There have been "man on the street" interviews with people, talking heads on commentary programs, etc. The loudest of the opinions seems to come down to a perception that the Prez hasn't done "enough" to warrant such an award. Like those folks on the street get a vote for Nobel Prizes. We are a society of critics and most of the critics think their opinions are much more valid than the next critic's view. I call it "the center of the universe" complex.
I can't argue that Obama has had a string of successes in the realm of peace in the past 9 or so months. I have no idea what factors the Nobel people consider in making the Peace Prize award. I can think of one possible reason for their decision. Comparison to the prior President, who made no effort to foment peace anywhere in his eight years. The satirical comedian Andy Borowitz made the point elegantly:
"(today)... NASA bombed the moon, saying it was the one spot President Bush missed."As is often the case with satire, he's not far enough off the mark for it to be funny, per se.
The point is, perhaps President Obama has won this prize not for what he's accomplished so far, but because he's redirected this country's role in the world. Instead of dealing with international problems with landing craft and missiles, he's attempted to resurrect American diplomacy. Instead of unilateral actions, he's invited other nations to join with us to develop responses to world problems. Obama thinks about issues before opening his mouth, unlike his predecessor. The Prez is trying to talk with the Iranian and North Korean governments while the world had come to expect the leader of the most powerful country in the world to strap on his six shooter and rattle some sabers.
It's possible that the Nobel folks in Sweden feel greatly encouraged by that. Maybe it's the differences from the recent past that count most in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Posts
