bound to be good.

Yes, it’s smarmy. What can I say? So am I. END SIDEBAR

—I took it in and waited. I make a point of doing that; I find that it measures whatever response I eventually make (see smarmy remarks above).

Well, after reading the committee’s news release, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

I’ve pasted the committee’s announcement here for your review. Let’s take a look (all bold emphases mine):

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision ofand work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.“

OK. Let’s break this down.

You can see in the first graph that the committee emphasized potential, not achievement, in awarding the prize to the president. Yes, they mentioned his “work for a world without nuclear weapons.“ But I doubt those achievements, whatever they may be, stack up against the work of the other nominees in their respective areas.

Most of the second graph relies on verbs that relate to Obama’s perceived performance as president. But I’m unclear about whether they’re talking about what he’s done—“has created,“ “has regained,“ “are preferred”—or what he wants to do—“the vision,“ “initiative,“ “are to be strengthened.“

Then the third graph makes it clear what this is really all about for the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee.

That news release might as well read, “Hey, look at us, we’ve been talking about this for 108 years, and now this guy is basically saying a bunch of stuff that we like. So no matter what he’s done or seeking to do, it must be right.“

For his part, President Obama handled this shock about as well as he could have. Whomever tweeted on his behalf said simply, “Humbled,“ and his remarks in accepting the award sought to focus attention back on others. He avoided the biggest mistake he could have made, which would have been to bask in the recognition and blare his own—to this point and in comparison to other Nobel winners’ achievements, at least—underachieving horn:

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear:  I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize—men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build—a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.  And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

And it goes on from there. It was a good statement—you should read it—it was just the kind of thing you would expect Obama to deliver. He isn’t stupid, so there was little chance of him making the “I’m-so-great” mistake.

All in all, I don’t care that much that the president won the Nobel Peace Prize. (I would like to know what the Poles think about it, though.) I am, however, saddened for the other nominees and for the other winners, because it is their achievements that are belittled by the committee’s decision to bestow an award of this magnitude based on potential.

And that’s the bottom line: This belittles the Nobel Prize. The award, which has so long been couched in recognizing unmatched achievement, has been watered down for political purposes.

And that is very sad for the legacy of Alfred Nobel.