Obama's Peace Prize

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I thought that this message from Michael Moore to be appoprriate

From: “Michael Moore” maillist@michaelmoore.com
Date: October 10, 2009 2:53:17 PM PDT
Subject: Get Off Obama’s Back …second thoughts from Michael Moore
Reply-To: maillist@michaelmoore.com

Get Off Obama’s Back …second thoughts from Michael Moore

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

Friends,

Last night my wife asked me if I thought I was a little too hard on Obama in my letter yesterday congratulating him on his Nobel Prize. “No, I don’t think so,” I replied. I thought it was important to remind him he’s now conducting the two wars he’s inherited. “Yeah,” she said, “but to tell him, ‘Now earn it!’? Give the guy a break – this is a great day for him and for all of us.”

I went back and re-read what I had written. And I listened for far too long yesterday to the right wing hate machine who did what they could to crap all over Barack’s big day. Did I – and others on the left – do the same?

We are weary, weary of war. The trillions that will have gone to these two wars have helped to bankrupt us as a nation – financially and morally. To think of all the good we could have done with all that money! Two months of the War in Iraq would pay for all the wells that need to be dug in the Third World for drinking water! Obama is moving too slow for most of us – but he needs to know we are with him and we stand beside him as he attempts to turn eight years of sheer madness around. Who could do that in nine months? Superman? Thor? Mitch McConnell?

Instead of waiting to see what the president is going to do, we all need to be pro-active and push the agenda that we want to see enacted. What keeps us from forming the same local groups we put together to get out the vote last November? C’mon! We’re the majority now – the majority by a significant margin! We call the shots – and we need to tell this wimpy Congress to get busy and do what we say – or else.

All I ask of those who voted for Obama is to not pile on him too quickly. Yes, make your voice heard (his phone number is 202-456-1414). But don’t abandon the best hope we’ve had in our lifetime for change. And for God’s sake, don’t head to bummerville if he says or does something we don’t like. Do you ever see Republicans behave that way? I mean, the Right had 20 years of Republican presidents and they still couldn’t get prayer in the public schools, or outlaw abortion, or initiate a flat tax or put our Social Security into the stock market. They did a lot of damage, no doubt about that, but on the key issues that the Christian Right fought for, they came up nearly empty handed. No wonder they’ve been driven crazy lately. They’ll never have it as good again as they’ve had it since Reagan took office.

But – do you ever see them looking all gloomy and defeated? No! They keep on fighting! Every day. Our side? At the first sign of wavering, we just pack up our toys and go home.

So, at least for this weekend, let us celebrate what people elsewhere are celebrating – that America now has a sane and smart man in the White House, a man who truly wants a world at peace for his two daughters.

Many, for the past couple days (yes, myself included), have grumbled, “What has he done to earn this prize?” How 'bout this:

The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man – a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning – offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn’t attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.

And if all that wasn’t enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.

So, yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world – and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you’ve got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.

One other thought. The Peace Prize historically has been given to those who have worked to throw off the yoke of racial discrimination and segregation (Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu). I think the Nobel committee, in awarding Obama the prize, was also rewarding the fact that something profound had happened in a nation that was founded on racial genocide, built on racist slavery, and held back for a hundred-plus years by vestiges of hateful bigotry (which can still be found on display at teabagger rallies and daily talk radio). The fact that this one man could cause this seismic historical event to occur – and to do so with such grace and humility, never succumbing to the bait, but still not backing down (yes, he asked to be sworn in as “Barack Hussein Obama”!) – is more than reason enough he should be in Oslo to meet the King on December 10. Maybe he could take us along with him. 'Cause I also suspect the Nobel committee was tipping its hat to all of us – we, the American people, had conquered some of our racism and did the truly unexpected. After seeing searing images of our black fellow citizens left to drown in New Orleans – and poor whites seeing their own treated no better than the black man they had been raised to hate – we had all seen enough. It was time for change.

Thank you, Barack Obama, for giving us the opportunity to redeem ourselves. Now for the tasks ahead. We need you to do all that you promised to do. We need it. The world needs it.

My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! Yeah!

Fred (that’s Norwegian for “Peace”),
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

2

Obama won the Peace Prize because moderately leftist Europeans love him because he’s part black and they are desperate to not appear racist. The fawning praise of the European press is just as one-dimensional as the bleary-eyed criticism of Bush.

If Obama had actually contributed to the Middle East peace process, or ended the practise of throwing people in a hole for years and treating them like shit then maybe he’d deserve this award. But he didn’t inherit these wars, he was part of the machinery that brought them about in the first place. Look at his voting record before he made it clear he was running for president.

It is particularly bizarre and hypocritical to award Obama this prize given the same panel gave a prize to Harold Pinter a couple of years ago and his acceptance speech was hugely critical of pretty much what Obama is continuing to do today.

3

No it’s just because he isn’t Bush. Our criticism of him is not 1 dimensional he really was that big an asshole, the fall out of which is not that Europe hates him, it is that the world now doesn’t respect the US. Anyone compared to Bush is going to come off smelling of roses. It’s damage limitation time. Give it 20 years and the US will probably have recovered from that PR disaster. People have short memories, and competent foreign policy, assuming it is forthcoming, could do much to mend the damage.

You’re right Obama doesn’t deserve this award, it’s political, not for his accrued merit but his potential merit when compared with a numbnut.

I haven’t waxed 2 dimensional on Bush, as I am sure you’re more than familiar with his inadequacies, having heard them discussed in eye watering detail for the last ~9 years.

4

The award was a bad idea, because the response was so predictable.

5

Calling someone an asshole is what I’d call a one-dimensional criticism.

Bush was portrayed by the European media as an idiot. His foreign policy was described as a ‘mistake’ or ‘based on flawed intelligence’ or ‘intelligence failures’ etc. etc.

The entirely pre-planned, intentional, knowing invasion of two countries was presented as a cock-up from an idiotic, religious nut. He wasn’t in any way held culpable for what the US did under his ‘leadership’ and just like Obama far more press was devoted to his personality and speaking style than his politics and their consequences.

As such, I stand by my earlier stated view of this. If Obama was Hillary Clinton, he wouldn’t have won this award.

Exactly, insult Bush but never take him seriously. The MO of years worth of press.

I am more than familiar with his inadequacies, as I am with Obama’s. The difference is that I’m willing to criticise both, the European media (in general) is not.

6

Like I say I didn’t want to bore you with yet another rant about Bush.

Not entirely unfairly either. I’m sure he knew he was lying his ass off and playing a neocon game, but at the same time this doesn’t make it any better. Seeing him as a buffoon was probably a way of deflecting the seriousness of his actions and their consequences by dismissing him as a performing monkey. Superficial but not surprising at least in the more crappy media outlets.

Very easy to state but impossible to confirm. You’re probably right though. Him being black was the cherry on the cake, it would be amazing if this facet was not overplayed given US history even if not by Obama himself. Still the woman thing would have been significant, its just female potentates aren’t that amazing to Europe’s press.

I am prepared to criticise both, in fact I already started before he was elected. Kinda seemed obvious he was going to win so that was when I started calling him the great god Barobama, although that was more to do with the media’s glorification of The Annointed One. I think you should approach with caution any new untried figure no matter how polished, especially when anything he does is going to be compared to such a low standard.

7

they chose to give it to Obama because he talks a good talk. Considering he was in office only a few weeks before the nominations closed it was a fixed vote. They made the decision when they found out he was elected. At least Obama had the integrity to say he does not deserve it and mean it. The award was a stupid political move. It will have some backlashes on the award . It will possibly lose honor.

8

I think the Peace Prize lost honour when they gave one to Henry Kissinger.

And if not then, definitely when they gave one to Jimmy ‘I practically invented Al Qaeda’ Carter.

9

  1. He is not Bush, that is a sign of relief for many – even if his policies ultimately aren’t (that?) different. If nothing else, the manner in which he engages with the international community is a substantial improvement.

  2. Member of a (traditionally) oppressed minority elected to the Head of Government as well as Head of State.

If he were a major civil rights leader (a la Mandela) #2 would carry more weight in terms of the Peace Prize, but I don’t think that the importance of #2 should be discounted. It is icing on the cake provided by #1.

I think Tsvangirai would have been a better choice. There are others as well, but the politics of the situation made a lot of them hard. A peace prize to Tsvangirai and not to Mugabe wouldn’t have played well with the current compromise government of Zimbabwe. But a Peace Prize to Mugabe is, well, like a Peace Prize to Kissinger. Likewise, Chinese dissidents would be a bad choice, though many of them are often at the top of the list in terms of contenders. It isn’t good to piss off overly sensitive superpowers who are currently gorging themselves on nationalism.

So, a nice speedy political compromise. Everybody feels warm and fuzzy. The last American administration gets a slap in the face and now we can all go home. Because all those problems are solved now. All that was needed was a simple gesture to make sure all’s right with the world.

10

Awarding the Prize to some regional peacemaker
no matter how deserving
makes no sense at this time
the selection of Obama was more than just political
it was a survival imperative
and helps all who are trying to initiate
global stewardship consciousness
not the least of which
is racial equality
his wife is an extra bonus

11

Obama has continually shunned the UK so I’m not convinced by claims of him engaging ‘the international community’ any better than Bush did. Brzezinski, the guy behind Obama, largely dismisses the significance of the UK in terms of European geopolitics (see The Grand Chessboard) and identifies the spine of Europe - i.e. France, Germany, Poland and Ukraine, - as being key. Obama’s diplomacy so far seems to indicate he shares that attitude.

As to him being black, or half black, or possibly even born in Kenya, it’s not that I think it is unimportant. But the coverage this side of the pond has centred on that, as both a justification for PR that outstrips anything achieved under other recent presidents, and as an excuse for any Obama policy that is widely unpopular. Oppose the healthcare reform? It’s because you’re a racist. Put up a poster comparing Obama to the Joker? You must be a racist. Protest on the streets of Washington? You must be a narrow minded hick, and therefore obviously a racist.

Like I say, we’ve gone from weak-minded, irrelevant criticism of Bush to weak-minded, irrelevant worship of Obama. Yet in reality what’s the difference? Both have given massive subsidies to elite banking interests. Both are shameless AIPAC stooges. Both bang on about expanding the war to Iran, or Pakistan, or some other country ending in -an. Pick an -an, any -an. For all the superiority complex of the Europeans regarding the Americans we’re just as easily swayed by utter nonsense.

12

I’m not sure I’d link “shunning the UK” with “not engaging in the international community”. I think focusing on “spine of Europe” makes a whole lot of geopolitical sense.

Race is a tricky issue in America and I have no doubt that international coverage suffers because of that. One big part of it is that much of the criticism against Obama is racially motivated. You know that subtlety doesn’t sell, so rather than make race an important part of a larger tapestry, it becomes the entire story. Nicely packaged, sells well, people eat it up. And you can get it all in five minutes during the 5 O’clock news.

Wait, are you suggesting that the people who allowed this top-20 list to exist might not actually be incredibly sophisticated and nuanced? I’m shocked.

13

Shock, horror! As pop charts are found to be nothing but shit!* :smiley:

Newsflash: most people no matter where they live are incredibly unsophisticated, gullible, and shallow. Cultural sophistication has always been something few people indulge in. Equally as rare as politically well informed people.

There seems to be some idea that we are not the major player we seem in the UK and this is a revelation to the people of Englatania, it isn’t we’re just running on reputation most of the time and we know it. :slight_smile: And besides we’re already on your side remember? It’s the rest of Europe that need to be swayed.

[size=85]*for the 9 millionth time[/size]

14

one big symbolic gesture begets another = Obama gets elected, wins nobel peace prize - his blackness is a central part of the symbolism in the first instance, less central in the second. his not being bush is the major factor in the symbolism of the prize - but to say he won it “because he’s not Bush” is to trivialize what is in fact a major and extremely significant shift in approaches to American foreign policy.

yes, he won as a result of his rhetoric and not his actual accomplishments - but the fact remains that rhetoric has substantive effects on the balance and tenor of global relations and that balance and tenor is the platform upon which global peace efforts are built. In a way he DOES deserve the prize, simply for reintroducing congeniality to international relations. - which is not to say that aren’t perhaps others who might deserve it more - but the strategic end of the award is to encourage him to live up to the rhetoric. They are giving Obama an advance on his allowance as a way to encourage him to finish his chores.

and yes, it’s a “warm and fuzzy” moment for everyone, but isn’t the awarding of the nobel peace price ALWAYS?

15

=D>

16

Well, maybe the most useful way to understand why the Nobel committee gave Obama the Peace Prize is to read their explanation.

‘Speaking to AP, the committee’s chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland said that “We simply disagree that he has done nothing. He got the prize for what he has done.” AP reports that Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe. “All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension”.
He also told AP that the the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.
“Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year. Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?”’

It’s specified in Alfred Nobel’s will that the prizes go to people who have done the most to benefit ‘mankind’ (my quotes…because when I see ‘mankind’ I read ‘humankind’, for obvious reasons) in the previous year. Of course, the Peace Prize is often treated as a lifetime achievement award and the science and literary categories are often based on achievements that came after a lifetime of work. Still, the award to Obama does seem to be in keeping with Nobel’s intentions. I suppose if it were just about electing a black person, then perhaps the award should go to the American people. But considering that quite a few voted for Palin-McCain – and it still sorta amazes me that this occurred, but there it is – I don’t suppose they can give it to ‘the people’ when they can’t weed out the idiots amongst that category.

I do agree with Moore that the predictable wingnut apoplexy has gotten WAY old. Even considering the entertainment value there’s been in watching them make fools of themselves.

Ultimately, the thing that irritates me is that Obama getting it overshadowed something that I consider to be way more interesting:

Elinor Ostrom, (Indiana University): Economics
Elizabeth Blackburn (University of California): Medicine or Physiology
Carol Grieder (Johns Hopkins University): Medicine or Physiology
Ada Yonath (Israel): Chemistry
Herta Mueller (Germany): Literature

Economics? Medicine? Chemistry? To GIRLS??!!
Ah well, it’s one of those deals that speaks for itself, in’it?

17

This is either wonderfully satirical or a load of tosh. What global peace efforts? America has been the greatest instigator of conflict over the last century. Obama’s pre-election voting decisions show, conclusively, that he was part of the mechanism which gave us the war on terror. Just because Obama doesn’t use the phrase ‘war on terror’ anymore doesn’t mean his approach is any different. Congeniality doesn’t mean a thing. It’s easy to talk about nuclear disarmament when you hold the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If Obama was truly different then he wouldn’t be extraditing an autistic UFO researcher for hacking into the Pentagon’s website. Ironically, that man’s appeal failed on the same day Obama got his peace prize. It’s a fucking disgrace.

18

Or it’s part of the same process which rewards gender or race, rather than accomplishment. :unamused:

19

It falls back to the old saying: Give the dog a bone.

20

Yup
there is always 6 billion sides
to every story :astonished: