Let’s talk about the Nobel prizes for a few minutes.
First, let me say that I am "surprised and humbled" that I myself was considered for nomination to the Nobel committee for a significant body of work--if I do say so myself--achieved over a number of years.
Not for the Peace prize, of course. But I was sorta expecting a nomination for my research in the 1970s which involved the motion of psychic straws in the bars of Chula Vista, California, not to speak of the seminal work I did at the same time developing origami roses out of bar napkins.
But that was another time and another place.
Yesterday, I’m sitting in front of the TV watching the BBC and I see the ticker at the bottom scrolling left, announcing, of all things, that President Obama had become the first sitting president since Wilson about 90 some years ago to be awarded the Noble Peace Prize.
Literally—my mouth gaped, and my first words were, “For what?”
The guy’s been in office for all of 270 days, and he gets an award for “extraordinary” efforts to “strengthen cooperation between peoples to meet global challenges.”
Show me one blog site, major newspaper, or media outlet where Obama’s name was even mentioned prior to the announcement as a possible recipient of the award.
In fact, the Oslo-based International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) in the days prior to the announcement had predicted that “Sen. Piedad Cordoba [of Colombia] [was] the most likely recipient among three leading contenders …” the others being Jordanian Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Islamic faith at Jordan University, and Afghan physician and human rights activist Sima Samar.
So we have President Bush who gets a dusty shoe thrown at him by a disgruntled Iraqi journalist, and President Obama who gets a Peace Prize dropped in his lap by a remarkably gruntled Prize committee.
And the world, frankly, is non-plussed.
This makes for good water-cooler discussions to be sure—as to who was more deserving: Bush or Obama, and there are some who would argue that Obama should get the shoe, or the boot, and Bush the Peace Prize. Rational arguments can be, and are being, made for all positions, trust me.
Here’s my problem: I feel a sense of pride as an American that my President was awarded this prize. On the other hand, my American sense of fairness interferes because I just can’t see it, and neither can the pundocrats around the world. I fear that this announcement trivializes the award—but then perhaps that has already happened.
So Sunday, I think that it would be appropriate—not to comment on the controversy—but to pray for the President that he may grow into the oversized suit that has now been given him. And if he’s had insufficient time to demonstrate his peace-making skills, perhaps awarding him the prize will encourage the leader of the free world to aggressive in the pursuit of peace.
But here again, it gets tricky. Every field commander the president has is telling him that 25,000 to 40,000 more troops are needed in Afghanistan, or we might as well set up the gallows in the town square of Kabul and sharpen the swords to make the Taliban’s Friday afternoon hanging parties and beheadings more convenient. Will Obama make the hard decisions? Can a Nobel Peace Prize president escalate a war, defend our country by every means necessary, keep military options on the table?
I hope so.
And I hope Obama is up to the task.
So far I am not convinced that he is. But I echo the sentiments of Gil Troy of the Boston Globe: "Let the aspirations embedded in his award quickly be transformed into impressive achievements."