Nobel, Nobel

A few days ago while walking down the street as a family, we passed two men talking about President Obama having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  We only caught a snippet of their conversation as they went by, but the last thing we heard was this, "It just goes to show that if you reach out to the world, the world will reach back."  This observation was refreshing to us, since most of the op eds, blogs, and Facebook statuses we'd come across to that point had all taken negative, mocking, or outraged spins on the Nobel announcement.

The majority of criticisms centered on there being no concrete accomplishment to attribute President Obama's win to.  Unfortunately, these critics failed to read up on the distinguishing criteria for the Peace Prize,  being that "unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace."  Perhaps this lack of basic Nobel knowledge stems from the fact that until Barack Obama was announced as the winner of the prize, nobody even cared about it.  Nobody in America was waiting with baited breath for the announcement to come, nor do we believe that any average American can name more than 2 Nobel Peace Prize winners from the past 10 years without googling it.  Why is it then that so many uninterested, uninformed people are suddenly morbidly and personally offended by the choice of 5 Norwegians?


Oh, but it gets better.  One of the most amusing (and unintentionally insightful) of these dissenting opinions is that, lacking any other concrete achievements to qualify him for such recognition, President Obama was essentially awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being NOT George W. Bush.  While this wasn't one of the specific reasons the Nobel Committee gave for the selection, we may have to agree with the bleating masses on this one.  Or at least that Barack Obama's non-Bushy-ness played an indirect role in the bestowal of the award.

But honestly, even if that was the solitary qualifier for his selection, isn't that an intensely poignant statement?  If the public relations and diplomacy of the previous American administration were carried out so poorly that the world is ready to laud the current administration on the sole basis of handling things differently, maybe Americans would do well to listen to the message being sent.  How much damage has been done that even small efforts toward harmony are being responded to in such a way?  Some Americans have become so egocentric they have shut their eyes and ears to what the rest of the world has to say, and in many cases to what fellow Americans have to say as well.

Regardless of whether or not G.W.'s thinking was right on and regardless of whether or not he was making wise decisions for our country, if our diplomats incapably communicate their intentions and actions and move forward aggressively rather than stopping to listen when the rest of the free world is saying "hold on a second and let us discuss this calmly and rationally first," then America ends up looking like nothing more than a big, strong bully, rather than the protector and enforcer of rights that it should be.

But apparently some of these critics are afraid to see the bully image change.  They say that President Obama receiving the Nobel is a sign that the rest of the world is glad to see America weakening.  That argument would really have to hinge on your definition of strength.  Is strength unyielding action born out of unwillingness to consider possible alternatives?  Is it refusal to compromise?  How about refusal to seek diplomatic discussion before issuing armed enforcement?  Unfortunately, these types of behavior fall outside the qualifications Alfred Nobel's will sets forth for the Peace Prize, which are that it shall go to whoever "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".  So, may we suggest that maybe the real problem some of these critics have lies not with Pres. Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but  with the inherent nature of the prize itself?   In which case, we have developed a suitable award alternative:

Possible recipients could include:

 

   George W. Bush                   Coach Bobby Knight 

           

          Kanye West                   Genghis Khan (post mortem)

In all seriousness, we're not suggesting that American diplomacy be handled with any sort of wishy-washyness.  We believe that we should stand up against tyranny and other threats to our freedom and way of life, and that we have a responsibility to defend the defenseless.  But we also believe that might doesn't make right, stubbornness does not signify strength, and most often there is more than one good solution to a problem.  It is possible for people with opposing opinions to live together and achieve progress if they will listen to each other and respect differing opinions, cultures, and religious beliefs. America's global interactions should reflect these ideals.  And if the Nobel organization wants to commend President Obama for thinking so too, then so be it.

At the very least, there's always Toby Keith...

*No disrespect meant to former President Bush.  We did actually vote for him (both terms) and agreed with many of his major policies.