Maybe U.S. presidents shouldn't get peace prizes
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Maybe U.S. presidents shouldn't get peace prizes
This morning I wrote a package of two articles for the Daily News about President Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize he accepted in Oslo this morning. You can read the main story here -- in a sidebar I argued that the president is probably a lousy choice for a peace award:
When you think of President Theodore "Carry a Big Stick" Roosevelt, "peace" usually isn't the first word that jumps to mind. After riding up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War, he was a hawkish president who greatly expanded the U.S. Navy, fomented a revolution in Panama to clear the way for the American-owned canal there, and, after leaving the White House, was the leading proponent for an early U.S. entry to World War I.
The act that Roosevelt won the Nobel for - brokering a peace deal between Japan and Russia in 1905 - is thought by some historians to have encouraged Japanese expansionism that led ultimately to Pearl Harbor.
Hey, I didn't say which president. You know what? I hate to say it, but sitting American presidents are never a good choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, period. Since 1901, the honor has been bestowed on three White House occupants. Roosevelt was arguably the worst choice of all, as author James Bradley wrote convincingly in an op-ed that ran recently on the New York Times and on the Huffington Post:
And that was as Roosevelt may have wanted it: after all, it was he who had so fervently encouraged the Japanese to think in "Monroe Doctrine" terms about their continent. No doubt, the Japanese, and their military, had ambitions with regard to Asia. But such aims were undoubtedly encouraged by Roosevelt-his bogus even-handedness in the Russo-Japanese peace process perhaps the most potent evidence of his bias. Oslo may not have known the truth -- and most Americans still don't know the truth, either -- but the cost of Roosevelt's subterfuge would be profound.
Teddy would not be around on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese, borrowing straight from the Russo-Japanese playbook, attacked Pearl Harbor in order to protect their sphere of influence. Nor would he be around for the millions of deaths to come as war raged throughout the Pacific. Such are the long fuses of history.
The second president to win the Nobel was Woodrow Wilson, for his work in brokering the Treaty of Versailles. The deeply flawed treaty -- which not only was rejected here in the U.S. but was a miserable failure toward stopping the seeds of World War II -- did include an admirably and real push for national self-determination. But Wilson was hardly a man of peace or national self-determination here in the Western Hemisphere, where he sent troops into Haiti, Nicaragua, and elsewhere, seeking to bend those nations to follow America's will. (Another president who received the Nobel, Jimmy Carter. was recognized for his post-presidential work).
Then we have Barack Obama. His mission today in Oslo was a no-win situation -- he couldn't accept the award and ignore the escalation in Afghanistan, so he tried to justify it, resulting in a speech completely drained of moral authority or power. The president did say one thing with which I agree whole-heartedly:
Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
The world needs uncompromising fighters for real peace and for meaningful justice -- people like a Martin Luther King -- who can go to Oslo and remind the world of what we must eternally strive to make it. Such worthy Nobel recepients are truth-tellers, and people they are telling that truth to are the world's kings and potentates and, yes, the American president -- a job that is engineered for compromise, and disappointments. If the world is to become a better place, we need more people who risk jail, risk pain, and risk death -- people like Dr. King or Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi -- have done, for the eternal ideals of peace that are uncompromising. The Nobel Peace Prize can be a valuable tool to remind us who these people are, and that you are going to find them in the streets, not in the White House.
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
SteveMG - I didn't mean to mislead with my response. I am aware of the "controversy" for lack of a better word I just wasn't overly concerned with it. I supported McCain - stating the obvious - and my support for him would have required him to make a much worse choice for VP then Palin (Biden??? - just joking). I personally wanted him to go with Ridge because I have a great deal of respect for him and honestly knew very little about Palin when she was selected. My friends who actually work in politics tell me Palin was a good choice because she "energized the base" much more than Ridge would have. I think Palin has been the victim of several cheap shots but I'm not really a supporter and hope she isn't the R's choice in 2012 because she doesn't take the party in the direction I think it should go. To sum up my copy of "Going Rogue" is right beside my copy of "Tear Down this Myth" - somewhere on a bookstore self unpurchased.— bird11
The award has nothing to do with its supposed intent. These post-modern "Umanista's" go about seeking all their pretentious equalities i.e.,gender, social, cultural, reproductive, separation of church and state, etal., while lacking the knowledge and mastery of the learned classical humanists. Today, they tie their beliefs to epistemological truths, that aren't truths at all, since, in their minds, all truths are relative. The award is based on principles that have nothing to do with peace. Instead, it's hoped that in time, it will have a greater meaning.The bestowers are quite aware that history isn't written in a day. Maybe that's why last night's ABC special anointed Michele Obama as the "most interesting person in 2009." Could it be we're being set up for what I'll term, "secular monarchism?"— lefty- Comment removed.
- "If not Obama, then who? It wasn't exactly a banner year for peace." You're joking, right? Personally, I'd go with Morgan Tsvangirai. But let's not forget others, like Neda (the Iranian girl who was gunned down), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, Jerry Lewis (went over a billion dollars for MDA, Sima Samar....these, among many others, are much more worthy of a peace award than Barack Obama.— legatus
- I'm usually critical of Bunch, but this is one of the times I like his analysis. So, I thought it only fair to state that.— pj katauskas
- I will no longer look at the Nobel Peace Prize in the same manner ever again. I believe the Nobel committee owes the world a press conference to explain their decision.— camtheman
as an obama supporter, even i know that this award hasnt been earned yet. BUT, its not his fault that they selected him. why hate on him because of something totally out of his control? people just love to complain i guess- camtheman - this isn't even close to the worst choice - all you need to know about how bad the selection process is - Arafat has a Noble Peace price and Ghandi doesn't.— bird11
- Will, you argue that Roosevelt was "arguably the worst choice of all" but you also point out that "the act" that Roosevelt won the Nobel for was brokering a peace deal between Japan and Russia. At least he HAD accomplished an "act", regardless of whether you argue it was good or bad. WHAT "act" has Obama achieved to warrant this? Being born? Harvard Law Review? Associating with terrorists?— Bud Fox
- Comment removed.
Will it ever end? Obama gets a totally undeserved Nobel Peace Prize and Gibba Mang feels compelled to refer to GW Bush. Obsessed idiot!— ocjones- It's Bush's fault.— pj katauskas
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
