The people who are trying to justify and defend Obama's Nobel Peace Prize are just being plain silly.
Can anyone really doubt that it was an impulsive last-minute decision by a group of fallible humans who felt overwhelmed with joy and relief by the election of Obama and the departure of George W. Bush?
The people who are trying to justify and defend Obama's Nobel Peace Prize are just being plain silly.
Can anyone really doubt that it was an impulsive last-minute decision by a group of fallible humans who felt overwhelmed with joy and relief by the election of Obama and the departure of George W. Bush?
My friends who live oversees say that we here in America can't appreciate the loathing and revulsion most of the world felt for Bush. The neo-cons and the rest of the Bush supporters were so busy swooning over Bush's "toughness" and "resolve" that they failed to recognize that rest of the world was completely unimpressed. The world came to believe that he was a cartoonish, somewhat ridiculous embodiment of everything that is wrong with America. This included, it seems, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups who felt no urgent necessity to stop killing in the face of Bush's "resolve."
Ask anyone on the Right what Bush achieved through his "tough" policies of waging the wrong war, torture, extraordinary rendition, and endless imprisonment at Guantanamo and you're bound to get a tortured non-answer declaring that he made America "safer." We hear this a lot from Dick Cheney. If anyone is a bigger caricature than George Bush of America's arrogance and willful ignorance, it is Dick Cheney.
So, imagine the relief felt by people of the world when somebody reasonable, intelligent and forward-thinking strode into the White House ready to re-engage the world with an attitude of mutual interest and mutual respect. Apparently we can't imagine, which explains the silly reaction on both sides of the argument to Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama's nuanced grasp of the complex issues facing the world goes largely unappreciated - or is attacked - here in America, while it is highly valued in other parts of the world. A great many Americans want simple, black-and-white answers where there are none, and they become suspicious of nuance. They are still besotted with the rather juvenile Clint Eastwood-go-it-alone figure who can make everything better with a few tough words and a well-aimed gun shot. That's very satisfying in the movies, but it's no way to run a country.
Yesterday in his Nobel acceptance speech Obama said: "I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo."
The folks on the Right who howl in protest at such a "naive" and "weak" posture are the same ones who think Nixon is a hero for engaging China and that Reagan is a hero for bringing down the Soviet Union - through engagement.
During a recent conversation with an Israeli friend, he succinctly explained Benjamin Netanyahu's seemingly self-defeating tough-guy policies by noting, "He still thinks size matters."
The overwhelming advantage to Obama's more grown-up and balanced approach is that the world is once again on our side, as it was after 9/11. Because of this, he will have an easier time gaining the world's cooperation on a whole host of issues - terrorism, national security, economic recovery and climate change.
Only a neo-con True Believer could interpret this as a bad thing. The Nobel Committee saw it as an overwhelmingly good thing and, yes, prematurely and probably misguidedly, threw its support behind Obama - and all of America - in an act of impetuous hope.
For more of "Bare Left" please visit: http://bareleft.blogspot.com