SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Friday, October 9, 2009, 12:47 PM

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama today for ending the tensions between Professor Henry Louis Gates and Office James Crowley during his Beer Summit. Only kidding, of course. That was an actual accomplishment and according to the Nobel citation, he won because of efforts.

The reaction to the announcement—from both the left and right— has been generally negative. But the comittee was only following the lead of the American people. They may have given him the Nobel Prize despite doing nothing to deserve it—but we gave him the Presidency based on even fewer accomplishments.

My favorite part of the announcement, though, is finding that he was nominated for the Peace Prize before he had been in office two weeks. According to the Washington Post: “Though Obama’s name surfaced early among contenders, the announcement astonished observers—drawing gasps from the audience in Oslo — in part because Obama assumed office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 deadline for nominations.”

Here are some other noteworthy reactions to the news:

The Times of London: “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world. Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”

Mark Halperin: “Obama has been in office less than a year, and has few tangible accomplishments deriving from the speeches he has given or the preliminary talks his young government has engaged in. And the award comes at a time in which Obama’s role as a war president—in Afghanistan—is front and center. It isn’t quite as inexplicable as Marisa Tomei’s Best Supporting Actress Oscar, but it seems pretty close.”

Vox Day: “What on Earth can they possibly be thinking? The man hasn’t even ended the two military occupations he promised to end!”

Fred Thompson: “Shouldn’t the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations?”

Peter Beinart: “I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.”

Andrew Sullivan: “If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled word lately, it’s president Obama. I think the Cairo speech and the Wright speech alone merited this both bridging ancient rifts even while they remain, of course, deep and intractable.”

Nicholas Kristof: “I admire his efforts toward Middle East peace, but the prize still seems very premature. What has he done? . . . [I]t seems to me that it might have made sense to wait and give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in his eighth year in office, after he has actually made peace somewhere.”

Emanuele Ottolenghi: “If President Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize less than one year into his presidency, what can he aspire to by the time he leaves office? If fate allows it, the seat of St Peter will be vacant — and if not, we are sure the pope will graciously resign. Short of that, one can always count on the UN secretary-general’s post to be on offer.”

Daniel Pipes: “My prediction: The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments”

Frank J: “And for the record, this makes a mockery of the prize. There is no way Obama has had time to accomplish as much peace as Arafat did.”

Democratic National Committee spokesman: “”The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.”

17 Comments

    Tweets that mention The Nobel’s Prince of Peace » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com
    October 9th, 2009 | 1:12 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by btnewgent. btnewgent said: Obama wins the #Nobel Peace Prize? For what? Nominations for the prize ended 10 days after he took office! http://tinyurl.com/yz5vmt6 [...]

    Rob
    October 9th, 2009 | 1:40 pm

    It should have gone to one of the few voices of reason left in today’s world-the Holy Father who stands for peace (despite what neocon shills like Novak and Weigel-who care more about the GOP than God-say).

    President Barack Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize?! « Near Emmaus: Christ and Text
    October 9th, 2009 | 1:42 pm

    [...] also: First Things, “The Nobles Prince of Peace“ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize — [...]

    Craig Payne
    October 9th, 2009 | 2:06 pm

    I think the announcement and all the rest of it was a great and funny response to last week’s “Saturday Night Live” skit, but really, enough is enough.

    Now: In reality, who was awarded the prize?

    Joe DeVet
    October 9th, 2009 | 2:09 pm

    You know, there is one way to look at this that makes Obama seem qualified for the prize.

    For example, he has surely done LESS to make peace impossible than an earlier laureate, Yasir Arafat, lifelong professional terrorist. It may just be an artifact of time–Obama hasn’t had enough time or experience–yet–to cause the harm Arafat did. Maybe there’s wisdom in giving him the prize before he has enough time to prove beyond a doubt that he doesn’t deserve it!

    He has surely not made himself as much a laughingstock as Jimmy Carter, another laureate. Again, time will tell.

    He’s told fewer lies than laureate Al Gore. (Well, close call on that one! I predict between the two, Obama will finally win, hands down.)

    Karl Bivens
    October 9th, 2009 | 3:57 pm

    I would not have believed it possible. In order for “Biblical Prophecy” to proceed, we needed a “Prince of Peace” to be revealed. It is said that “he would be undeserving of this title” & “be full of deception”.
    He would appear from “nowhere” and “command a great many”.
    Enter Barak Obama………..
    Scares Me!

    GeronimoRumplestiltskin
    October 9th, 2009 | 4:07 pm

    ….and thus the reign of the Heisman Trophies awarded to Vinny Testaverde (’86) and Ty Detmer (’90) as “The Most Laughably Undeserved Award Rewards In History” officially ends…..

    Nick Melucci
    October 9th, 2009 | 4:44 pm

    The Nobel Speech Prize.

    Sean
    October 9th, 2009 | 6:06 pm

    It’s like Milli Vanilli at the Grammys all over again.

    Mrs. Jackson
    October 9th, 2009 | 7:22 pm

    La! The Nobel Prize Committee has been caught red-handed inflating the grades of minorities…

    Raymond J. Johnson, Jr.
    October 9th, 2009 | 8:20 pm

    The Nobel Appease Prize.

    Craig Payne
    October 9th, 2009 | 8:32 pm

    The Ignoble?

    Well, at any rate, on the President’s behalf: He did deserve the Nobel at least as much as he deserved to be elected President in the first place.

    Steve
    October 9th, 2009 | 9:59 pm

    Mrs. Jackson
    October 9th, 2009 | 7:22 pm

    “La! The Nobel Prize Committee has been caught red-handed inflating the grades of minorities…”

    Mildly funny, but let’s not make the mistake of referring to persons as “minorities.”

    And I’ll second Rob’s endorsement of Benedict XVI as a peacemaker. May he continue to accomplish great things in that regard.

    Devin A. Link
    October 10th, 2009 | 1:14 am

    Whether he deserved to win or not,doesnt matter. Its already transpired.
    Im commenting because of the connotation that he is the “prince of peace”.
    We are getting too close to making this man into an idol. The only Prince of Peace is and will ever be Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.
    People,we need to wake up and see the error of our ways before its too late. Repent of these idolatrous ways and turn to Christ. This man is just a man. He cannot save you! Stop putting your trust in him. He is a good man with good intentions but only one Savior. Choose Christ before its too late! Judgement is upon us NOW!!!

    Craig Payne
    October 10th, 2009 | 2:18 pm

    If I had a collection of Obama photos, could they be the Prints of Peace?

    Larry Catá Backer
    October 11th, 2009 | 2:15 pm

    An interesting set of views. For something a little different, see comments in “Rewarding the American State Apparatus for Good Behavior: Understanding and the Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Obama” http://lcbackerblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/rewarding-american-state-apparatus-for.html

    Steynian 389 « Free Canuckistan!
    October 20th, 2009 | 12:51 pm

    [...] later. So, who says President Obama hasn’t done anything to earn the award?”; and “Obama wins Nobel prize because of “potential.” Fetus, not so lucky.”; The Nobel’s Prince of Peace …. [...]

=