Obama and the Nobel Prize
October 14, 2009okay,
i’ve been asked numerous times for my thoughts on Obama winning the Nobel Prize, and i actually consider the whole matter a rather trivial affair, truth be told. but as always, i DO have an opinion. i will attempt to share it here, if for no other reason than to keep from having to repeat myself.
brass tacks: do i think Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Prize? YES. and anyone who disagrees either doesn’t follow international politics, only reads/watches mainstream news headlines, is a moron, or is an evil minion of the political opposition. just kidding. well… sort of. 
the opinion i’ve heard most often is that he won the prize merely for not being Bush. first, that’s simply not true, and i’ll try to explain at least a little bit why. but second, so what if that were the case? are we so fickle-minded that we’ve already forgotten how bad things were during the Bush years? he made it undeniably clear to the rest of the world that the US was the greatest violator or human rights and international law. the words “alone in the world” were not just an abstract concept for our country during the Bush administration. the message sent by the other leaders at Bush’s last G-20 summit, when NO ONE WOULD SHAKE HIS HAND, was not without meaning. in fact, given the international dialog that was occurring underneath the radar of the mainstream outlets (or at least not on the front page), i would argue that it was perhaps the strongest statement of global contempt that could have been made without any nation having to take an aggressive posture against the US. Bush succeeded in what amounts to a 2nd cold war, and only time will tell (although i could guess) if Obama will dismantle what Bush created, but there is no question in my mind that the world is a safer place because of Obama. the US is a more secure nation because of Obama. Our former allies are allies once again because of Obama.
now, if the popular “because he’s not Bush” argument holds water, then it should follow that Hillary Clinton would have won the prize had she become president instead of Obama. and i don’t believe that for a second. she spent her campaign lambasting his position on diplomacy, even siding with John McCain to denounce Obama’s ideas as foolish. she would have mended ties with many of our former allies, but she would also have been a far more polarizing force in the Middle East and the 3rd world in general and far more bullish when dealing with leaders around the globe. when it comes to hegemonic masculinity, patriarchy might never have found a better voice than Hillary Clinton’s. she would never have even been nominated.
also, the “because he’s not Bush” argument implies that Obama hasn’t actually done anything substantively to even warrant a nod from the Nobel committee, much less be awarded the prize. this implication is probably the one that most infuriates me because i think it’s rooted in the notion that Obama gives nice speeches that don’t really amount to much of anything. as if eloquence is necessarily devoid of substance. as if words do not have profound consequences.
how much more brilliance does this man have to exhibit before concede that his eloquence is not a substitute, but rather an effective vehicle for substance? his powers of moral persuasion are unrivaled in the global arena, and because of his gift, many who hated us have come to believe in the promise of America again. it may not not be a formal policy initiative, but it has certainly made the world a more peaceful, more hopeful place.
his policy of aggressive diplomacy is based on the idea that words matter! and i think he’s proven his case.
clearly he has a long way to go as we are now only 9 months in to his presidency, but i continue to breathe a sigh of relief just knowing that Obama is loved and embraced around the world. that his vision has penetrated the globe. that in a VERY short time, Obama has transformed the image and attitude of the most powerful/dangerous nation on Earth.
THAT, in my opinion, is deserving.
