It’s the most talked about topic today. How did it happen and why? The award included a citation praising him for international diplomacy. I actually had to go to lunch with two co-workers today, our CFO and the principal owner of Trimaco. One is a staunch conservative Republican and the other is a bleeding heart liberal. I wanted to hear the argument first hand.
Drew, our CFO, had some valid points and a few ideological rants about Obama in general. David, much to my surprise, questioned the legitimacy of Obama receiving the award almost as much as Drew. Of course I had to interject my two cents. The thing that concerns me the most about Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize is not that he won it. It’s that someone else did not.
Do you really mean to tell me that in 2008 and 2009 no one on earth did more to promote world peace than a guy who made three international motivational speeches? And let’s face it, that’s all he did. Sure he might have displaced a little of the growing animosity towards the US by visiting some cultures where no other US diplomat dared to tread recently, but what specific result did he achieve that made the world a more peaceful place? He didn’t foster any signed peace accords the way Carter did. He didn’t tear down any communist walls the way Reagan did. And neither one of them won the award during their presidency.
I suppose that for the most part the Nobel Peace prize is purely symbolic. Obama’s winning the award may cause contradiction in his ability to defend the nation in a time of war when aggressive action may be necessary. But the bigger problem I feel this points out to the world is that the organizers of the award could not find anyone who symbolized a greater peace movement this year than a man who may have the final call on extending current wars or initiating new ones should they be warranted through the turn of events.