Yes, You Can Oppose Obama's Nobel Prize, Be Progressive, Disagree with GOP, and Not Be A Terrorist

by: David Sirota

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:51


UPDATE: In his remarks this morning, President Obama (quite commendably IMHO) said he didn't feel like he deserved the award. Big props to him for the intellectual honesty in the admission. As I said, this is really more about the Nobel committee and our society's obsession with celebrified politics more than it is about Obama.

A very quick post on the Obama Nobel Prize award after spending the morning in the virtual focus group known as talk radio in a major swing state. Some points we can - or at least should be able to - agree on:

- President Obama's speeches on nuclear non-proliferation and on the need to do a better job on multilateral diplomacy were very important, as were his efforts to pursue a diplomatic track with Iran.

- Much of the world hated George W. Bush and likes Obama.

- Obama is the president of an administration that may have "inherited" two wars in the heart of the Muslim world, but is also continuing on its own to prosecute those wars. In fact, he's considering massively escalating one of those wars.

Do these facts mean Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize award? My opinion is no.

I think you need to actually make peace (which requires lots of risks/courage/success) rather than simply talk about making peace (which requires far less risk/courage/success) - I think, for instance, that Chinese dissidents who have risked their lives taking on the most authoritarian government in the world are more deserving.

I think a president commandeering two wars in the heart of the Muslim world doesn't deserve the award, especially as he considers an escalation. And I think the idea of giving an award to someone to "encourage" them to be more peaceful before they actually prove to be peacemakers is ludicrous for two reasons: 1) if that's a rationale, why not give it to brutal dictators as an incentive for them to lighten up? and 2) sure, the award may encourage more peace, but it also may be used as a political shield to justify more war - if Obama escalates in Afghanistan, for example, the award will let him try to brush off the antiwar movement by simply saying, hey, you can't question me, I'm a Nobel Peace Prize winner!

Others, of course, can have their own opinion - and I respect people's right to disagree with my own. One thing, though, I hope we should be able to agree on is the idea that we can disagree on this without being called right-wing sympathizers or worse, terrorists. I know that's hard for some hard-core Democrats and Democratic-affiliated radio talk show hosts to understand - these people are trained/paid to simply say that everything good for Obama is good, and everything else is bad. They are people who, when a Democrat holds the White House, scoff at Teddy Roosevelt's old adage that, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

But the truth of what I'm saying should be self-evident.

David Sirota :: Yes, You Can Oppose Obama's Nobel Prize, Be Progressive, Disagree with GOP, and Not Be A Terrorist
By that I mean, you can be a genuine progressive interested in peace and think this award is a travesty on progressive grounds, and also not think that the Rush Limbaugh/GOP attacks about this award from the right are valid at all. Likewise, you can think this award is a travesty and simultaneously hope that one day President Obama truly ends up building a record deserving of such an award. You can even think this award is a travesty and think Obama is on the way to building up such a record, but is undeserving of the award because he's only been president for 9 months and hasn't yet proven himself a Nobel-level peacemaker.

So the fact that the Democratic National Committee is calling everyone who opposes the Nobel committee's decision a terrorist is, in a word, disgusting. I know the DNC is responding to Republicans (whose basis for opposing the Nobel prize to Obama I disagree with), but by saying all critics of the Nobel award and of Obama's record (or lack thereof) are terrorists by virtue of their opposition is just sick and wrong.

If we are going to build a real movement, we have to resist that kind of nonsense wherever it comes from. Disagreeing with, pressuring, and criticizing President Obama does not automatically make people GOP sympathizers or terrorists, just like disagreeing with, pressuring and criticizing President Bush did not automatically people Democratic sympathizers or terrorists. Those who say the opposite are exactly the people who have partisan-ized our politics to the point of destroying any social movement ethos. They, in short, are the real political terrorists in America - on both sides.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yes, You Can Oppose Obama's Nobel Prize, Be Progressive, Disagree with GOP, and Not Be A Terrorist | 50 comments
No, it's right.... (4.00 / 4)
but by saying all critics of the Nobel award and of Obama's record (or lack thereof) are terrorists by virtue of their opposition is just sick and wrong.

It's time the GOP got a taste of its own medicine.  Their antics as of late, have been extremely shameful.  They need to be called out!

That's a lot different from what we're discussing here...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

they need to be called out (4.00 / 1)
but for hypocrisy. Just applying the "terrorist" term isn't enough. I think there are valid points to be made about the fringe right wing's mentality and methodology being similar to terrorists. Heck, for starters we should demand the media refer to Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh as terrorists. But those are not the kind of points you make in sound bytes, and what the DNC did was merely to mirror Rovian tacticts, and not advance anything.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers
[ Parent ]
Of course our media only operates in sound bites (4.00 / 2)
so where is the opportunity to advance things using a longer form of discourse unless you put it into the media consciousness first through a sound bite?  
[ Parent ]
When Your Enemy Exposes His Belly You Rip Him Open! (4.00 / 4)
The Republicans offered us a wide-open kill shot on a stationary target!

For 8 years anybody who opposed their policies of war and oppression was a "traitor" "un-American" and they had everybody constantly running for cover and trying to defend themselves.

Screw them! By their own rules they are traitors to America! They hate Obama so much they can't even feel proud that an American has won the Nobel Prize!

Who cares whether it's really "deserved?" Did Kissinger "deserve" to win after being a war-criminal? If an American wins a Nobel Prize and is NOT a war-criminal, we get to be proud about it.

And if Republicans want to scream and howl about how it's not deserved and it's just a plot by those dirty foreigners to diss Bush (which it is, but so what?) then they just look just as nasty and spiteful as they are.

If an under-dog U.S. Olympic soccer team won a gold medal because the other team had an own-goal, would the right all scream that "we didn't deserve it?" and complain that we shouldn't take the medal? Or could we still be glad that an American won?

Any reason they advance for NOT letting anybody celebrate this award is just blatant hypocrisy (they care NOTHING about the Nobel prize -- they just don't want Obama to win anything). And it APPEARS like sour grapes and hypocrisy to the American people too!  

[ Parent ]
the nobel prize is crap (0.00 / 0)
When this was awarded to Arafat, it became a crap award.  

Love him or hate him, Obama has done nothing, nada, zip.  (didn't you watch Saturday Night Live).  

King gave a lifetime and a life for his work on equality. Mandela spent 27 years in Jail fighting Appartied. Obama spent 12 days in office before being nominated. This award is worthless!!!

[ Parent ]
That's pretty much what Obama said when he learned of the award (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
And You Really Care About the "Standards" of the Nobel Committee? (4.00 / 1)
"Obama spent 12 days in office before being nominated. This award is worthless!!!"

You flaming hypocrite! As if you give a DAMN about the standards of the Nobel Committee! You just want an excuse to attack somebody you don't like. Period.

That's all the right-wing is. Hypocrites and liars. They've got nothing to bitch about except they hate Obama and can't stand it that he won something. So, they invent reasons to complain!

It's interesting to contrast these reactions with that in other countries:


The self-centered view most Americans, especially conservatives, have in relations to the rest of the world is the main culprit as to why most Americans feel Obama is undeserving of this great honor, when in fact, he definitely is worthy of it.

The total lack of dignity and respect in the Bush Administration's unilateral approach to "diplomacy" towards other nations severely undermined any efforts by the global community presenting a cooperative approach combating global warming, nuclear proliferation, territorial disputes, terrorism, human rights, etc.

With the election of Obama as President, his immediate implementation of a foreign policy centered on respecting and listening to other nations was a major achievement in itself.

Since then, Iran has agreed to talks with the US, Russia announced it will not deploy Iktar missles, US-Cuban relations have improved dramatically, the Iraq War will be over by 2010 and the United States has already begun troop withdrawals.

While their are others that deserved as much consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize, who else has done as much in a short amount of time? The Nobel Committee did not give this award as a token. Obama has ALREADY accomplished enough to deserve it.


[ Parent ]
re: nada (0.00 / 0)
Obama has done nothing, nada, zip

1. allowed stem-cell research
2. avoided the 2nd great depression
3. prohibited torture

maybe not great, but not nothing

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
1. allowed stem-cell research

I didn´t know that this counted towards the Nobel Peace Prize? Does that mean he´ll get the Nobel Prize for Medicine too? :)

2. avoided the 2nd great depression

Maybe. And of course followed the Bush administration here. Goldman-Sachs is everywhere! :)
Trillions for banks! And maybe, if something is left over, a few billions for citizens. Not to much though. You have to think about the budget deficit. And let´s avoid investigating and regulating the financial sector, why don´t we? So, the third Nobel price for Obama! Economics.

3. prohibited torture

Maybe.
Of course we don´t really know that unless you can visit Bagram unannounced? How is torture defined today in the USA?

- Close Guantanamo while enlarging Bagram?
- Use the DOJ to defend all decisions the Bush administration made?
- Don´t publish torture photos and videos?
- Don´t investigate or prosecute torturers and their enablers in the Bush government?
- Look forward, not backward? Reflection, not retribution?

Quite a few Europeans like me today were...puzzled.
We´re not saying that Obama would never deserve a Noble Peace Prize. We just thought that - maybe - it was a bit premature?

Each of his foreign policy initiatives are just proposals right now. None of them have so far resulted in a signed and ratified treaty. If one of them reaches that stage, he´d deserve the Nobel. But right now?

A guy who is presiding over 2 wars, unofficial drone attacks in Pakistan and a "defense" budget which is roughly equal to what the rest of the world spends?

Nobel Peace prize for that? Where is the "peace" in that?
He´s just acting like a sane and competent US President. Unlike George W. Bush. Unless you think that the USA is borderline crazy, why should the world reward a US President for acting rationally?

[ Parent ]
re: accomplish (0.00 / 0)
I didn´t know that this counted towards the Nobel Peace Prize?

I wasn't talking in the context of the Nobel Peace Prize. I was just replying to the 'Obama has done nothing, zip, nada' thing that SNL did.

Quite a few Europeans like me today were...puzzled.
We´re not saying that Obama would never deserve a Noble Peace Prize. We just thought that - maybe - it was a bit premature?

Each of his foreign policy initiatives are just proposals right now. None of them have so far resulted in a signed and ratified treaty. If one of them reaches that stage, he´d deserve the Nobel. But right now?

A guy who is presiding over 2 wars, unofficial drone attacks in Pakistan and a "defense" budget which is roughly equal to what the rest of the world spends?

Nobel Peace prize for that? Where is the "peace" in that?
He´s just acting like a sane and competent US President. Unlike George W. Bush. Unless you think that the USA is borderline crazy, why should the world reward a US President for acting rationally?

hey, I agree with everything you say

[ Parent ]
To reiterate… (0.00 / 0)
...Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel prize in a three-way split with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
It's red-baiting, pure and simple (4.00 / 1)
the modern version of it, and it's no more edifying coming from Dems. Aside from the moral-ethic problems, which don't much bother me--politics ain't beanbag--there is the fact that Dems are playing and perpetuating a game they can't win. Just wait until Obama decides not to give McChrystal all the troops he wants; then we'll see terrorist-baiting done correctly.

There's a way to use rhetoric that draw blood that doesn't make you feel dirty and that takes you away from the GOP's home field. Rhetoric that it true both in substance to style to progressive ideals: (See: Grayson.)

[ Parent ]
Yes, and it works (4.00 / 1)
I don't like it either, but the Democrats absolutely can win at this.  You're making the assumption that the target audience -- swing voters -- actually gets what's going on, which they mostly don't.  They're "pro-America", "pro-peace", and don't much like disrespect of our President.  The Republicans have been playing right into our hands on lots of things lately.  Good.
[ Parent ]
Maybe, we'll see (4.00 / 1)
It's not as if this is the first time Dems have tried to out-hate-terrorists, and it doesn't seem to be getting them very far. If it created space for Dems to move left on national security, that would be one thing, but Obama is still living in fear of being called soft on terrorism.

Now, I don't have any illusions that if Dems stopped terrorist-baiting, then the GOP would stop doing it as well, but playing along--as opposed to reframing the debate--adds legitimacy to it.

In any case, I don't want to see Dems why whine when the entire GOP, plus much of the MSM, calls Obama a traitorous surrenderer.

But then I'm too much of a wuss for politics--that's why I got out long ago. I also didn't like it when Dems hit Palin "unpatriotically" criticizing Obama on foreign soil.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe If They Get Beaten Down By Their Own Tactics, They'll Admit They Are Unacceptable! (4.00 / 1)
Probably not, but they will have to ATTACK the attitude that all criticism of the President for having a foreign policy success is treason.

Their very defense will undermine future such attacks. (Not that they will acknowledge their hypocrisy, but the very act of making arguments against the "dissent is treason" attitude will undermine the future force of that argument).

Forcing the right-wing into blatant contradictions is a useful thing to do.

And Americans DO have the right to feel proud when our President wins a Nobel Prize, whether it's earned or not. Just the same way Americans can feel proud if one of our athletes wins an Olympic Gold medal -- even if some other athlete from another country might have "deserved it more." (Unless they cheated of course -- which Obama certainly didn't do).

[ Parent ]
He did more on nukes than just make a speech... (4.00 / 2)
considering the work he has done in the US and the UNSEC resolution he ushered through not to mention that  he's turned the entire geopolitical environment around.

But the DNC is talking about the GOP. The GOP doesn't have any legit reason to oppose the NPP going to Obama since they don't care about peace anyway. They hate everything to do with it. They are terrorists.  

And gave the go-ahead for new US warheads. (0.00 / 0)
Maybe it was meant as a part of the stimulus for us here in New Mexico.

And he's touting more nuke plants -- with no way to deal with the CURRENT vast load of waste.

[ Parent ]
They make a decision on the RRW already? nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Don't forget removing the ballistic missiles from Poland! (0.00 / 0)
That was huge!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
And put 'em somewhere else. (0.00 / 0)
It was like a reverse-JFK move -- the Cuban missile crisis deal had Kennedy removing all the IRBMs from Turkey; now Obama puts the first-strike weapons back there (and other spots).
[ Parent ]
Mixed Emotions (4.00 / 3)
Over the top rhetoric like this always bugs me.  I don't like it when the Republicans use it, or Democrats or front pagers at Open Left.  Name calling politics does nothing for me.

But it works.  I've slowly gotten to the point where I'm ok with this.  Unilateral disarmament has not worked in our favor.  The Republicans need to have this thrown back into their face.

On the facts, of course, you are 100% correct.  There is nothing wrong with being opposed to this prize.  But as our conservative friends have shown us, there are some very bad reasons to be opposed.

It'll be interesting… (4.00 / 1)
...to see how the GOP responds. After serving up equally simplistic equations throughout Rove's tenure, how do they spin this without looking like utter hypocrites? When I couple this with Alan Grayson's "Holocaust" line a little bit ago, it makes me wonder when Democrats became such provocateurs? I kinda like it, and for the record, I feel the Nobel prize was premature.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
You forget. (0.00 / 0)
Hypocrisy is one of the defining characteristics of the GOP.  They wouldn't be who they are without it.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.
[ Parent ]
Should… (4.00 / 1)
...we should change "hypocrites" to "whiners" then? With some people in the mainstream, the results of GOP hypocrisy may take a little time to sink in, but the party certainly doesn't want to appear weak--which whining about the DNC's rhetorical one-upmanship would imply.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
Whiners. (4.00 / 1)
Crybabies.  Sissies.  Wusses.  Wimps.  Sourpusses.  Sore losers.

Anti-American.

Honestly, how bad do they have to get before we say the obvious?

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
Watching GOP Heads Explode... (4.00 / 5)
Is not a good reason for the prize, but it sure has made it worthwhile. =)
he bombed the moon (4.00 / 3)
how does someone who bombed the moon get the peace prize,
twilight zone

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people
The moon had it coming (4.00 / 2)
Fuckin' moon.  About time someone showed it who was boss.
[ Parent ]
Couldn't Agree More (0.00 / 0)
it's pretty much a travesty.
I think Obama agrees with you (4.00 / 3)
Is it a bad thing to have the President of the US feel as though he has to earn the Nobel Peace Prize during his tenure?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
no, hell no (4.00 / 1)
I hope we should be able to agree on is the idea that we can disagree on this without being called right-wing sympathizers or worse, terrorists

no, the right-wing didn't allow this to me (disagree without being called names) and I won't allow it to them

wrong quote (4.00 / 2)
So the fact that the Democratic National Committee is calling everyone who opposes the Nobel committee's decision a terrorist is, in a word, disgusting. I know the DNC is responding to Republicans (whose basis for opposing the Nobel prize to Obama I disagree with), but by saying all critics of the Nobel award and of Obama's record (or lack thereof) are terrorists by virtue of their opposition is just sick and wrong.

no, hell no

no, the right-wing didn't allow this to me (disagree without being called names) and I won't allow it to them

[ Parent ]
so.. (4.00 / 1)
you hate the way they act, and the only way you know how to get them back is to act like them, keep on doing that and one day you will be what you hate, no?

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people
[ Parent ]
I like to think by doing that, we'll expose the hypocricy of them doing so (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Great post (4.00 / 2)
But in fairness to Obama, it seems he doesn't think he deserved it either.  

And the DNC's eagerness to play tit-for-tat with the terrorist label is more than a little sickening and shortsighted.  

A Nobel Peace Prize was given to Henry Kissinger! (4.00 / 1)
Kissinger, one of the most monstrous war criminals of our time.

After that, almost any other choice looks good.

Actually, as others have pointed out, the Obama choice is reminiscent of Gorbachev c. 1990.   Gorby did have some disarmament treaty accomplishments under his belt, but that prize seemed primarily for the promise of glasnost and perestroika.  

So I'm basically OK with this, but your point is well taken -- such a prestigious award should go to those who demonstrate great courage (preferably personal, but at least political) in the cause of peace and justice.  We hope Obama will demonstrate such courage, but he really hasn't yet.

Well, in Kissinger's defense (4.00 / 5)
Just kidding.
[ Parent ]
Adding: Remember what happened after Gobachev got the prize (4.00 / 1)
Of course, shortly after Gorbachev received the Nobel Prize, he presided over the dismantling of the the Soviet empire, arguably due in part to the policies he was being rewarded for.

Something to think about.  Of course, I believe the collapse of the Soviet empire was conducive to world peace, and the collapse of the U.S. empire would be as well.


[ Parent ]
this post, and many comments (4.00 / 2)
Illustrate vividly the adage, 'liberals won't take their own side in an argument.'  Astounding.  'He doesn't deserve it.'  'Gee, we shouldn't link the GOP and terrorists.'  No, let them do it to us every fucking day.  Sirota: you are a GOP mole.  
Sirota a GOP mole? (0.00 / 0)
you have got to be kidding!!!

I think Sirota makes a great point.  There is no differnce between the award to Obama and awarding this to my son who shows promise in his high school science class and might one day find a cure for cancer.  

Or for that matter, a Miss America contestant who all wish for world peace, equality, and yes, hope.  why not one of them?  what is the difference?

[ Parent ]
Now this is strange (4.00 / 1)
Clearly David is no GOP mole.  On the other hand, I've convinced myself that RR is...  I don't know what to make of this...
[ Parent ]
Talk about heads exploding... (4.00 / 1)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Besides (0.00 / 0)
Its not like there are actual criteria upon which the judges base their choices. It seems pretty much subjective and that's OK with me. After all, its not my prize to give.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I think he got the peace prize (0.00 / 0)
simply for not being Bush/Cheney.  With the bar that low, anybody can win.  In fairness to Obama, I think he agrees.  
Criteria (4.00 / 1)
I think you need to actually make peace [....] rather than simply talk about making peace

Like Al Gore? What peace did he make?

For that matter, the very Chinese dissidents who you rightly praise — exactly what peace have they made? Or Aung San Suu Kyi? Has she actually made any peace yet?

Clearly, it is not necessary to actually make peace to win the Peace Prize; it is merely sufficient to undertake actions which make peace more likely — such as boldly standing up to a totalitarian regime.

Or returning the most powerful nation in the world to being a part of the international community; starting new arms control talks and restarting arms control talks that had been abandoned; canceling the deployment of controversial and destabilizing weapons systems; initiating negotiations with Iran and resuming negotiations with North Korea; and just generally not being an International Dickhead after eight years of ceaseless bullying and provocation.

On the Other Hand, Limbaugh Agrees With DNC (4.00 / 1)
Rush Limbaugh makes the case for the DNC:

Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.

Wow (4.00 / 1)
Wow.
[ Parent ]
What has Barack Obama done for peace? (0.00 / 0)
A spot-on progressive critique of Obama's peace prize:

http://www.greenchange.org/art...

Say Obama's economic actions averted total failure. (0.00 / 0)
With that failure would come worldwide chaos and conflict. The existing class war would in a moment evolve into violent revolution.

Should not his ability to hold the world economy together, or to field the team that has done so, so far, earn him kudos?

i see your point but am also laughing (0.00 / 0)
you make good points as usual, but how funny is it that this has to be spelled out, " hey everyone just letting you know, that its ok to feel and think the way you do, there are others like you, thats right, dont be afraid,"

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people
Yes, You Can Oppose Obama's Nobel Prize, Be Progressive, Disagree with GOP, and Not Be A Terrorist | 50 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox