Maybe U.S. presidents shouldn't get peace prizes
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.
Because someone is willing to turn the other cheek is not justification for the Nobel. Truman should have been given the Nobel for ending WWII. He saved millions of lives.— abnrgr
Comment removed.- Dofus has been in office for nearly a year and the only, THE ONLY thing he has done is to order an increase in combat troops into some foreign sovereign country. Gotta laugh...there hasn't been such a misplaced award since Jethro Tull won a Grammy in the Heavy Metal category.— valentsgrif
- Maybe we can come up with a sort or Nobel War Prize. Surely Bush would have won it if it had existed in 2006-2007. Mr. Jones, we aren't going to forget what a failure Bush was. Nothing wrong with reminding people of that fact (which you will forever ignore). Perhaps Obama will the 'coveted' War Prize in the future but we'll have to wait and see.— James TL
- Obama won't be around for much in the way of future prizes...He'll probably remain elegible for the Jimmy Carter "How Low Can We Go" award, subcategory- Appeasing USA Haters.— valentsgrif
James TL - if you read the accompanying blog by Bunch you would see how an act by President Teddy Roosevelt that was deemed worthy of a NPP may have ultimately led to the death of over 400,000 American troops 40 years later. Who is to say that 40 years from now the Middle East won't be a vastly changed region - you know a place where democracy flourishes and women can actually attend school. Maybe the James Bradley of 2075 will write how this change all started because the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein, stood up to the insurgents, and stayed the course until Iraq could stand on their own. The Middle East has been the same for centuries - do you really think meaningful change would take place overnight?— bird11- Comment removed.
"Maybe we can come up with a sort or Nobel War Prize. Surely Bush would have won it if it had existed in 2006-2007. Mr. Jones, we aren't going to forget what a failure Bush was".-------I guess you answered my question James. It seems the irrational hatred of GW Bush will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of the obsessed idiots on the American left. That would include you James.— ocjones- If what you said happened (and I will at least admit that it could) then I could agree that Bush's mission was a success. The way things are now however tat is impossible to do. We didn't go into Iraq to take out Saddam anyway, it was because the terrorists that attacked us were there (which they weren't.. no doubt Hussein was gladdened by what happened on 9/11 but he had nothing to do with it). I actually hope what you said takes place but at this point it is pretty far fetched.— James TL
- Don't hate Bush. I hate what he did and what he stands for: endless war and huge budget defecits. I could say everything you said and just substitute the name "Obama" He's only been in the WH for a few months but in your unbonded hate for him won't allow you to wait until a proper time to judge him. You've already decided his presidency is a disaster. You are allowed to have your opinion as am I.— James TL
- James TL - while I'll admit many people at the time and probably if they were polled still do think there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. And I'll even stay that some/most who made statements like that had a (R) after their names. But if you look it up one person who not only didn't say it but said the exact opposite was Bush (From CNN : "President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."). Were there contacts between Hussein's people and AQ - definitely but nothing came of it. Was Hussein funding terrorism - definitely but not AQ. We went to Iraq to protect ourselves from possible future attacks started by Hussein - always the stated reason - and to build a Democracy in the Middle East (""We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins," Bush said. "We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East." GWB 11/19/03)— bird11
- "He's only been in the WH for a few months but in your unbonded hate for him won't allow you to wait until a proper time to judge him. You've already decided his presidency is a disaster. You are allowed to have your opinion as am I."-------so James,in addition to being an obsessed left winger, you also seem to believe you're blessed with the power of ESP in that you think you're privy to my unspoken, innermost thoughts. Wow.— ocjones
- Glad you're so impressed with my mental abilities Mr. Jones. (I'm really not as liberal as you think I am, it's just that you are so far to the right that it makes me appear to be). It doesn't take much though to guess your thoughts however considering the fact that I've been reading your comments (and disagreeing with them) for the past few years so I know your general opinion.— James TL
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- 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
