Can $1.4 Million Buy the President of the United States?

Do you remember Martti Ahtisaari? He won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. For more than thirty years Ahtisaari brokered peace between entities filled with no peace for each other. He deserved the prize. What about the latest laureate?

Yassar Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin proved that the committee liked to dabble in the realm of wishful thinking. They won the prize, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."

Henry Kissinger won it with Le Duc Tho for no good reason. Sure Wangari Maathai
deserved it. Jimmy Carter deserved it. So did a lot of people who've been honored with the distinction.

Like a lot of people, I wondered if I was reading an Onion headline when I saw the news about this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Then I wondered if it was a misplaced April Fool's gag. Then I felt the warm glow of national pride. And then the doubts came rolling in. Did he deserve it?

Barack Obama deserved to be elected president. After eight months in office, the president has brokered talks -- but no peace -- between a black professor and Cambridge cop. He has reached out to the Muslim world (one might argue this is his job) to repair the significant damage caused by his predecessor. He has taken steps to redress the quagmire of our engagement in Iraq. It's all fine and good to have a great review eight months in, but a Nobel Peace Prize? You can barely make a good baby in eight months.

The Nobel committee cited Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I get it. He got it. But still it sounds to me a bit like he won the prize, "for not being George W. Bush."

The Nobel Peace Prize has often operated as a wedge on important issues, whether global warming or peace in the Middle East. Many Obama voters left the polls last year proud of the anti-war candidate they'd chosen. The more war-weary among us didn't like Obama because of his stance on war, because it wasn't anti-war at all. We liked him for other reasons that have no bearing here. Here's the deal: We are still at war in two countries, and as I recall Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was not an ideological one -- he simply thought it was unwinnable.

The prize came at a crucial juncture in the war against Afghanistan, and it seems passably clear why Obama was selected to be the next Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The folks in Oslo wanted to force Obama to make what they deemed to be the "right" choice.

The most shocking thing here is that there can be any doubt as to why the prize was awarded to Obama. It was coercive politics -- a non-governmental agency trying its hand at ending a war -- and the president might do well to decline the honor. Certainly he could have pointed to Afghanistan and declared himself ineligible. But then again, campaign contributions are pretty damned coercive, and Obama didn't turn any of those down from our nations biggest contractors.

What's the best way to stop the president of the United States from pursuing the reckless war policies he inherited from the previous president? The heads of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Halliburton can tell you that $1.4 million is not nearly enough.

First published by Air America.

 

 

Follow Beau Friedlander on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeauFriedlander

Comments

[Geoffo]

I am inclined to think it was quite corageous of the Nobel Committee to award this to the President. No other presidential election was as closely watched as the elction of President Obama. I believe, right across the globe, most ordinary, decent folk saw in the elction, and in the man himself, a good soul wishing the best for his family, his nation and his fellow human beings. No other President in the US history has had the extraordinary background and understanding of how different people of addorted nations and cultures can appear, yet how underneath it all most are the same. President Obama is not a miracle worker. But I do believe the Nobel Committee have recognised the essential goodness and care for his fellow human beings that is instinctive in President Obama. If that is felt across much of the globe, helps to heal and improves America's global reputation, helps in any way whatsoever to making the world a more peaceful place, then it is deserved. I have no doubt the Prseident is probably a little embarrased but, in his own way, he will I am sure use this wisely and for the benefit of all.

[Philclock]

Maybe not, but $450 Million contribution for his election from Labor unions have.

[GardenerNorCal]

I am sorry but some of us that actually work don't view unions as the ultimate evil. Now corporate lobbyist money...you might garner some public sentiment.

[Principaldad]

I think it is troubling and at the same time comical how both Dems and Reps taken to fudging contributions from special interests. Any contribution from someone who works in particular industry is counted as a contribution from that industry rather than a contribution from a private citizen. If a hospital orderly gives $20, then it is a contribution from "the health care industry". If a claims adjuster gives $100, then it is money from "insurance companies". And, of course, if one of the millions of union members in this country gives $25, then it is money from "labor unions". The same contribution can even be counted more if a person falls into more than one category.

ALL political donation stats from all labor unions combined for the last 20 YEARS barely breaks $450 million. The largest union in terms of donations is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This union represents about 1.4 million workers. In 2008 they gave less than $2.6 million in TOTAL political donations to all candidates and PACs. The numbers for other unions go down rapidly from there.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A#

[TRYKER]

This prize does put the onus on Obama now. The world is watching this prize winner and is expecting great things from him. This is an encouragement as well as an honor for making America acceptable once again with approval ratings across Europe in the 80's and 90's up from the 10's and teens of the Bush years.
The right wing in shame has to bury that fact and come out and cloud the issue with this "He didn't deserve it" chatter.
Our opinion of what the Nobel committee does means nothing, it is ours to accept reality as it is. They gave Obama the prize, they had their reasons. I think it will have a lasting effect on our President. He isn't done yet.

[blogisti]

How many leaders after having won the Peace prize have gone out and started a war? I think it was brilliant on the Nobel people's part. Obama has been talking the peace talk for three years. They want to make sure he stays on track and maybe give him a little encouragement to move beyond words where ever he can.

[ProudConservative52]

Obama was bought and paid for a long time ago.

[SolarPowerGuy]

No more than anyone else who has risen to prominence in American politics, whether from the Democratic or Republican party.

[ncmom54]

yea well the GOP bought a large segment of American Christianity and continue to manipulate it for their own advantage.

[NotStarvingArtist]

A blanket statement like this, with no real evidence to back it up just makes you look like a sore loser.

[SAGMUN]

In Minnesota's Itasca Park there is a tiny creek you can step-over that is the source of the mighty Mississippi River.

Likewise, Obama's efforts of world-wide reconciliation will receive the contributions of many Nations and individuals. It is for this, he and his supporters received the Noble Peace Prize.

In contrast to the smug logic tight compartment thinkers, the "clever" ones, and the orgasmic iconoclasts, the Nobel Prize committee acted with the upmost prudence.

[boolala]

"The most shocking thing here is that there can be any doubt as to why the prize was awarded to Obama." I assume you mean that there can't be any doubt . And yet YOU doubt that the reasons stated by the Nobel committee for awarding the prize --his speech in Cairo, his support of the UN, his emphasis on diplomacy--has anything to do with it. In fact, you aresure that the award was to coerce Obama into making the "right" decision in Afganistan.

What would the "right" decision be from the Nobel committee's point of view? Do you know? The only two options on the table are expanding the military presence there to allow more troops to nation build and protect the populace from the Taliban or to abandon the corrupt government and rely on drones to drop bombs on Al Qaeda. I can't see that either chice is obviously what the Nobel committee wants. It isn't very good coercion if they don't actually tell Obama what they want, is it?

If you'd listened to the interviews with the head of the Nobel committee, he made clear that it wasn't to coerce Obama--he said the Nobel committee never abandons its laureates, no matter what decisions they make. It was intended to bolster Obama's mandate to pursue his agenda, whatever that is. In other words, they are pressuring the rest of the world to assist Obama in pursuing the kind of diplomacy they think he intends to pursue.

[LesleyAnne]

Whatever. Obama was considering a shift in policy and not sending more troops to war before he knew he got the Nobel Prize. He was as surprised as anyone. He gave away the money to charity so I don't see how this prize or the money can influence anything. He's going to do what he thinks is right no matter what. And if the war winds down, so will the contractors. He could still deal with them under a different policy agenda.

[freshnotbitter]

The prize is not about making the right choice about war or peace, it is about making the right choice about the approach one takes to dealing with issues of war and peace.

So, yes, in a sense it is about being "non-Bush".

It's strange how the faux liberal media seems to be having some kind of Stocklhold syndrome about George Bush's top-down decision making (I'm the deciduhh).

We've heard pundits talking about how unseemly it all is to see the General out on TV talking about the conduct of the war - why, he's dissing the emperor!!

It is further strange to hear pundits all suddenly asking themselves, "why are we in Afghanistan anyway?". Why are the asking that question now, after not asking it the past 6 years? The answer is simple but it's hard to get it out when you are suffering from Bush stockholm syndrome: The answer is Obama.

thus the Nobel Peace Prize, QED.

[sherbug]

Beau, this horse has been beaten to death. We have heard all the arguments pro and con.

It is what it is and now lets deal with it and move on.

No more analysis.

[Pablo175]

To a narcissist, its not the money its the recognition.

[westbrooks01]

What bothers me so much is how all of the negative press is used to define Obama's Nobel Prize. Even this morning on Diane Rehm's show, she was framing the discussion on the boundaries of critics. Why can't we redefine the conversation based on WHY he won the award? ... I guess that's not as fun....

[Principaldad]

Another blogger playing Nobel Chairman. Perhaps people should actually read some of the background instead of using SNL as their source.

The Nobel Peace Prize, as created by Alfred Nobel himself, is for the person who did, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, "the most or the best work for fraternity among nations." Armchair critics love to play like the Nobel Prize is a lifetime achievement award, but it is not. The Nobel Committee fuels this misconception by occassionally treating it as such. However, it is foremost a recognition for specific recent events.

These Monday morning presidents also seem to conveniently forget that Barack Obama did not just drop out of the sky 8 months ago. This is a man who, for example, turned personal attacks against his church into the most powerful speech on race since MLK.

The boobirds should also take note the Nobel Peace Prize is not a declaration of sainthood. It is about efforts toward peace. Sometimes those efforts come from people who are not all that peaceful. The US may be locked in two wars but Obama also did more to promote international peace with his Cairo speech alone than some winners did in their entire lives.

It seems that many people take the position that if Obama does not do exactly the things they want (no matter how impossible), then he has failed them. Perhaps it is time for people to stop holding Obama up to a HIGHER standard than any other person on earth.

[Jaywalkker]

"...and one part to the person who 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." - http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

I fail to see how a war time president is working for abolition or reduction of standing armies. I also fail to see how re-instituting nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation treaties that were ALREADY in effect is a great accomplishment. BO didn't write those treaties or spearhead their adoption. He has the benefit that his predecessor ignored them.

[Principaldad]

Again, you are choosing to focus on one thing and ignoring the rest. I fail to see how Mother Teresa reduced standing armies, but nobody complains about her winning the prize. Ditto for about 90% of the past winners. You are trying to hold Obama to a standard to which no winner of the Nobel Peace Prize has been subjected.

Obama has worked for years for nuclear nonproliferation and he worked to secure uncontrolled nuclear materials. Again you are acting like he dropped out of the sky on January 20th. As for promotion of peace congresses, Obama has worked extensively in that area as well. In fact, the Nobel Committee has stated that it is his promotion of diplomacy that is most responsible for him winning the prize.

Frankly, Barack Obama epitomizes what the Nobel Peace Prize was designed for as much as any past winner.

[PlaceboStudman]

I'm not sure if I buy the idea that Peace, and The Nobel Peace Prize *must* come from steps to resolve international conflict. Were all the former recipients of the prize diplomats who ended war, or were some of them humanitarians who did things to bring peace of mind to people? I could be wrong because I don't have the list in front of me of past recipients, but if Ghandi and/or Mother Teresa won the prize, I don't believe they were involved in diplomatic resolution to international crisis

I bring this up to lead to a few under reported, and incredibly under discussed things that President Obama HAS done. He has reversed Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, he has signed the Christopher Reeve's Spinal Cord Injury Stem Cell clinical trials, and he has designated $5B in grants to the NIH for medical research.

These, to me, are humanitarian efforts that the president has accomplished, and while they will not bring peace or resolve international conflict, they may bring peace of mind and reduce internal conflict in many critically disabled people who are struggling to stay alive in their war against debilitating disease

[BlackJAC]

Weell, it is roughly equivalent to four years' salary for him right now...

[NotStarvingArtist]

He has pledged to donate it to charity. How can he be "bought" if he doesn't keep the money for himself? It matters not one whit what this blogger or anyone else thinks about whether Barack Obama deserves the prize or not. The Nobel Committee thinks he deserves it and so he does. Their votes are the only ones that count.