If you were hiding in a cave for the last 36 hours, let me be the first to give you the good news: President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. Yes, really. I was shocked too, as was the president, who when he was awakened with the news reportedly asked if the caller was kidding.
The caller wasn't kidding, and neither was the Nobel Committee. One of us was given that prestigious honor, in recognition and support for his work and aspirations in renewing diplomacy and nuclear disarmament. When one of us receives a wonderful, unsolicited gift, the correct progressive response is to celebrate with gratitude ...
... not to ask if he/she deserves it. That's a conservative question, based on a conservative notion of "one of us."
More below the fold....
One Of Us (Non-Cynical Saturday)
Cognitive linguist (and Kossack) George Lakoff has written at length about the different moral views of progressives and conservatives. Lakoff uses family metaphors to frame the contrast: the strict father model (conservative) versus the nurturant parent model (progressive). Psychologist Robert Altemeyer offers a similar frame for conservatism in his book The Authoritarians.
Obedience and worthiness are at the core of the conservative moral model. In that view, people should receive only what they deserve or have earned, and to give anything beyond that cheapens the gift, rewards incompetence and/or inferiority, insults and discourages the more worthy efforts of others, and otherwise creates moral hazard. This is the moral perspective embedded in the question, "Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?"
Earnings and Gifts.
The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.
Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.
The conservative moral model does not distinguish between earnings and gifts. You should not be given what you have not earned. If you haven't earned it, it shouldn't be offered and you shouldn't accept it. In the conservative moral model, there are only earnings ... and thus it makes sense to ask whether President Obama has earned and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
The progressive moral model does distinguish between earnings and gifts, and indeed distinction underlies much of progressive thinking. We can and should give to others - often without regard for whether they have earned the gift - because altruism and empathy are core concepts in our moral model. When one of us receives a gift, we celebrate that gift to recognize and affirm those core concepts ... and thus it makes no sense to ask whether President Obama has earned and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Unless he's not one of us.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt's research has shown, our moral reasoning breaks down when issues are framed in terms of group identity. Once an issue is framed that way, group loyalty trumps all other moral issues. But we rarely argue our moral judgments based on group identity and loyalty. Instead, we rationalize our judgments through the other four moral prisms: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Respect/Obedience, or Purity/Disgust. We do this both to excuse those within our group, and to criticize those outside our group.
And apparently at least some progressives don't believe President Obama is one of us. I overgeneralized in some comments elsewhere yesterday, when I suggested that "not one of us" judgment must necessarily reflect racism. That's certainly not true for all of his critics here. While I do believe there is some latent racism in the criticism, many may feel President Obama is "not one of us" because he's not progressive enough. Most of the criticisms yesterday argued from that perspective, citing things the president has or hasn't done that a "real progressive" should or should not have done. But such judgments are based on a narrow, conservative notion of "one of us." Progressives don't demand strict ideological allegiance; that is a conservative concept of group identity.
Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift, and to ask whether he has earned and deserves it is to rely on a conservative moral model, which makes no distinction between earnings and gifts, based in turn on a narrow, conservative concept of "one of us."
It's a fundamentally conservative question, and that's why I and many others were so upset to hear it from progressive voices. I expected it from Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives. It fits their moral model.
It doesn't fit ours.
+++++
Note: I was wrong to attribute all of the criticism to racism yesterday, and I apologize to those whom I offended.
+++++
Happy Saturday!