 |
||
During the initial 24-hour news cycle following the announcement that the President of the United States had won the Nobel Peace Prize we heard all manner of demeaning, diminishing, and ridiculing of the President and the prize. Beltway pundits David Brooks and Ruth Marcus appearing on Jim Lehrer's News Hour both bashed President Obama and the Nobel prize as being unwarranted and insignificant. Brooks called it "a joke." On Democracy Now! I heard Naomi Klein say pretty much the same thing as the Beltway savants. A lot of commentators heaped praise on John McCain for being "gracious" because he didn't diss Obama for winning the prize. But what would you expect that grumpy old man to do? Spit bile all over it like the rest of his Republican colleagues?
The cynical and sordid response in America raises a few questions: Have we lost the ability as a nation to accept something good when it comes our way internationally? Have we become so traumatized by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateral militarism of the previous eight years, with its attendant hatred for the world and its people, that we are incapable of recognizing the simple fact that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared?
It wasn't long ago when Republicans and right-wingers across the country (the evolutionary predecessors of the Tea Baggers) were pouring out French wine into gutters and burning Dixie Chick CDs in protest of anyone who had the wisdom or forethought to try to warn us that invading Iraq, toppling its government, and militarily occupying the country without international support might not be a good idea. The Franco-phobia ran so deep that Republicans in Congress, led by Representative Bob Ney (who is now fittingly in prison), changed the name of "French Fries" in the House cafeteria to "Freedom Fries." Anyone not going along with the party line that invading Iraq was a vital national project had his or her patriotism questioned and was silenced in the mainstream media.
Fast forward to the 2008 Republican National Convention and we hear Rudy Giuliani demean and diminish Obama's experience as a "community organizer," which was one of the more memorable laugh lines from the gathering. And then from that point onward just about everything Obama has achieved has been met with withering sarcasm and ridicule. He sends Bill Clinton to free American prisoners in North Korea and it turns out to be a stunning success that offers a breakthrough in relations with that weird and dangerous nation and the media greet the news with a collective yawn. His efforts to win the 2016 Olympics are fruitless but provide hours of content for right-wing bloviators who ridicule and demean his effort. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize and these same gasbags trash the Nobel Prize and the President. David Brooks said on the News Hour that "nobody cares what five Norwegian guys" think.
What's missed in the deafening cacophony of right-wing noise and chatter is that Americans should use this Nobel Prize as yet another Obama-inspired "teaching moment" to come to terms with just how much George W. Bush's foreign policy scared the hell out of the rest of the world. And we should understand how the world is relieved Americans came to their senses and looks to us for global leadership.
To illustrate this point one only has to compare the media coverage of Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln off the San Diego coast on May 1, 2003. Chris Matthews and the rest of the political media talking heads embarked on hours of breathless commentary about how regal and wonderful the spectacle was and how proud they all were to be Americans and blah, blah, blah. G. Gordon Liddy even spoke admiringly of the bulge in President Bush's codpiece. Masculine virility and macho militarism was fused with the national symbols of the flag and the military.
Europeans have seen this before. When we were engaged in our little rah-rah rally, the rest of the world was absolutely horrified. The biggest military power on Earth was acting belligerent and its president was indulging in bombastic nationalistic grandstanding. And this display was happening at the same time Baghdad was gearing up for a horrific sectarian bloodbath that everyone seemed to be able to see except for the Americans and their imperial president prancing in a flight suit and declaring "Mission Accomplished."
What Bush did was shift the posture of American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism, and he did so with a jingoistic right-wing Christian fundamentalist flair. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world.
He has a long way to go and things might not work out. But at least he is moving in the right direction. The Nobel committee was just trying to give him a nudge. It's a symbolic prize. I don't understand the vitriol aimed at the President for winning it. But it is an international recognition that Obama is at least on the right track.
If the media would only cover Obama's peace prize win with half as much enthusiasm as they did Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier we might have made some measurable progress. We'll have to wait for Obama's next success and see what happens. Maybe all the demeaning and diminishing of Obama will grow old and tired, boring and repetitive, and then the media can move on to find something else to ridicule. But I won't hold my breath.
Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A
Huffington Post: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: HuffPost Bloggers Weigh In
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize early Friday morning, and HuffPost bloggers have offered opinions that range from skeptical to angry to adulatory.
Michael Moore: Get Off Obama's Back: Second Thoughts From Michael Moore
Obama is moving too slow for most of us -- but he needs to know we are with him and we stand beside him as he attempts to turn eight years of sheer madness around.
Jeffrey Feldman: The Outrage Pandemic
Less than a year ago, tens of millions of Americans descended on DC, just so they could say, "I was there." Now, a majority of Americans seem convinced that Obama has personally slighted them.
Robert Creamer: Obama's Nobel Prize Is Really a Tribute to American Voters
This award celebrates the fact that American voters chose a President committed to progressive values, instead of pre-emptive war and the Neo-Con theories of unilateral action.
Tom Watson: Obama and the Peace Prize: Too Much, Too Soon
It's not Barack Obama's fault that the Nobel Committee went goofy. Despite calls to contrary, he had to accept the Nobel -- anything less would have been far less than gracious.
Ebadi told me that part of her job is to help women interpret Islam "correctly" in order to assert their claim to equal rights. If she is any indication, the Iranian Women's Movement is in extremely capable hands.
Deepak Chopra: Dear Mr. President: Make This a Real Peace Prize
Peace begins with those who have the power to make peace. Obama stands in a unique position in this regard. We've turned the corner from Bush's belligerence, but avowing peace isn't the same as action.
Timothy Patrick McCarthy: Barack Obama: America's First Gay President?
Election Day 2008 was one of the greatest days of my life: We finally had an ally in the White House who would fight with and for us. In retrospect, we were foolish to have such hope.
William Bradley: Why Obama Doesn't Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, Or the Olympics Rap
Just as I never thought that Obama would win the Olympics for Chicago, it never occurred to me that he would win the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Frances Beinecke: Nobel Prize Recognizes Link Between Peace and Climate Action
After eight costly years of inaction, the United States has begun to lead. Since taking office, Obama has moved quickly to put climate change near the top of his agenda.
Barack Obama's peace prize starts a fight - Times Online
Obama peace prize win polarizes Web - CNN.com
From right and left, questions about peace prize - Yahoo! News
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Please don't call the dog "Bo Obama". A dog doesn't carry a human family name, but the kennel name of the breeder! Read this for more information:
http://www
Let's drop down to reality, though Obama may speak of peace and partially changed our country's image, he also continues the same policies which the writer decries, and in turn continues to harm this country on many levels.
Until this President calls for a cease fire in Afghanistan and starts negotiating for real peace, he is neither worthy of the Noble Peace prize or the picture of Muhammad Ali he has hanging on the wall in the White House.
http://www
I agree with Palermo's views and I want to go further. It was not only the right wing pundits who demeaned the Nobel Prize to Obama, but many on the center left did too. I think it is because, as Palermo says, we Americans have a hard time seeing ourselves the way the rest of the world sees us. Ask any Latin American (I was born there) about US invasions in Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama or about the 1970s intervention in Chile, or about the CIA-assisted Condor rendition program in the Southern Cone. Or ask any Vietnamese or Cambodian peasant about the bombings we carried out there during the Vietnam War. You will get a very different perspective than what passes as average commentary in our press here in the US. We like to see ourselves as selfless, liberty loving folks. We don't like to see ourselves as many in the world out there see us : militaristic and dangerous - or quick to intervene in other people's affairs. So, we shouldn't be surprised if the rest of the world is happy when we, the most powerful nation on earth, talk and promise diplomacy and multilateralism instead of threatening war and invasion. The prize was really for us Americans ( I am a citizen, by the way), for having voted Obama in. A lot of the world sleeps better with Obama at the helm of the US.
See Joe The Nerd Ferraro's Profile
Professor,
I think we are on the same page. http://www
Thanks Joe, I liked your blog on this topic
See Joe The Nerd Ferraro's Profile
ty - i am trying to get some traction doing this stuff...
Thank you for your post Mr. Palermo. You quite nicely explained the reason that Obama won the award, not for anything he has done, but for simply not being Bush.
On substance, Am I wrong to assume that Jeremy Scahill will not believe Obama deserves a Nobel Peace Prize given that before Obama was sworn in Scahill already concluded that he was no different than Bush? He would "re-brand" the Iraq war and keep it going, escalate in Afghanistan, it's true, so a Peace Prize? I'll be surprised if Scahill has had a change of heart and now thinks Obama is a peace monger.
The five Norwegian guys, Dr. Palermo and our naive president are about to receive a teachable moment of their own.
Rogue third world dictators and suicidal theocrats aren't going to change their ways because we've all elected Mr. Obama and sung a few chorus of Kumbaya.
They don't care who we elect. They hate us anyway.
In the spirit of complete honesty, I am not certain George Bush's way was any better. I really think it doesn't matter. These guys are going to be a thorn in our side no matter who we elect.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of 5 people. Obviously politics plays a great role in the award. I suppose it's great that 5 Europeans agreed that Obama was worthy of nomination for this award. Of course some will say that Obama only had 2 weeks in office when nominated for this award and really didn't promote a lot of peace in that time. Some others might say that there is no honor in an undeserved award.
You have eloquently expressed the thoughts I have had about the Nobel but was not able to put into words nearly as well. it all boils down to "worldview," and President Obama holds the kind that will do much to foster international peace.
I think there were surprised people on all sides – including our president himself. It sounds like your making more out of this than you should be.
Crying that others pounced on this for purely political reasons is reflection of yourself in the mirror.
It is obvious that you belong to the party of no because everything he said is true all the way back to the dixie chicks. I remember they were not allowed on the charts for saying that they hated the fact that they were from the same state as bushy. Anyone who spoke out against him were never to be heard from again, so how so you explain that? Booby Jindahl is following in his footsteps right now by firing anyone who speaks out against him. So, I think that is the way the right wing handles confrontation, period.
I have expressed an opinion and you have hurled all kinds of crud at me.
Your post sounds like a dialog your having with yourself. Nothing you are inferring here is based on the words that I have written – they are based instead on preconceived notions.
This is hardly a great example of how to deal with confrontation. I have an opinion you don't like, so I am the enemy. Pet names for those you hate don't help the matter much either.
There are many democrats who share the opinion in question. Do some reading.
In the spirit of good dialog I will respond to this question:
"Anyone who spoke out against him were never to be heard from again, so how so you explain that?"
I have no idea what you mean. Are you implying that people were eliminated? Or do you mean that they we never actually "heard" from them again? So, in short I can't explain something that is so unclearly posed. But I can refute both possible points you are making.
If you will recall Bill Maher incident. I think he claimed that the terrorist who attacked the twin towers were not cowards. He got a lot of flack for that. But, I don't think he's dead and I believe he has a pretty decent career going for himself. As a matter of fact I think he made a movie about how terrible religion is during the Bush presidency. So the idea that "anyone who spoke out against him were never heard from again" can only be seen as false.
Does that explain it?
It's a little hard to take this with a straight face.
Gosh. Does anyone recall anything being said bad about George Bush?
Did anyone from the left ever demean him?
You know, I just can't seem to recall that ever happening.
And you know, now that I think about it, we do want our presidents to consider European public opinion as the true judge of his merits. Why didn't I see that before.
Forget that free speech in America thing, where the people of America are supposed to be trusted to judge the truth and worth of policies. Lest we forget, here are two quotes:
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Most of the commentary about GWB in a bad light came after 6 YEARS in office, not 9 MONTHS. Sure, people were upset after the 2000 election debacle, but they weren't calling for the President to Fail. Also, after 9/11, the country was very much behind GWB, but then he started going astray.
Now, with Obama, he was attacked even before he took the oath of office. What a bunch of sour losers the GOP is.
You'd have a point if Obama pranced around landing on an aircraft carrier declaring Mission Accomplished -- false equivalency -- Bush=Obama, give me a break.
Right the best comparison is "An end to the War on Terror".
Is it more important to be admired or to do what is right and good? Since when did we have a breakthrough of relations with N. Korea? When a president goes to try to win the Olympics using "I" so many times in his speech americans tend to not think it is about the good ole usa but HIM. What you see as "belligerant" could be also seen as Proud. Maybe if Obama accepted the award on behalf of the true advancers of Peace... THE American Military who deserved the award then you would have seen proper praise for both.
Well said and if people you really remember the last several years they would temper their posts. But did you and I think the vitriole would stop with Obama and free speech would be allowed in oppossition to Obama's policies. How soon did they pull the race card? When his approval rating went from 70 to 50. "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration that somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say 'We are Americans and we have a right to disagree with any administra
Hillary Clinton
As a Canadian who has lived in this country for over twenty years, I nearly fell over at the "American" response to President Obama's well-earned Prize ... the man is brilliant, classy, elegant, witty, pro-active, worldy, engaging and positive ... what the hell does this country want in a leader? To spin fabulous comedian, Ron White, the US has had stupid ... how well did that work?
Frankly, I think this country doesn't deserve him ... his sister is married to a Canadian, and maybe we could work something out so the Obamas can come back with me in three years when I retire to Ontario... and, folks, those of you who invite me to leave now? ... don't bother ... I didn't divorce well and need my well-earned, paid-into Social Security!
Well-earned prize, you say?
Even Obama doesn't agree with you on that one.
I am not unhappy that he won the prize. Good for him.
But like many on the left, I think it's hard to see what he has done to deserve it.
"the man is brilliant, classy, elegant, witty, pro-active, worldy, engaging and positive ... what the hell does this country want in a leader"
This relates to peace in what way? I guess if the prize was for the guy you'd like to be seen with, he would be the obvious choice.
I guess you just don't understand the peace process the way it is suppose to happen, by talking. Now you must think that by invading a country that had nothing to do with what happened is the only way to make peace, right?
intersting article. As a European, most people i know are pro-Obama.
Obama gets the award in the same week he refuses to meet with the Dalai Lama (another Nobel Peace Prize recipient) because he was concerned it would upset the Chinese???? What Irony!
great article Joseph and much needed . . .
We are truly lucky to have Obama as our president it is America's best last chance to regain some national prestige . . . I agree it is a nudge to keep going . . . in particular Obama has got to defy Congress and stand up to israel . . . israel is the main obstacle to not only peace in the Middle East but to world peace . . . it is time our self-regarding Congress slavishly devoted to the AIPAC really listened to what is happening in the rest of world and stopped measuring the rest of the world by their own stupid assumptions and faultly ideologies . . .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
