|
Obama’s Nobel prize: It’s all about potential
By Tommy Felts
Contributor
Published October 10, 2009
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize Friday.
Now, if you’re anything like me, your immediate reaction to the surprising announcement was, “Uh ... for doing what?”
Secretly fending off some alien attack from outer space?
Killing that fly on TV?
Just being awesome?
Nope. The Nobel Prize was awarded for — drum roll, please — potential.
Oh.
Wait. What? They do that now?
Apparently, the prize committee — a five-member group elected by the Norwegian Parliament — felt Obama has the right stuff to contribute to world peace. They cited his efforts to shrink nuclear arsenals, build bridges with the Muslim world and seek consensus with international diplomacy and cooperation, rather than use the go-it-alone style of the Bush years.
By “efforts,” of course, the group must mean “talk.”
Because its members freely admit Obama has done little in the way of action toward world peace. Indeed, the U.S. president is leading wars in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues our nation’s military presence — sometimes violently — in hot spots (think Pakistan) all around the world.
But it’s his potential to do good, at least as the group sees it, that got Obama the award. The prize committee said it hopes winning will encourage Obama to move forward with his agenda, telling him that he’s on the right path and the international community is behind him. (And they must’ve been fairly confident about his potential, because the deadline for award nominations was Feb. 1 — less than two weeks after Obama took office.)
Aww, isn’t that adorable?
It’s kind of like walking up to your children and telling little Suzie and Johnny that the blank piece of paper sitting next to the crayons is the best drawing of a doggie you’ve ever seen. They haven’t drawn it yet? Don’t worry. They will. And it’ll be great.
The early morning Nobel Peace Prize announcement truly was a surprise, but it was far from shocking.
The group has made no secret that it leans heavily to the political left and favors — even admires — liberal politicians. Its members also have made it clear their disdain for all things Bush-related.
So, Obama offers up a triple threat: He’s the most liberal president the United States has ever seen; he’s not George W. Bush; and, he might just be naive enough to be swayed by praise and adulation.
What an honor.
The fact that Obama was tapped for the prize so early in his presidency (before he’s actually accomplished any of his supposed goals) must royally rile one of his predecessors and fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Jimmy Carter.
Carter spent decades trying to earn recognition for all his good works — a calculated effort to redeem his legacy as a failed president — before stumbling onto the holy grail of international prizes: Bush bashing. And it still took Carter a couple years of actively sabotaging Dubya’s foreign policy agenda on the world stage before the Nobel folks gave him their award in 2002.
To be certain, Obama’s win Friday is worth noting. The sitting U.S. president has been given an award rich with international acclaim and prestige — something that’s happened only twice before with Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson, who helped found the failed League of Nations (which led to the United Nations), in 1919.
But let’s call it what it is: The left giving praise to one of its own.
It’s like Moose Hunters International giving Sarah Palin an award. Or Rush Limbaugh giving Rush Limbaugh an award.
It’s largely meaningless.
And to think, the Nobel Peace Prize had such potential ...
Tommy Felts is an award-winning freelance columnist based in the Kansas City area. He can be reached by e-mail at tommyfelts(at)hotmail.com.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print |
Letter
|
|
 |
|
|
