Unlike some, I don’t think the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama during his first year in office is all that shocking. For many years the Nobel Peace Prize has been given as much if not more for what the committee hopes recipients will accomplish as for what they’ve already done. Just look at the list of past laureates, and note the years in which particular folks won. The idea is that the prize will enhance the profile and prestige of the recipient, thereby boosting their efforts. So it only makes sense that the Committee would award the prize to a President who has adopted a more conciliatory foreign policy, is seeking to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, is pursuing more aggressive action on climate change, etc. These are policies the committee supports, and awarding the prize to Obama could, in their view, help ensure these policies are adopted and eventually succeed.
UPDATE: See also “Peace, dude,” by Maria Farrell at Crooked Timber.
Darin says:
As proud as I am to have an American (and a sitting president, no less, the first in about 90 years) as Nobel Peace Prize winner, I am confused over the reasons.
Obama HAD to be nominated roughly 2 weeks into the presidency meaning he’d done absolutely nothing when he was nominated.
So this is the Nobel HOPE for Peace Prize.
October 9, 2009, 11:58 ampgepps says:
Yes, the shocker here is that anyone pays attention to the Nobel, in the first place.
October 9, 2009, 12:00 pmtherut says:
I think this is funny. Just makes the prize more useless. Means nothing. Just politics on the World level. Whoopeee! I hope someone someday will have the nerve to politely say “Take this prize and shove it!!”.
October 9, 2009, 12:00 pmNoah David Simon says:
http://blip.tv/file/2701653 Obama wins the Stanley Cup in Hockey. What does relevance have 2 do with it? U R racist if you think Obama can’t play Hockey.
October 9, 2009, 12:01 pmsecond history says:
As someone who strongly supported Obama during the campaign, and continue to do so, I was stunned. This is really going overboard. Of the policy areas mentioned in the President’s statement, the one area I disagree with is nuclear proliferation. I think more countries should have the bomb, not fewer. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then the Arab countries should also. Rather than de-nuclearize North Korea, assist South Korea and Japan to develop their own. A nuclear-free world is a more dangerous world.
October 9, 2009, 12:03 pmEx parte McCardle says:
Oh, c’mon, Jonathan, don’t introduce a moderate and well-reasoned view into the ongoing paroxysm of outrage. Where’s the fun in that?
October 9, 2009, 12:05 pmlls says:
It’s amazing how becoming the President of the United States is a nothing achievement!
Somebody asked if there is a word to describe how you could show more dislike for a person you apparently dislike. I don’t know a word, but it probably ends in ‘ist’ or ‘ism.’
October 9, 2009, 12:06 pmPJens says:
You may be correct from the committee’s view, however this winner has rejected a chance to meet with the Dali Lama. That and other stances in the political world by President Obama (Honduras, Isreal, etc) lead me to believe the Nobel committee is putting the cart before the horse.
October 9, 2009, 12:06 pmSeamus says:
If the Nobel Committee could award the Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger for not bringing an end to the Vietnam War, then this doesn’t seem so absurd. (Of course, Le Duc Tho declined the award on the grounds that while gentlemen were crying, “Peace, peace,” there was no peace (though I don’t recall that he actually quoted Jeremiah).)
October 9, 2009, 12:06 pmSuperSkeptic says:
wait..what?
October 9, 2009, 12:06 pmJohnKT says:
therut said:
Somebody did, for Literature, but you would like him even less.
October 9, 2009, 12:08 pmsecond history says:
That has already happened. Le Duc Tho, a joint winner with Henry Kissinger in 1973, refused the Peace Prize on the grounds that there was no actual peace in Vietnam.
October 9, 2009, 12:08 pmThe River Temoc says:
I broadly support most of Obama’s foreign policy, although I do think that a completely nuclear-free world pushes us back to 1914. I agree that he’s taken important, and tangible, steps to change the tone of U.S. foreign policy for the better — and he’s handled states like Cuba, Iran, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Russia well.
But I, too, was pretty stunned by the Nobel Peace Prize award (as was the White House itself, by all reports). There ought to be at least some accomplishment to justify the prize beyond a mere warming of relations, and I don’t see that we’re there yet. I don’t even see that this helps Obama politically; it feeds into the meme that he’a all talk and no action.
October 9, 2009, 12:11 pmAnon314 says:
So Obama joins such dark comedies of history as Arafat, Carter and Gore. When I heard this on the radio this morning, the last shred of non-contempt I had for the Nobel “Peace” Prize completely dissipated, and it has now become a twisted game of guessing what anti-human lunatic will next be awarded for their war against mankind.
Also, it took me a few second to realize this wasn’t an early morning radio show skit. It is still, however, a complete joke.
October 9, 2009, 12:12 pmMLS says:
Apparently the Nobel Committee has not seen:
http://www.manolith.com/2009/10/06/snl-obama-accomplishments/
Time will tell if Mr. Obama’s goals are achieved, but it does seem a bit premature to award the prize on the basis of goals.
October 9, 2009, 12:13 pmDan says:
There are a lot of people in the world who meet that test, and (Copenhagen aside) does anyone think that President Obama needs a higher profile in order to be successful?
October 9, 2009, 12:14 pmEx parte McCardle says:
Thanks, Anon314, for bringing the level of hysteria back to its properly stratospheric level.
October 9, 2009, 12:15 pmdisintelligentsia says:
The nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace or Whatever Prize was due on February 1. BHO was sworn in on January 20 so he was in office for all of 11 days at the time he was nominated so clearly it had nothing to do with what he had actually accomplished. It was probably a political smack at the prior resident of the White House with Nobel committee trying to make the point that you could have ANYONE else in the office and it would advance world peace.
October 9, 2009, 12:15 pmFloridan says:
If not Obama, then who?
John Bolton?
October 9, 2009, 12:16 pmAnonymous says:
It’s hysteria to recognize folly.
It’s moderate to praise compromise as a political goal.
October 9, 2009, 12:18 pmegd says:
While I agree with you in principal that George W. Bush deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize, I think that merely winning the Presidency is insufficient, even if he did so twice as many times as Barack H. Obama.
FWIW: According to Alfred Nobel, the Prize is to given “to 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” (Emphasis added, although maybe it should have been in the original).
And yet as another aside, why use “em” and “strong” instead of “b” and “i” (irrespectively)?
October 9, 2009, 12:20 pmBen P says:
A much more interesting question is, is it permissible for Obama to accept the Honorarium (about $1m US in Euros IIRC), or does he have to donate it to something.
If he does donate it, what does it go to?
October 9, 2009, 12:21 pmsecond history says:
Nuclear weapons for all will provide a significant deterrence capability, thereby reducing the threat of conventional war. The reason the border skirmishes between Pakistan and India are over quickly is that no one wants them to escalate into a nuclear exchange. If neither side had nuclear weapons, they would become full-scale wars lasting many years. Unfortunately I can’t find the academic paper that makes this arguement far better than I can.
October 9, 2009, 12:21 pmrick.felt says:
For many years the Nobel Peace Prize has been given as much if not more for what the committee hopes recipients will accomplish as for what they’ve already done.
For which of the laureates in the last thirty years would you say that their likely future accomplishments were expected to exceed what they had already accomplished? For which of these laureates would you say that, had they dropped dead the day after their award, the prize could not be justifiably awarded based on the work they had already accomplished?
I have no doubt that Doctors Without Borders will do more good work in the future than they have already done. It’s nice to encourage Martti Ahtisaari to do some more first-rate mediating, but he already did a great deal. Mother Theresa arguably did more after 1979 than before. But they all had accomplished much already.
October 9, 2009, 12:22 pmAnonymous says:
In theory, the former pair embeds semantic clues as to their purpose, while the latter pair serves as shortcuts for style that don’t necessarily indicate (strong) emphasis. In practice, they are used interchangeably, which makes automatic processing to extract meaning from a document nearly impossible, like reading a document produced by the government.
October 9, 2009, 12:24 pmSteverino says:
So yes, of course, the Nobel peace prize committee agrees with Obama’s agenda. That doesn’t surprise me at all. And of course, in stating their decision they did take slaps at the previous administration.
But their effort to “help ensure these policies are adopted and eventually succeed” are likely to backfire as much as similar previous foreign attempts to meddle in our domestic policies.
And are likely to be seen in just the same light.
October 9, 2009, 12:24 pmDiversityHire says:
Yes, it’s part of the “Cash for Presidential Clunkers” programme.
October 9, 2009, 12:28 pmlibertairansoldier says:
DiversityHire, I love you
October 9, 2009, 12:35 pmFlotsam says:
Just as the Clintons cheapened everything they came into contact with, it appears that Bambi has the same “magic touch”.
The NPP will never be the same. It has gone from being a prestigious honor to being a punchline for late night TV jokes.
October 9, 2009, 12:36 pmDan says:
@floatsam (and others), it’s not fair to blame Obama for this debacle.
That said, I am sure this will tarnish, and not as Prof. Adler suggests, burnish the President’s reputation, making it a doubly bad decision by the Morons in Oslo ™.
October 9, 2009, 12:39 pmCato The Elder says:
Could anyone have foreseen Obama’s meteoric rise? Realize that less than a decade ago this guy was a relative nobody. Then, within 5 years really, he has become US Senator, POTUS, and now a Nobel Prize Winner. His finances, bolstered by the $1.4 MM here, and $10 MM from his biographies yesteryear, have never looked better. The only person I can think of who really compares even in fiction is Nicolas Carpathia of the Global Community.*
* – A joke, gentlemen, a joke. But really, it was the same sort of trajectory for him in the books.
October 9, 2009, 12:43 pmCato The Elder says:
Jack Ryan of the Tom Clancy novels might work too. I remember him being similarly blessed in Debt of Honor.
October 9, 2009, 12:46 pmSeamus says:
Let’s not forget Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
October 9, 2009, 12:47 pmLaw Student says:
Nobel Peace Prize= peace-at-any-price prize. Actually, I think I will start calling it what it is: the Neo-Hippie Peace Prize. Peace and Love man! Let’s all go get stoned off Obama’s charm! Obama would have made a great oral advocate- he would have wooed the judges to his side for sure…I mean, just look what he’s done to the world- all the euro-hippies can’t wait to call him one of them. Oh wait, but he can’t bring his teleprompter into court with him…never mind
Is there any part of our world not contaminated by politics these days?
October 9, 2009, 12:48 pmJoker says:
My first reaction when I saw the news was that it was a joke. And my second reaction.
October 9, 2009, 12:49 pmresh says:
Hmm. Ok. Quick test. Protestors in Iran, some shot in the head, marching under the thumb of oppressions, contra Obama reading platitudes from a teleprompter, followed by a walk with the dog and and closet kinship with a marlboro lite.
“Whadda say, committee? This is serious business, don’t forget….”
October 9, 2009, 12:57 pmLumpus says:
Important enough to post in toto:
October 9, 2009, 2:08 pmLee Peters says:
A roundup of parodies, if you’re into that sort of thing: http://optoons.blogspot.com/ (October 9 entries)
October 9, 2009, 2:09 pmptt says:
Dyn-O-mite!
October 9, 2009, 2:17 pmLetters2Congress says:
This makes about as much sense as a Fish Winning a Bicycle.
http://www.letters2congress.com/2009/10/nobel-peace-prize-awarded-to-obama-in.html
Amusing, but sad nonetheless.
October 9, 2009, 2:17 pmloki13 says:
I was moderately surprised by the selection.
What I wasn’t surprised by was the reaction of the commenters here. It’s funny, you know, coming so soon after the IOC process. Over the last few years, it has become necessary for the head of state (and since we have a President who combines head of state with head of govt., the President) to personally lobby the IOC in order for a bid to have a chance. That’s why King Juan Carlos of Spain, Lula of Brazil etc. were all there t make the pitch. Had Obama not gone, there wold have been a predictable “how could he have not done what was necessary?” Instead, we get the catcalls of “he’s lowered the prestige of America in its Foregin relations!”
Now that he’s won the Nobel Peace Price (presumably adding to America’s prestige, and helping us in foreign relations) we get, “He’s an empty suit that should never have won!”
I didnt’ like Bush, but I didn’t want him to fail… because his failures were America’s failures. I’m not sure I understand the seething contempt I see on display. America, love it (except when Obama’s preident).
October 9, 2009, 2:19 pmRPT says:
Charles Krauthammer?
October 9, 2009, 2:25 pmuh_clem says:
Ironic that he wins the peace prize, three hours before he BOMBS THE MOON.
(comment stolen from another forum.)
October 9, 2009, 2:25 pmKyle says:
Meet the People Who Were Passed Over for Obama
October 9, 2009, 2:29 pmbailey says:
Are we more liked (or feared) by those who matter on the international stage? The global significance of Scandinavian far leftists cannot be understated. Do islamic extremists like or respect us more-I would say, with the Iranian example, no and the Afghanistan dithering adds to that. They certainly don’t fear the indecision of Obama. How about Russia, China or India-have our relations with them improved-another big no.
October 9, 2009, 2:38 pmDavid McCourt says:
I applaud the award. It’s not that it was necessary to point out the absurdity of the selection system and the capriciousness of the results. I mean, giving it to Iran’s bum boy Jimmy Carter, and to Al Gore for a sci-fi movie having no plausible connection to “peace” should have done that well enough. And if that wasn’t enough, there was always: Henry the K dancing with some Stalinist from the N. Vietnamese anthill state, Yassir “that’s my baby” getting it for keeping his people in refugee camps for a record number of decades, and the obscure Rigoberto Menchu, for making up a “memoir” that tickled all the right (that is, left) Scandanavian political funny bones. So it’s not like we needed another preposterous recipient to make the point; we didn’t need it, we just got it.
And the idea that any prestige should attach to an award made by 5 hack politicians of Norway’s — Norway’s! — Labour Party is pretty silly on the face of it. Might as well covet an award for international understanding made by the Drains and Sewers subcommitee of the Milwaukee City Council.
No, the reason that this award is so indescribably, so ineffably, right is that it is the perfect marriage of prize and recipient. You thought Ginger and Fred, proscuitto and melon, Sinatra and Riddle, gin and vermouth were matches made in heaven. They have nothing on this one: the grand meaningless gesture of approbation by the trendiest of bien pensant internationaloids on the one hand, and the lofty bloviator of empty but fashionable rhetoric with no substance behind it on the other. Baloney, you have been rehearsing for this roll for a lifetime.
I pray he doesn’t have the wit, or sense of proportion, or other remnant of sanity needed to turn it down.
October 9, 2009, 2:38 pmBig O Wins Big N « ricketyclick says:
[...] Jonathan H. Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy: Unlike some, I don’t think the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to [...]
October 9, 2009, 2:39 pmDonP. says:
The Chicago Public School system for body armor?
October 9, 2009, 2:39 pmSarcastro says:
This Prize means nothing! And they gave it to the wrong person!!
[I found this interesting, though it may overstate the possible influence the prize actually has:
October 9, 2009, 2:43 pmegd says:
That’s a good point, I remember when President Bush personally lobbied the IOC for New York City.
October 9, 2009, 2:44 pmbailey says:
Turning it down could serve a useful purpose-He could state his reasons and call out the bad actors of the World. Maybe he could actually embarass or shame them on the global stage and accomplish something-it might actually put him in a position of strength as opposed to his preferred diplomatic position of weakness. It’ll never happen but it’s nice to dream.
October 9, 2009, 2:45 pmyankee says:
Unlike Oscar nominations, a Nobel Prize nomination is not an indicator of distinction. There are many categories of people who can submit nominations, including, among others, any professor of history, political science, philosophy, law or theology, or any member of any national legislature. The fact that some professor or legislator somewhere in the world nominated him shortly after his inauguration says nothing about the Nobel Prize Committee.
October 9, 2009, 2:46 pmrick.felt says:
Had Obama not gone, there wold have been a predictable “how could he have not done what was necessary?””
Not from the right. Most of us don’t care about the Olympics. I’m pretty plugged-in to the news and I only learned that the host city selection was coming up about a week before it happened, and then only because Obama was making news by going over there. I’m glad that I’m not going to have my tax dollars going to support the money pit that is the Olympics. But even if the Olympics were a money-maker, I wouldn’t want Mayor-for-Life Daley and other corrupt Chicago machine pols to get the benefits. Really, America dodged a bullet by not getting the Olympics.
We were also happy that Obama had the opportunity to learn that giving speeches about himself doesn’t accomplish anything of substance on the world stage. It would be better for America if Obama could break the habit of assuming that everything is about him and that he can fix anything by pinching his thumb and index finger together and reading off a teleprompter.
Alas, winning the Nobel taught him exactly the wrong lesson: 80% of success is just showing up, as Woody Allen said. For Obama, it’s much closer to 100%. Unfortunately, Obama will probably learn too late that the ability to impress Scandinavians with promises isn’t going to carry any weight with America’s enemies.
October 9, 2009, 2:50 pmMalvolio says:
I believe you are quoting Thomas Paine.
October 9, 2009, 2:53 pmPeteP says:
So, your point is that it is a tool of political manipulation, not a reward / acknowlwedgement of accomplishments.
This may explain why Yasser Arafat, the Father of Modern Terrorism, got one, too.
October 9, 2009, 2:55 pmdearieme says:
So, it’s a million dollar bribe not to attack Iran?
October 9, 2009, 2:57 pmSeamus says:
I believe you meant to say Patrick Henry (speech of March 23, 1775), and *he* was quoting Jeremiah (6:14).
October 9, 2009, 2:58 pmJames T. Carrington says:
I blame Obama. Am I still doing this right?
October 9, 2009, 2:58 pmSarcastro says:
This is great news for McCain!
And dearieme has a point – Obama was totally about to attack Iran and then this stopped him cause embedded in the prize is some sort of ego-based mind control device! Like in that episode of Star Trek only Picard is Obama and the evil Ferengi is the Norwegians and Picard’s old ship is world peace!
October 9, 2009, 3:02 pmD.R.M. says:
So, you’re in favor of giving George W. Bush two Nobel Peace Prizes, for becoming the President twice?
October 9, 2009, 3:05 pmloki13 says:
rick.felt,
You claim that “the right” had no problem with the IOC loss. I heartily recommend you review the comment threads here and elsewhere. While you (and others, including Jim Lindgren) had no problem with it, there were many who delighted in the failure (or, as you put it, gave Obama the opportunity to “learn that giving speeches about himself doesn’t acocmplish anything of substance on the world stage.”)
It just points to something fundamentally broken. Look back to when the stock market was tanking early, and every day it was “evidence” of how bad Obama was doing (like a plunging stock market is a good thing?). When it stabilized, people remembered that the vagaries of the stock market aren’t a daily referendum on the president. You can disagree with the President, and can dislike the President’s policies (and agitate to ensure that they aren’t enacted by Congress) but to delight in non-partisan failures of the President is kind of weird; it isn’t the President alone who fails, it is the nation.
In short, I find it remarkable that every failure of Obama must be celebrated, and every success must be denigrated.
October 9, 2009, 3:08 pmBen says:
loki13 I can’t speak for anyone else but I can tell you why I want to see him fail. I’d rather the United States become a rubble strewn wasteland, ala Afghanistan, than have it turned into a socialist country. Obama is moving forward with a socialist agenda, therefore I want him to fail.
October 9, 2009, 3:22 pmgeokstr says:
Why do you find this so remarkable? A few on the right have finally learned from the spectactular success of the Alinsky Shuffle used by your team for the last 50 years and belatedly have adopted it as their own.
October 9, 2009, 3:27 pmwenchy says:
this is an alternate form of “Stockholm Syndrome”
October 9, 2009, 3:38 pmSteverino says:
“Now that he’s won the Nobel Peace Price (presumably adding to America’s prestige, and helping us in foreign relations) we get, “He’s an empty suit that should never have won!””
No, that isn’t what most of us are saying. We’re saying he’s an empty suit and that’s exactly why he should have won.
My first reaction when I read the President’s remarked he was humbled and didn’t feel worthy to be among the past recipients was, oh, yes you do!
A lot of people are saying he won simply for not being George Bush. Partly correct. But look at the partial list of agenda items Prof. Adler notes the prize committee naturally also supports.
Essentially he won for being the second coming of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, squared.
Another way to look at it is that this is the ultimate validation for those of us who’ve been saying his mission in life is to diminish the United States and turn us into another also-ran Eurosocialist irrelevancy.
Is there any better evidence than this prize?
October 9, 2009, 3:39 pmloki13 says:
aside to Ben-
So, then, you hold yourself in exactly the same light a those who in the previous eight years would rather America fail than be turned into a fascist dictatorship? That’s some great company for you!
aside to geokstr-
October 9, 2009, 3:44 pmIn addition to my disdain for your implicit use of the “goose/gander” technique (as I have written before, if the other side is raping children, does that make it okay for you to do it too?), I am always amazed at your citations to Alinsky. While I realize that you are infatuated with the man (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), did it ever occur to you that those on “my team” (what the heck?) might never have read him? Y’all are pretty strange.
loki13 says:
Does the evidence matter anymore?
October 9, 2009, 3:45 pmLumpus says:
The chunk of money awarded by the Nobel people is over a million dollars. Its stated purpose is to influence an elected official, since it’s “aspirational” and not for any achievement.
Don’t elected officials go to jail for taking that kind of money?
October 9, 2009, 3:48 pmnicehonesty says:
Now that he’s won the peace prize, is Obama going to stop slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in Pakistan with his remote-control guided bombs?
The murder of civilians really was one of the few things he’d actually accomplished in the time between assuming the office of the President and the close of the Nobel Peace Prize nominations.
e.g. Times of London, January 23, 2009:
All praise Barack “Arafat” Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner and murderer of innocent children!
October 9, 2009, 3:48 pmnevinscrna says:
2009 – Barack Obama
2008 – Martti Ahtisaari
2007 – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006 – Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 – International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 – Wangari Maathai
2003 – Shirin Ebadi
2002 – Jimmy Carter
2001 – United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 – Kim Dae-jung
1999 – Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 – John Hume, David Trimble
1997 – International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 – Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 – Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 – Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
OK, what I see is a lot of representation from the middle east, with a lot of arab/muslim sounding names. What the hell is the Nobel foundation thinking keeping throwing Peace Prizes at the most volatile region of the world?
October 9, 2009, 3:52 pmtheobromophile says:
Dan beat me to it: why give the Nobel to Obama under Prof. Adler’s reasoning? The number of people who do not know who Barack Obama is but know who wins the Peace Prize every year is vanishingly small. It’s not that I disagree with Prof. Adler about the wisdom of giving out this prize to people who could use $1.4m and the recognition to accomplish great things; I just disagree about giving the prize to Obama, President of the one superpower on earth, on those premises.
While many of us feel as if Obama has not accomplished anything worthy of receiving the prize, we also feel as if there are thousands, if not millions, of people who have accomplished more and could do better things with it. Between the people who help bring peace and prosperity to small, war-torn African villages, those who vote in elections with dictators, or those who put their lives on the line to bring peace to their countries, there are many individuals who are far more deserving of the prize. It is an insult to those who have dedicated (and risked) their lives for the goal of peace to have the ultimate recognition go to someone on account of having made some pretty speeches. Also, those people, who, unlike Obama, do not have the resources of America at their command, could do a tremendous amount of good with $1.4 million.
Given the prestige, power, and resources that flow to politicians (and that they are often in it for their own glory), they ought to be held to a higher, not a lower, standard of accomplishment.
October 9, 2009, 4:04 pmSFH says:
What the hell is the Nobel foundation thinking keeping throwing Peace Prizes at the most volatile region of the world?
Working for peace in the most volatile region is one of the things that it should be awarded for. If you achieve results, it’s all the more important.
October 9, 2009, 4:09 pmLN says:
First off, the most difficult and important peace work is going to be in volatile areas. Secondly, there are only 3 years in your list where the prize was awarded to people from the Middle East — and “Peres” and “Rabin” are not very Muslim/Arab-sounding names to my ears.
October 9, 2009, 4:13 pmmadawaskan says:
Dear Americans-
I hope you understand that President Obama has much potential and needs only a little encouragement to reach his full capabilities.
We do realize that he might have been able to do much on his own but it has often been the case that a little encouragement is the best positive reinforcement for your President to become a fully grown, mature and developed actor in the international world of high stakes politics.
If five Norsemen decide to ride in and award him with this special gift, of it’s powers known only to us, please do not look this gift horse in the mouth-how you say.
Love,
Ludwina of the Lutefisk.
October 9, 2009, 4:17 pmmadawaskan says:
Look here for your post approval I submit the resumes of the Five Norsemen-
Thorbjørn Jagland (Chairman) – President of the Storting, former Labor Prime Minister, vice president of the Socialist Inrternational, named by the KGB as a ”confidential contact”.
Kaci Kullmann Five – public affairs advisor and former Conservative politican.
Sissel Rønbeck – former minister of Left-wing Labour Party.
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn – political adviser to the centre-Right Progress Party
Ågot Valle – Socialist Left member of Parliament.
I also notice you are having troubles with the Swedish-Norde thing and this is very often common to the commons…
Nobel he was Swedish, at the time of his death Norwegians and Swedes were of the union.
The Swedes did foreign affairs at the time and he thought them too corrupt so he gave it to the Norwegian led parliament at the time to decide.
I leave you with this quote from his will-
the Peace Prize should be awarded “to 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.”
Do not get the chill.
Sincerely,
Ludwina
October 9, 2009, 4:27 pmJon Roland says:
As I read the governing law on this, Obama may not accept either the medal or the money personally, but only on behalf of the nation, with the medal going to the Smithsonian and the money to the Treasury. A case can be made that he could direct the money go to a charity, but he could not accept it in his name.
Things have changed since Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson accepted the prize.
October 9, 2009, 4:27 pmJon Roland says:
OT: This blog doesn’t seem to offer a way we can search on comments. In the old blog I could easily find all my comments to all the posts, but with this one I seem to just have to note or remember which ones I commented on. Similarly, I am not able to find all the comments from selected others across multiple posts.
October 9, 2009, 4:29 pmSteverino says:
Certainly not to the people who think this prize greatly adds to the United States’ prestige, or who confuse the United States prestige with an individual’s.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is selected by Norwegian parliament and is dominated by Norwegian politicians.
This is just an award to those most accord with their world view.
In other words, it is an award from exactly the kind of leftists who spent their entire lives hoping America would fail. Not just the past 8 years.
So now we find ourselves in a bizarro world where, according to the DNC, you are siding with Hamas if you’re not thrilled that the guy endorsed by Hamas during the campaign won a vanity prize.
And now apparently it’s hoping for “America to fail” if you’re not in lock step with a committee that is trying to strengthen Obama’s hand to implement the policies that ensure America fails.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee makes no bones about it. They are trying to strengthen Obama’s hand. It is pure manipulation. And I agree with them that Obama’s policies are more in accord with the rest of the World’s values.
Given that most of the rest of the world lives in tyrrany.
Look at the EU. Not quite a tyrrany. But they are doing their best to concentrate power in Brussels against the will of the people. They don’t want referendums, ignore them as in France or Holland, demand nations like Ireland have a do-over if they don’t like results, and then violate their own laws to influence the results. Soon Europe can live under a President the people can’t vote for.
Yes, Barack Obama is exactly the kind of man people who support that would also support.
October 9, 2009, 4:33 pmNate says:
I need to stop reading these comment threads. At least half of you sound like you are forming militias in North Dakota somewhere.
October 9, 2009, 4:37 pmPlugInMonster says:
Peace dude, yeah! All you have to do is trash America to our allies and enemies AND do nothing in the face of Iranian aggression and PRESTO you get a Nobel Clown Prize.
October 9, 2009, 4:40 pmCurt Campbell says:
Could he be the Beast? No there’s only one true Beast….US Navy SEAL Curt Campbell
October 9, 2009, 6:03 pmBen says:
loki13, the difference is that Bush didn’t actually do anything to move the United States toward becoming a fascist dictatorship. I cite by way of example the fact that the United States is not a fascist dictatorship nor is it close to becoming a fascist dictatorship, therefore your analogy a complete non sequitur. Obama’s agenda however, would actually move the United States toward socialism. A move from which there is no return.
October 9, 2009, 6:08 pmPlugInMonster says:
Ben – one could argue that Communist China is moving away from socialism, but gradually while America moves at light speed towards it.
October 9, 2009, 6:10 pmPerseus says:
To the extent that one views the prize as recognition for actual accomplishments in foreign affairs, this represents an obscene case of grade inflation. However, I do give the president credit for admitting: “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments…”
October 9, 2009, 6:11 pmEH says:
This thread is pure comedy, I love it when a moment arrives that makes people comfortable in expressing themselves.
Krauthammer’s millenarianism continues to render humorously.
October 9, 2009, 6:17 pmloki13 says:
Ben,
This might be a difficult concept for you to accept. I doubt you will. But try to imagine the people that (as geokstr so pithily puts it) were on “the other team” a few years ago. They thought that Bush was frogmarching us to fascism, destroying the rule of law left and right, probably had secret orders to take over the government etc. Seems kind of silly, right?
Now we have those who are on your team saying that Obama is hellbent on turning us into a socialist nation. While, perhaps, democrats = socialist in your playbook, I don’t think most people believe that having a President that isn’t a Republican is quite the same as a Marxist/Socialist. But yes, you seem kind of silly. For example, reforming the health care system, something which Obama promised to do and which is arguably part of his mandate, and bringing it to something close to what the other industrialized democracies have, is not armageddon. You might argue it is unwise, or poor policy, but the hyperbolic treatment just makes you look…. silly.
October 9, 2009, 6:21 pmJon Roland says:
We don’t have to “form” militias. We already all are militia, and so are you (unless you’re a public enemy).
But a lot us need more training and to do something about our fitness. :)
October 9, 2009, 6:26 pmBen says:
loki113, democrats don’t = socialist in my playbook; universal healthcare, government takeover of businesses, the government voiding valid contracts, the government giving money to businesses then taking stock in said businesses, the government telling private and public companies how much money they can pay their employees = socalism in my book.
October 9, 2009, 6:46 pmSarcastro says:
That’s Ben, riding in from the 1850s to destroy the Republic in order to save it!
October 9, 2009, 6:52 pmSarcastro says:
Well, to be fair, some of the things he doesn’t like took place in the 1930s.
October 9, 2009, 6:53 pmAnonymous says:
Muslims not killing people is remarkable. There ought to be a prize for it, and that one wasn’t being used for anything, so there you have it.
October 9, 2009, 7:28 pmSarcastro says:
Ahh, Anonymous. Painting all Muslims with a broad brush is such familiar bigotry it’s comforting in these tumultuous times.
October 9, 2009, 7:54 pmLeo Marvin says:
I thought that was Marlon Brando.
October 9, 2009, 9:04 pmloki13 says:
It was Marlon Brando playing Le Duc Tho. ACTING! BRILLIANT!
October 9, 2009, 9:07 pmSandy MacHoots says:
The early favorites for the 2010 award:
Bernard-Henri Levy and Harvey Weinstein for their courageous defense of persecuted filmmaker Roman Polanski.
French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand for his dedicated work with underprivileged young men in Thailand.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his tireless work on behalf of a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem in the Middle East.
October 9, 2009, 10:26 pmXenocles says:
Making absurd, naive promises in bad faith in order to win the votes of half of the minority who votes may not be a “nothing achievement,” but it is hardly a laudable one.
October 9, 2009, 11:18 pmJohn Moore says:
Hey, they gave it to Jimmy Carter for trying to lose the cold war (or was it kissing dictator butt) and to Gorby for succeeding in losing the cold war. They gave it to Kofi so he could preside over Saddam’s influence buying sanctions gig, they gave it to Arafat while he was resting between Intifada I and Intifada II.
Let us hope Obama doesn’t live up to the hopes of these arctic idiots!
October 9, 2009, 11:31 pmArthurKirkland says:
Why so much concern about a lousy Nobel Prize?
It’s not an Olin-Bradley-Searle-Bradley-Olin Prize, let alone an OBSBO Distinguished Prize. Or an OBSBO Award. Or designation as an OBSBO Scholar . . . or Fellow . . . or the OBSBO internships . . .
It’s just a lousy Nobel Prize, a paltry bauble tarnished by ideological considerations. Who cares?
October 9, 2009, 11:40 pmRicardo says:
Out of the 16 prizes you listed, only 3 went to people who are actually from the Middle East. Everyone knows who Yasser Arafat and Mohamed El-Baradei are (El-Baradei’s prize was jointly awarded to the UN agency he headed, so even this may not even count) so need to rehash those cases. The third one went to an Iranian woman who is a human rights lawyer and founder of Centre for the Defence of Human Rights. As a lawyer, she has taken up the cases of some of those dissidents who have been persecuted by the theocratic regime. In late 2008, her organization was raided and shut down by agents of the theocratic regime.
This was a profoundly uninformed comment on your part and I hope you take it back.
October 10, 2009, 12:21 amGordon Langston says:
You can write Obama in for the Heisman Trophy here
October 10, 2009, 1:10 amFederal Dog says:
“So, it’s a million dollar bribe not to attack Iran?”
As another commenter noted, it’s the Nobel Peace Bribe.
October 10, 2009, 7:54 amLN says:
Out of the 16 prizes you listed, only 3 went to people who are actually from the Middle East.
But what about Martti Ahtisaari? Muhammad Yunus? Kofi Annan? Barack Obama? Wangari Maathai? You’re really telling me these guys aren’t furners from the Middle East? And isn’t Kim Dae-jung some kind of dictator?
October 10, 2009, 8:01 amepignosis says:
Could not help but notice that the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded during 1939-1943. Was there no “hope and change” person available. Perhaps it was to the benefit of Norway that some nations remained capable of waging war to purchase freedom for others less capable.
Perhaps, respectfully, the awarding committee members should be asked their opinions.
October 10, 2009, 10:36 amJon Roland says:
As a matter of original interpretation, for the Framers “state” (as in “foreign state”) did not mean “government”. Identification with government was a later, European meaning, that was introduced into American usage in the mid-19th century. For the Framers, it generally meant a society having exclusive dominion over a well-defined territory. It didn’t necessarily have to have a government (although all of them did). So a present from a “Foreign State” would include a present from anyone in or from a foreign state, not just officials. 5 USC 7342 actually reflects this.
It is also worth noting that for the Framers, “government” was an actronym: A polyseme whose original meaning was an activity that acquired the secondary meaning of “those engaged in the activity”, which for “government” would be “officials”. Another example of an actronym is “militia”, meaning “defense activity”, and secondarily those engaged in defense activity, or obligated to engage in defense activity if called up. There are many actronyms in 18th century usage whose original meanings as activities have been lost in modern usage.
October 10, 2009, 11:47 amRyan Waxx says:
Well, it’s not that the actual event is consequential – sure, it can’t be interpreted except as anything except a slap in the face of America – but it’s a slap by a gnat, and the gnat mostly hurt itself.
The reason it’s noteworthy it’s just so indefensible as a rational choice that partisans on both sides feel compelled to respond… the right because they smell blood, the left because… well, I can’t figure out a good reason why a liberal would be that stupid to defend it, but the evidence is they do.
October 10, 2009, 3:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
the right because they smell blood,
The right has been specializing in unwarranted celebration for a number of years. Permanent majority. Mission accomplished. We have Obama right where we want him.
it can’t be interpreted except as anything except a slap in the face of America
By the daft, perhaps. The award strikes me as a nod to the American electorate for repudiating discredited ideology, unwarranted arrogance and costly incompetence. The slap is aimed at un-American conduct such as torture, endless detention, immoral military action and reckless disregard for the interests of others.
October 10, 2009, 11:26 pmJohn Moore says:
The award is an attempt to influence US policy by a bunch of otherwise un-notable, pampered elite norwegians , who owe their freedoms to US military opposition to the USSR
October 11, 2009, 12:57 amLeo Marvin says:
ArthurKirkland says:
Come on. They’re obviously taunting us for electing a President who’s no more American than they are. There’s no other conceivable explanation. Anyone who claims otherwise is either a moron or a liar. So what will it be? Take your time.
October 11, 2009, 3:07 amWeekly Web Watch 10/5/09 – 10/11/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH says:
[...] Obama supporter, is irritated by the “cheapening” of the award. Jonathan Adler argues that this event is not terribly extraordinary; the Prize has often been awarded to people prospectively. John Miller explains the differences [...]
October 12, 2009, 4:49 pm