Obama and the Nobel Prize: Great expectations
Obama on the campaign trail last year, courtesy of the NY Times
As we in St. Louis wake up this morning, the news is just breaking that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m not sure this is going to be a very popular decision here in the US. Already the naysayers are at work, ready to ridicule and deride. What has he actually done to deserve this, anyway? But it’s not going to be only the usual anti-Obama crowd who are concerned. Even Lech Walesa, a fellow laureate, says this is “too soon” and hopes it will be “an encouragement” for Obama to do more. “Let’s see if he perseveres. Let’s give him time to act.”
The Nobel Committee cites “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Their statement continues, “The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
Clearly, as the talking heads are starting to say, Obama is being honored more for his aspirations than for his achievements. And yet, given that one of the three great Christian virtues is hope (along with faith and love), maybe we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the power of aspiration, of wanting and working to do the right thing, and of inspiring and empowering others to do so as well. On the big issues, the things that are really important–nuclear disarmament, climate change, peace in the Middle East–nine months is far too little time in office to expect results. But results are not the only barometer of significance.
To be honest, I think there were probably other candidates whose actions were more inspiring, who have done more to put themselves on the line than Obama. But it’s possible that the Nobel Committee has a better sense of how the rest of the world views our president than we at home do. They state,
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.
Only time will tell if Obama really “deserves” this award. The important test will be what he does with it; can he find a way to leverage his influence to really move the world closer to peace? The Bible verse that keeps ringing in my head this morning is from the Gospel of Luke: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Luke 12:48, NRSV).
Pamela Dolan is on staff at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Webster Groves and is a Candidate for Holy Orders. After high school in Hawaii and college in California, she earned a master's degree in theology from Harvard before spending several years in New York studying medieval religion and literature. Pamela is married with two children. 
This is pure nonsense.
You don’t get an award for the potential to maybe in the future earn the reward that we think you might deserve if you practice what you preach.
If aspirations win you the Nobel peace prize, then there are many more deserving well-intentioned people. I think Bush was more deserving of a this prize. His policy troop surge . I’m truly afraid that this is the international community trying to influence American foreign policy. It’s tough to win a peace prize, and then turn around and ramp up a war (no, not my original thought, but I heard it said and think it bears repeating.)
The only thing I know for sure is that this prize will bear little to no significance moving forward if they give it to popular world leaders that haven’t done anything to deserve it.
But hey, if Arafat can win it…
sorry, left a dangling sentance:
His troop surge brought about more peace than anything Obama has done.
This is no a surprise at all. He has been fed everything he has had, politically. He was never challenged during his campaign for the presidency. The few times he was it was always racially motivated and not about his political idology. That was the story anyway. So why should this be any different, it’s just another example of someone or some group hopping on the Obama train.
I believe they are hoping it will influence our political decisions as it relates to dealing with foreign countries. And I am sure that our President will bow to someone else soon. A great man once said ” All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That’s all you did. You put people in danger. Sweet dreams, son.” Thanks Mr President.
I would not object in any way if President Obama had actually accomplished peace in his first few months as President. I’m not his biggest fan, but if the man accomplished the amazing feats for the sake of world peace that other prize recipients had, I would wholeheartedly support him receiving the prize.
That said, giving the Nobel Peace Prize to someone based primarily upon how s/he is perceived instead of actions s/he has taken is unprecedented. Wouldn’t it have been better all around if the prize had been considered for him after he had accomplished what he has promised? This isn’t naysaying or ridicule, it’s level-headed common sense. He hasn’t yet done much, and doesn’t (yet?) deserve the Prize.
First to declare my bias, my vote was for Greg Mortenson.
If acknowledging hope is the intent I understand that.
They have honored hope with encouragement? Even more short sighted is the burden of expectation. Expectation is the most inauthentic of all forms of judgment, and is the source of all upset in the world.
The only thing Obama can do now is accept it for the people and the future peace we all hope will come from the actions of those giving this award.
Good grief, the arrogance and lack of discipline on the part of the board to subcumb to such a temptation.
I am with you Pamela. I have tremendous compassion for what is to come next for Obama when he stands up to face a sea of dumbfounded faces. God be with him, and I will be watching Saturday Night Live.
Ted, I don’t take your comments as naysaying or ridicule, and I think you have some valid concerns. I’m a little ambivalent about this myself, and I’m a pretty solid Obama supporter.
Still, it sets the bar a little too high to say that you would support his win if he “had actually accomplished peace in his first few months as President.” Nobody has had to do that in order to be awarded this honor. And I don’t think he’s being rewarded only for the way he is being perceived, as opposed to for his actions. Clearly he has changed the tone of the global conversation in a pretty substantial way. We can argue about whether or not that’s enough of an achievement (and I’m not sure it is), but I don’t think we can say that he hasn’t done anything.
Another, that’s a very thoughtful response. Let’s just pray that it doesn’t become such a distraction that it actually makes it harder for Obama to accomplish anything; I wonder if with the best of intentions the committee has just put an albatross around his neck.
While I loathe to do a lot of cutting and pasting, I pulled this from a commentary from Tommy De Seno of Fox News. I researched most of the commentary and he appears to be correct (I know Fox News is right leaning so take it for what it’s worth):
“Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter).
President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20.
Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:
January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner’s swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.
So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.”
Obama accomplished nothing as a Senator and won the Presidency by using two words “Hope” and “Change”. The American people drank the koolaid..and it appears that the Nobel Peace Prize committee did too. If you think that Obama will convince the Russians to give up their nuclear arsenal; the Iranians will give up their goal of destroying Israel; and Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea will grow to love our country because of Obama, you’re drinking the same koolaid.
I have loved reading these responses. To Another- you are absolutely correct “The only thing Obama can do now is accept it for the people and the future peace we all hope will come from the actions of those giving this award.” To Pamela- an albatross indeed.
I can hear the whining now by the hard right about how much it’s going to cost for him to go to Stockholm to receive the award.