Peace Prize on Credit

PrintEmail

Barack Obama. Senator, President, Nobel Prize Winner. Who woulda’ thunk it? Like the rest of you I must confess to having been a little stunned by this announcement, not in the “I-was-so-shocked-I-spat-out-my-coffee” stunned, but more of the “Honey! –*laugh*-you’re-not-going-to-*laugh*-believe-what-has-*laugh*-just-happened” variety.
 
Democrats are wincing, with even the most stoic of the Obama loyalists expressing embarrassment in one shape or another. To Republicans and conservatives alike, this was fantastic news. Fantastic news. Ever since John McCain’s TV ad depicted Obama as some type of narcissistic celebrity, the President’s star power has proven to be his most valuable asset – and his more obvious vulnerability.
 
The convention coliseum, the quasi-Presidential seal and the speech in Berlin all fit nicely with the ‘Presumptuous President’ narrative that Steve Schmidt et al were pushing during the campaign. This narrative has continued throughout Obama’s presidency with his detractors claiming that the President is arrogant, cocky, naïve and dismissive. What's more, they say, he has absolutely no intentions of living up to his pledge to be post-partisan or a unifier. Now they have now struck gold with the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
In his recognition of the award, the President stated that he was "both surprised and deeply humbled," adding that he would “accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." Awarding prizes on credit, or for possible achievements, is most certainly a new concept to me (I can just see the new ‘Best As Of Yet Not Made Album’ Grammy category). But what was most telling was Obama’s statement that he did not feel he deserved "to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.”
 
Therein lies the problem – how is it humble to admit that you didn’t quite deserve the prize but then state that you’re still going to accept it? This won’t wash, and people will see this as presumptuous and hubristic. It was clear on Friday morning that the President was attempting to use his charm to brush off this story and move on, citing how the other big family news of the day – his dog’s birthday – appears to be taking precedence. If only. This story has legs and will run.
 
In Friday’s Guardian Michael Tomasky states that for liberals who disagree with the decision, there is an upside: “It will drive the American right wing up the wall.” Given that Al Gore and Jimmy Carter have received a Noble Peace Prize of late, we on the “right wing” have really ceased to care. In fact, as I have already stated, rather than being driven “up the wall,” we couldn’t be happier.
 
Already Townhall.com and a number of other websites are producing lists of gongs that Obama could claim--notably the AL Cy Young Award winner for his first pitch at the All Star Game. Expect more ridicule. That being said, Tomasky is on to something. The Guardian’s resident American raises the question of whether the President should have accepted the prize at all. From a practical view, I believe it’s pretty obvious what the answer is.
 
When he went before the cameras on Friday the President should have turned the Nobel Peace Prize down. Here is what he could have said:
 
“I was both surprised and deeply humbled to be told today that I was receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Looking at the list of individuals who have received the prize over the years, I am truly honored. As Americans, we know all too well that people in my position have used this office to achieve exceptional feats, feats that have been acknowledged in the past by the Nobel Prize committee. President Theodore Roosevelt brokered peace that ended a savage war between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson, who strove for peace following the war he hoped would “end all wars.” Unlike Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson, my presidency is in its infancy. We have made great strides towards our goals and ambitions. As a result, I have asked the Nobel Prize Committee to offer this honor to another individual more deserving than I.”
 
Dismiss the prize and use the publicity to reiterate your focus on domestic issues. And most importantly, don’t give conservative pundits the excuse to ridicule you because in this case, the left sure won’t run to your defense. As George W. Bush supporters discovered during the Harriet Myers debacle, defending the indefensible becomes an exhausting political distraction. The GOP will be striving to get Democrats to squirm on cable news and defend the decision. I certainly don’t envy Robert Gibbs. For the Republicans, the story writes itself.
 
As the economy continues to struggle what the public will see is a President who is all too happy to go off gallivanting to Oslo and give a suave speech for an award even he admits he doesn’t deserve. Claiming a prize on credit when you’re political capital is already running low is hardly the wisest way to reinvigorate your administration.
 
What an unnecessary distraction. What a waste of time.
 
(Photo by Steve Jurvetson)
 
Read more stories at YPNation.