Hope is Cheap
Sharon October 9th, 2009
Wow, that’s a backhanded compliment. Here, President Obama, have the Nobel Peace Prize. Everyone will know you didn’t earn it, or do anything to deserve it, but you seem like a nice man, and well, we really hated your predecessor. So you get a special award just for not being him, kind of the Miss Congeniality for world leaders. Either that or the Nobel Prize Committee was under the impression that our bombardment of the moon was actually subduing some enemy.
Tough day for peace, y’know. More troops and drones to Afghanistan, more money in a military budget that is by a whole lot the largest in the world, more rumblings with Iran…. But hey, the first black president is also the first black president to win the nobel peace prize, so things must be looking up. I’m hoping they give him the the faux-nobel for economics next – if we give him enough awards, he’ll have to do better! Or the Heisman trophy.
The only real explanation is this – the nobel prize nominees, made up of the world political elite, the most educated people in the world, and prior winners have no freaking idea what to do next. They are all hoping that a resolutely-middle-of-the-road guy who got to be president in the US has a plan, and some hope for the future. They hope if they give him a prize he hasn’t earned he’ll live up to it. Just as a lot of us hoped that if we started with big expectations, he’d live up to them.
So far, not so much. And that kind of hope is cheap. But apparently, so is the definition of peace.
Sharon
- politics
- Comments(100)
Just wondering what the quote: “This isn’t teh special olympics.” in respect to his not being George Bush. Then followed by: “He did nothing to earn it” ??? Do they go together? Special Olympics and doing nothing to earn something? Speaking of condescending.
Anyway, just wondering, and wanting to clear up my immediate offense to it.
(Not the same as The Raven)
True that, Sharon.
Oh well. The Nobel folks haven’t made sense to me for years…
Raven
No, Steph, they were separate statements – my kid does special olympics. The point is that in the special olympics, everyone gets an award just for trying. In the Nobel prize, not so much.
Again, I agree that Obama is not at fault here. I don’t actually think he could have refused – that too would have been an affront. The point is that this demeans something that ought to mean something – it probably hasn’t really for the last few decades, since Kissinger, but it should.
Sharon
I was shocked and speechless when I heard about the Nobel. I still am.
This is an absolute travesty and cheapens the award for all those who earned it by actually working and accomplishing something toward a better and more peaceful world.
Obama may be a nice man–personally I think he is either a clever con man or the weakest man ever to hold the office.
Bah, Humbug!
Amen sister. What’s also sad is that now that it’s been given for nothing, it’s been given, and can’t be given again, no matter what he might do in the future to earn it. The Nobel Committee has deprived President Obama of that opportunity forever, and cheapened the award to boot.
This gives me great hope for winning the Nobel prize in Physics next year. What’s that? I didn’t do anything notable? No problem.
Well, I can always go for the gold in the Special Olympics. I’m fairly sure I probably qualify on a number of disabilities.
My first thought was, WTF? Hmm. Not April Fool’s day, this was listed in a local paper, so it’s not the Onion website… wait, this isn’t a joke?
I fully agree Sharon.
bottom line .. he won… he didn’t ask for it… he’s not going to give it back..
this is Sharon’s blog..and she intitled to her opinion.. right or wrong..
and NOTHING is going to change any of these..
So lets get back to learning …
This prize is being awarded to the American people as much as to Obama, for turning away from Bush-Cheneyism.
If this is true, I want my cut of the price. Which I shall use to buy one of those grocery-store vending machine bouncy balls which so mesmerized me when I was five.
*”cut of the prize”, that should say…
I will give you a total pass on this because I value your website for its helpful information on FOOD SECURITY. Some of us feel a lot safer in the world of Oct 2009 than we did in the world of Oct 2008, or at any time in the last 8 years, and know that his is because we have a president who knows how to get along well with others. I am sad to see you do not feel the same.
Kestrel — me [or Sharon] thinking that Obama is a good president, and thinking that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize, are two different things. I just feel that while he’s doing pretty decently at a horribly difficult job, he should be able to prove that he’s doing something other than Not Being Bush, especially since given the timing on these things he had to have been nominated within days of his election.
Sharon I think your comments are disapointing and reflect how very much you are focused on economic and depletion issues and your disapointment that Obama is also not going in the right direction on those issues.
I would however suggest that as a people, Americans do not have a clue (nor do we seem to care) about how we are perceived by our neighbors on this planet. We do not understand the anxiety and resentment our behavior can create nor do we appreciate that we can also inspire hope.
Over the ast ten years or so I have seen a great deal of fear over what was seen by many Europeans I knew as a dangerous and arrogant foreign policy and climate policy on the part of the US. I also heard expressions of disappointment that the US had ceased to be a country which stood for principles that were greatly admired.
The Peace Prize is often given to people not for accomplishment but for trying to accomplish. When it was given to the women from Northern Ireland they for sure had not accomplished much in the way of peace for Northern Ireland. When it was given to ML King racism and segregation was very much still the norm in the US. The Prize is as much a carrot as a reward. It is used by the Nobel committee to encourage as much as reward.
I believ what we are seeing in the award of the Prize to Obama is a huge sigh of relief that we have abandoned for now a course which was very frightening to the rest of the world. I also see it as an acknowledgement of the power the IDEA of America still exerts over the people of the earth. In this sense we might take a break from our usual partisan bickering and spend a few moments of wonder at the way our messy American experiment can still inspire hope in people. The award is as much for that American Idea as it is for the baby steps Obama has taken to get us on a new path.
The very first thing that popped into my head when I heard the news this morning is, “Well, I guess hope won again.” I am a supporter of President Obama and would agree materially that he has not accomplished things yet that might make him feel more deserving of the award. That being said, however, a man who inspires hope in the hearts of millions of pessimists like myself both here and abroad surely cannot be said to be entirely undeserving. Who deserves it more? Someone who works toward massive change, or someone who inspires the masses to make changes in their own daily lives? Do we all need to do more? Of course we do, but that many more of us are doing something should not be ignored. No, President Obama should not win the prize simply for the honor of not being President Bush. Many of us who felt paralyzed by despair during the Bush administration have found new hope that fuels new actions with the desire of being the change we wish to see in the world. It’s really a shame, with so many people sacrificing around the world for peace and for the greater good, that only one person is honored with the prize.
Sharon,
I absolutely agree with you. I, too, am glad that he is not Bush. I DO think he could’ve done more that we would be proud of, if his hands weren’t tied in so many ways…but, that said, he still did NOT deserve this. I have yet to be proud of my country, again.
Well said. My thoughts exactly.
I have to say I’ve been disappointed with Obama as a president so far. I voted for him and had high hopes (perhaps that was my mistake) for positive change. And what has happened? We are still losing lives in the war, there’s no universal health care, there’s no improvement to environment, there’s no improvement in family leave, and my tax dollars have bailed out the greediest of the greedy. Disappointment overall.
Cecelia, I don’t think it actually has anything to do with my focus on depletion or my feelings about the Obama presidency – saying “Obama didn’t earn the nobel peace prize” isn’t the same as saying “we might as well still have president bush”. Those folks in Ireland may not have succeeded, but they worked really hard a long time – Obama had been president all of two minutes when we decided that the winds of change had blown. And if they wanted to give it to America, why not give it to Americans, or at least the ones who voted Bush out of office? I’d be delighted to add “Nobel Peace Prize Winner” to my resume – I don’t care about my share of the prize money, but heck, even if I have to share it round a bit, I wouldn’t mind the title
.
I would, of course, argue that simply electing a less bad or even good president to the United States is not grounds to win the Nobel Peace prize either – it is awarded for an extraordinary act. In order to believe that it is extraordinary that we chose not to continue with the Bush policies, you have to believe some rather awful things about the mainstream of America. Some of them may even be true, but generally speaking, the peace prize is awarded for those doing more than the least they could possibly do to make the world a tolerable place.
Sharon
Yeah, I’m not Bush either. But nobody’s giving me any prizes.
One can’t be faulted for believing that something along the level of a Nobel Peace Prize would have come after some hard work and effort.
What does Obama have to show for his Nobel Peace Prize. What exactly did he do? Where is it more peaceful due to Obama’s efforts? I’ve heard thoughts…….but seen no results.
Sharon, I stopped by to let you know that I’m slaving and sweating over pots and quarts of applesauce, made from organic apples grown on my parent’s trees.
See the influence you have on people?
I still have TWO more bushels staring me in the face. But they are going to have to wait until next week.
WOW, I can’t believe the response one of your shortest posts! Personally, I thought that my co-worker was making a joke this morning when he told me that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. My first reaction, once I found out it was true, was to wonder what, exactly, he had done to deserve such distinction so early on in his political career. Perhaps, inspiring hope in such a large number of people is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize (although, I’m still at a loss to understand what, exactly, this hope he inspires is for – I haven’t quite figured it out – maybe it’s not the same “hope” I understand…). His nominator(s) obviously saw something worthy of such an honor, but I’m still confused as to how the committee decided he was the *most* worthy of the prize.
High-five, Sharon!
–Erika
Hey Sharon and everyone else,
I’m weighing in support of Sharon’s opinion today. When I heard the news, I could not believe it. The nominations were due by February 1. Pres. Obama had been in office for what–2 weeks? The Nobel committee could find no one else more worthy?
I am thankful that he is not Bush as much as many of you. I voted for Obama, but this award doesn’t make much sense. I’m glad to hear that Obama was gracious in his acceptance of the award.
As to our standing in the eyes of other countries, what must the majority of the citizens living in those countries think of the U.S. now?
It’s just all kind of odd to me. Do you think he’s up for sainthood next?
Lisa
Yeah, see, this is why I treat the Nobel Peace Prize as nothing but a source of entertainment.
Orlov did it again!
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-wins-gorbachevs-peace-prize.html
Yee-hee!
So, judging by the letter in his voice sent out by his press office this afternoon, the president feels the same way. It’s an effective letter. I still feel angry on behalf of the other people who have been working very hard and with a lot less recognition than Mr. Obama. Who knows what the rationale was for the committee. I think the right thing to do would be to create a second Peace Prize, perhaps the Not Bush Peace Prize, to recognize an individual’s potential to make tremendous positive change.
At any rate, speaking of peace, Shabbat Shalom; I hope you’re going into Shabbat with a peaceful heart.
That demon, Henry Kissenger won the Nobel Peace Prize too [1973]
There is no need for ay further comment, is there?
Divide and conquer-divide and conquer-
and all the good little sheep take a side and still they argue over what is not the point. *sigh*
Peace prize my arse-
Nix to the folks who gave it
Nix to Obama
nix to Bush
nix to all of the figureheads who really are nothing but that.
Here’s the full text (from the committee) regarding the decision:
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 of and 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.”
Why are we so shocked? The man is practically worshipped just for being who he is…not George Bush.
He campaigned on the whole premise he was not Bush (but yet, we didn’t really know what he was…but it didn’t matter, because change is good and change & hope matter!)
So we should not be shocked that the whole world is handing him the keys to the planet on a silver platter. They are celebrating WHO he is—Not-George-Bush.
I am a libertarian. I have mixed feelings about him; I support him because he’s our President, but I also think he’s a narcissist of the worst fashion. I don’t tow any party line. I woke up this morning and have yet to find more than a few democrats who even support his “win” of the “prize.” They’re embarassed too!
With you Sharon!
Thanks to Lauren for posting the complete text!
It occurred to me that while the deadline for nominations occurred 2 weeks after he took office, the deliberations on the winner for the prize most certainly took months.
I DO see the promise of Obama becoming manifest in small moves. He has been trying to LEAD us towards a consensus to make these changes as a nation, not unilaterally. He was awarded the prize for DIPLOMACY. Can we honor that?
well, since i’m Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2006 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html), i feel i have sufficient gravitas to weigh in on the issue. And frankly, I feel it cheapens my award completely, (even though it was given by a different organization entirely.)
slightly more seriously if your tin foil hat isn’t adjusted properly… perhaps there were some behind-the-scenes decisions that he made that can’t be made public? there’s been lots of discussion of attacking Iran over the last several years. I’d imagine there was a fair amount of diplomatic bantering behind the scenes among all the major players in the world, only a smidgen of which we peons ever get to see. and i have no idea what the protocol between a departing and an incoming administration might be in preparing for such a potential situation either. just a wild speculation…
aside from humor or wild speculation, no, i don’t think it was earned.
–sgl
Right on Sharon!!! “Peace Prize”??? WTF is that all about? Give me a prize for spending multi-billions/trillions on death and destruction? Really!!! Sorry that I am, I voted for a change. Not happening. Any more, I’m seeing that the USA is nothing but a front and shill for big money, trying to front the irrational belief that it’s somehow exceptional. This all just a big f***ing joke. Who cares and who, in the end gives a flat flying ****.
I’m angry, can you tell? So be it!
B
Cheap Shot is right! We were in Europe last year and it was a wake up call to hear their feelings about the previous adminstration.
President Obama repaired and is repairing relationships around the world that were woefully deficient.
The difference between President Obama and the previous adminstration is, thankfully large.
So, quite aside from the ‘vision’ thing he has accomplished making the world a better place through his respect for other countries and their views as well as working with them. Perfect? Nope, but the contrast is startling to those who took the time to take a look.
Wasn’t former Pres. Bush made Time magazine ‘man of the year’ or some such honor?
You are so right! I hate to say I told you so, but how does everyone like their CHANGE now? Americans forgot that change can go both ways. Thought it was the worst it could be. Ha! I had hoped that it might turn out better than it has since the majority of voters seemed to place more credence on the rhetoric than the reality that there was not a real plan to go with it, and of course finally having a black president, as if his race has anything at all to do with his policies.
As to making apologies all over the world for being the USA and what we have done in the past, people forget how much of our tax money goes to feeding the poor, humanitarian aide and peaceful military support. President Clinton used a lot of military and many of our soldiers died during the time of “peace”.
Check the history (the real one, not the media hype and emotion everyone s so caught up with). Obama has good intentions I think, but getting things done in a real way that helps the man on the street, not so much. Theory and reality are very far apart in this case. Go back an look at some speeches relating to unemployment in Feb with the stimulus package and where we are now.
A law degree doesn’t exactly make for a good understanding of economics, but then it doesn’t seem that a economics degree does either these days. It’s just too frightening to say we need to quit believing that everyone can be as rich as Midas and no one will have to work or pay for it. They have been selling the spend to make the economy grow for so long that to reverse the statement, take the hit in the short run and correct ourselves will not get people re-elected and that’s what it is all about, right? Just go ask Japan how these types of policies have worked in the past.
In the end, whom ever is president, we are going to have to pay for our excesses. Giving someone the Nobel Peace Prize because he’s a nice guy doesn’t get our country out of the crisis it is in. One of these days everyone will realize that it’s neighbor working with neighbor creating lasting relationships for good times and bad, and keeping the families together under God that will get us through this.
Kudos to the person who posted the entire text of the Nobel Committees statement on why they awarded the NPP to President Obama. It appears that the majority of people posting replies here have not even bothered to read it, or if they have, their reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
Sad. I come here to read about food security issues, and Sharon does a GREAT job on that. I never expected her to jump on the Let’s-All-Hate-Obama bandwagon……..he is not perfect, but then no other president has been either.
I suppose you all would have preferred McCain/Palin. And McCain would drop dead and we would have Caribou Barbie in the White House………..
I’m so with you on this one, Sharon. The list of others who were nominated really drives it home. This is essentially a “so-glad you aren’t Bush,and by the way, what a great speech you gave at the Brandenberg gate” award”, and it reflects badly on the Committee and the award, IMHO.
Sharon – my son, and our friend have been discussing your commentary on the Nobel for the past hour. They were not familiar w/your blog and I was sharing w/them that I really value the thought you put into your positions even when I do not agree w/you. On this statement, the 3 of us are behind you 100%. Our President was not given this award because he earned it. My son, a political studies master’s student at the University of Illinois learned that the process of nomination for the Nobel began about 3 weeks after our President was sworn into office. Few of us could earn consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize in 3 weeks. When thinking of the Nobel recipients or those who might be worthy of consideration, I think of those who have made great personal and professional sacrifice endured for many years and at great cost before being nominated for such an achievement. Names that come to mind Louis and Marie Pasteur, Alexander Scholzeneitkin (spelling?), Albert Einstein, etc…you get the idea. Although you lean liberal in your political thought you took the time to analyze the situation in a logical manner rather than blindly agreeing that Mr. Obama is deserving of having accomplished a level of greatness that has changed the world for the better. We are proud of your proclivity to think for yourself rather than those who blindly agree just because they personally support the President and have faith in him. Many blogs in cyberland blow me away in their shallowness and in which I see no useful purpose. Reading your books and blogs has brought a new respect for blogging as a method of sharing truly useful, intelligent, and purposeful discussion/thought…keep up the good work…
Denise – Illinois
Just… well said.
Love him or hate it – handing him this when he’d been president for all of two weeks just kneecapped the man.
Bit by bit the man is hoisted higher onto the pedestal – and what will happen when he proves to be human and fallible?
I just can’t help feeling this is a bad idea all around.
[...] politics of hope Posted in Uncategorized by goodbean on October 10, 2009 Well, Sharon Astyk said it best, so no point in trying to rephrase my thoughts exactly Here, President Obama, have [...]
Thank you, Lauren for posting the text, and Kestrel, I must agree with you. WTF, Sharon? I can go to Faux News to read disparaging comments of the guy we elected. I can go to the stupid Millenium Ark (where I go to see what the nutjobs are thinking now) to see more mud slung. He didn’t nominate himself, and the reasons why he won are pretty clearly delineated in Lauren’s post. Apparently, not being George Bush is enough for the Nobel Committee, and it’s enough for me for a start as well. No, he is not helping pull individuals out of communist countries but he’s trying to do things that will have wider-reaching effects for entire countries. Like nuclear disarmament. Gosh, what a slacker.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding along the lines of “he was only three weeks into his presidency when he was nominated for this.” NOMINATED, folks. That doesn’t mean it was decided then to give him the award. That means it was decided then to make it a possibility (in other words, “we might want to do this, let’s put him into the mix and see how things go and what we think about it when the time comes”). Nominating him then was keeping the option open. The decision to give him the award wasn’t actually made until last Monday. Just FYI.
Nextly, those of you who are chiding Sharon for criticizing or attacking Obama, if you read what she wrote, that’s not her intent at all. Partly, I think she’s saying that the Nobel people created an awkward situation for Obama. Which is obviously true and many have remarked on it. I think in a way, that was their intention — they hope by this to influence his future behavior and nudge it in the direction of peacemaking. Once you are a Nobel Peace Prize winner you might feel weird about starting a war! (If you have a brain that is — it wouldn’t have had any effect on Bush.)
Another thing — appaarently Obama’s own first comment when he was told about the award was, “what are you talking about? Is this a joke?” Obviously he thought it was as odd and surprising as anyone.
ps — Sharon, I apologize for my testy remark about the moon thing.
And another thing… Time’s “Man of the Year” (now “Person of the Year”) is not necessarily an “honor.” It’s supposed to be a person (or a category of person) (or even sometimes something non-human) who was highly influential in the recent year — not necessarily an admirable or honorable person. Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini were each named “Man of the Year” (in ‘38, ‘39, and ‘79).
Here is an interesting blog entry:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791729/-For-a-minute-I-forgot-how-important-the-United-States-is
One of the things that I think is most telling about this is how reductionist the analysis gets – maybe mine too, but think about it. Now saying “you don’t deserve the nobel peace prize” has become an insult – imagine saying that to someone when you get mad “You don’t even deserve the nobel peace prize!” I mean c’mon – saying Obama doesn’t deserve NPP is hardly like saying he’s bad, or that we’d prefer McCain or that he’s even not a good man. But that’s the nature of backhanded compliments.
Sharon
Hello,
for all those who complain about Henry Kissinger being given the prize, you are right that it is enough reason to be suspicious, especially if you read a quite well-known (well, among people of your political stripe) article by John Lukács unfavourably comparing Kissinger to Dorothy Day, the famed Catholic pacifist without whom the opposition to the Vietnam War would most likely never have threatened the US.
The article can be read at “http://www.sparrowrose.com/homework/pol_econ_week_four.htm” or “http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8694″.
However, if Kissinger can quite legitimately be said to have usurped the Peace Prize from Dorothy Day (who was nominated but – believe it or not – considered too radically pacifist for the judges) it is hard to see who Obama could have usurped. At this moment at least I wonder why they do not consider failing to award the prize at all – it was far from uncommon before 1973.
oh what a box of _____ has been opened here.
this wonderful oasis of a place to come together to attempt to DO SOMETHING about our dire predicament …. (PO, CC, etc)
and now look
such bickering amongst us
can we go back to
DOING SOMETHING now.
dayenu!
When I heard first that Obama got the nobel prize / peace I thougt:
What a slap in the face of all these people that are really working hard for a little bit of peace on this earth!(let’s say streetworkers in brasilian slums etc.).
Bettina from Germany
I think the rabid Obama supporters are funny. Where did Sharon say she hated Obama? Where did she say she would have preferred McCain/Palin? Why is it everytime someone says they don’t agree with a policy of Obama’s, they suddenly hate him and love Bush? I don’t even agree with everything my husband does or says, why should I be expected to agree with everything a president does or says? Get a grip people!
I’ll agree with you Sharon (and yes, I’m one of those “outsiders” who really does appreciate that Obama is NOT George W.).
I do admire Obama for the work he is doing – he is at the start of a very long journey to change the way America sees the rest of the world, and the way the rest of the world sees America. It isn’t going to be easy, and he may not see the results while he is still in office (maybe even in his lifetime). People outside America are watching closely to see if he will be allowed to make the changes that are so desperately needed.
But it seems as though this award has been given on the basis of good intentions – and that does neither Obama nor the Nobel Peace Prize justice.
Talk is wonderful – but when it comes to something like a Nobel Prize, well, you would think that results carried a bit more weight, don’t you think?
look. what are we to do. as people we’ve tried
to get it over to everyone that understanding
and truth is’nt some void but that we are all
brother and sisters wading through deep/dark
waters.that only hope is our selfelves and hope
is shalllow.can we see others as those to emprace and seek to see all with aceptance.
The alteranTIVE is total destruction with nouthing left.
(No Hope,No _Place. What can I say?If You head one thing to say?