Obama and that Darned ol Prize
Filed Under Big Ideas, Entertainment, In the News, Politics, Porchy
I know this is really late, but I had refused and refused to post on this because I thought we all had already posted on it back in the fall. But here goes my shrug of the shoulders.
I do not think Obama deserved the award. How could he? Arguments that his aspirations led to his nomination and victory are preposterous. The Nobel Committee themselves talked of Obama’s “potential.” Why not give the award to every newborn infant all of whom have more potential to be peacemakers than any president running two wars?
No, the award, as it has been understood in the past, as almost any award is understood, is given to reward for past endeavors. An Oscar is not given for the films someone is likely to make, a Pulitzer for the news photo taken in a future war not yet declared, a Webby for that kick ass scholarly web app I will develop during that five-day Java boot camp I haven’t signed up for yet. (Do we still use Java?)
Certainly all awards have an encouragement factor but all of us have always understood that as a secondary effect of praise.
But let’s be clear, the fault here lies not with Obama but with the Nobel Committee. And to the extent that this award’s significance is undermined by Obama’s being given it, it was undermined by the Nobel Committee themselves. It was there’s to undermine. And it seems to me that any supposed outrage at the award givers for the award they gave must be manufactured. It surely cannot be spontaneous. If we are angry there must be someone or something to be angry at. Are so many people outraged that the prestige of the award is suddenly called into question? I doubt it.
What red-white-and-blue-blooded conservative didn’t already think the award’s validity was undermined when Gore won it? And what bleeding heart liberal think that “this just give the right more things to fire at Obama?” I mean, they’re never going to stop having things to say against the man even if he gets an Oscar for his work during the Campaign of 2008.
All the arguments on both sides of this discussion have moved to the ridiculous. Was this award given “too early?” Well, the question alone presupposes that he “would have earned it” at some point in the future. Is this about the “cult of personality” that surrounds the president? Maybe, but then you’d think the people that say as much would be happy he snubbed the king since it was Norway’s Obama-love and not ours that got him the award. I heard some Obama-fans call into an NPR broadcast last week saying that Iraq and Afghanistan “weren’t wars,” that what Obama was doing there was to promulgate peace. I hung my head in deep shame that day. I rarely feel ashamed for the opinions of others. If the Nobel Committee believed that argument, which I am sure they do not, wouldn’t they have given the award to Bush, the greatest peacemaker of our time by that logic? Jeez. While I think both sides find it hard to develop a consistent opinion on this trivium, the bigger fault is with Obama supporters who just can’t tolerate it that their man hasn’t earned this award and that so many signs point that he might never deserve, at least not while in office.
When Gore won, I shrugged my shoulders. And that’s all this deserves from anyone–or most anyone. Some living winners of the award might feel a little slighted that their hard and sometimes dangerous work is somehow comparable to Obama’s glittering rhetoric. But, the ones that I’ve heard interviewed have basically shrugged their shoulders too.
It’s an award and like all awards it is meaningless outside of a symbolic context. And if the Nobel Committee felt the controversy was worth the symbolism of awarding the Prize to “not Bush” or to “Hopenchange” then so be it. I don’t agree but I do not and will never serve on the awards committee.
*shrug*
The only question of any real worth is the one the news shows spend the least time on. Should he have turned it down? And, while I find this the more interesting question, I will also spend the least time on it. It would have constituted a snub by some and a compliment by others. It would have focused more attention on the inadequacies of the award committee and that may or may not have been a good thing depending on who you are and what your goals are. Like the award itself, a refusal to accept it is entirely symbolic and just like any symbol it’s meaning is up to interpretation. No doubt the left would have seen a refusal as a sign of his true commitment to the ideals embodied in the award. And the conservatives would have seen it as an insult to an established institution–a violation of a Burkean respect for a more auspicious past.
In other words, damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. I personally think that Obama and the Nobel Committee and worldwide progressive causes would all be better off if he Obama had refused the award, but that is a complex hypothetical. There is no way to know if the story we would tell ourselves from that point forward would be anywhere near accurate.
Comments
2 Responses to “Obama and that Darned ol Prize”
Well it’s about time. Even I was waiting for this one!
Very fair and balanced. Fox News could take a lesson.