Well, I’ve made fun of it, along with 60% of the civilized world (I know that percentage is true because I pulled it out of a hat).
Now for some more serious reflection, in the form of a list of what I don’t like about this year’s Peace Prize award.
First, it turns the award from a recognition of fruitful effort into a political instrumentation. Will they award the Nobel Peace Prize to Kim Jong Il next in hopes of thus pressuring him out of his self-imposed exile to lunacy and restoring North Korea to the world? (If they do, and it works, the committee can award itself the prize the following year.)
Second, the committee must not have thought very hard about the real-world effects of their award. Obama is in office; Obama won office with 53% of the vote and has had falling approval ratings since. Obviously, the committee likes Obama – did they really think this award would help him domestically, or are they just trying to energize the Republican base?
Third, it does appear to me that Obama has good foreign policy ideals and is working to make them happen, but diplomacy usually works best with a minimum of attention drawn to it. With only a dash of cynicism, the committee decision can also be paraphrased such: “We think this is the last chance we have to award this man, for in a year he won’t deserve it anymore.”
Fourth, it’s okay if the committee didn’t and doesn’t like G.W. Bush, but this is the second spurious prize after 2007 awarded to an American who qualified simply by being in the global limelight and not being Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. The committee showed its racism in awarding an old white guy in 2002, and the 1973 prize also went to an American whose merit has been debated hotly – it makes me wonder if the committee thinks they’re the only ones left who can influence US policy and therefore have a moral mandate to do so.
Fifth, all the above obscures what would have been my favorite candidate for 2009, a long-time champion of peace who has won the award multiple times and would have deserved it again for the first time since 1972. That’s the difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and our presidential elections: we have to pick the least unappealing candidate, whereas you, Mr. and Mrs. Committee, get to pass.
But I suppose they can be forgiven for thinking our president is the Messiah – he did, after all, ride into Washington on a donkey.
My favorite kind of post: serious reflections, important thought, and it still makes me laugh.
They may mean more in the sciences, but I’m afraid I’m learning to take the more subjective/political prizes, such as peace, economics, and literature, with not much more seriousness than I do the Oscars and other entertainment awards. Having in the recent past sat through most of the Oscar “Best Picture” movies, I can say that the intersection between my definition of “worthy” and the award committee’s is very low. One could hope for more from a more serious award, but hope is not always change.