The Shotgun Blog
« Linda Frum Sokolowski, a new Senator, already drives liberals crazy | Main | UK Conservatives to raise prices of cider »
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize brings out the Bushiness in Obamamania
Most people agree that the Nobel Peace Price being awarded to President Obama is either silly or absurd. Even my lefty European schoolmates had a bit of a giggle over the news. Yet there are those who will blindly defend it. Such people bring to mind the more silly defenders of President Bush's final years.
No I don't say that just because they are using blatant Bush tactics:
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.
It is more because there is a certain intellectual acrobatic ability that would be admirable if it wasn't so scary. I will give you an example of what I am talking about:
...But I also see Ana Marie Cox's first-off Twitter: "Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush." And while less than generous, I think she's on to the root of the matter. But perhaps not precisely in the way she thinks.
This is an odd award. You'd expect it to come later in Obama's presidency
(I gagged at this part)
and tied to some particular event or accomplishment
(and I laughed at this part).
But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.
Even if you buy the idea that he is "steering the ship in a different direction," which I don't, this is just silly. The basic argument is that he deserves this prestigious award for the goal of peace because he has different ideas than someone that the Scandinavian elite don't like. Note that I say different ideas and not different policies.
As for the "dark aberration," fine, now you know how some of us feel about FDR. But it is not enough to be someone other than President Bush. That is not an accomplishment. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed that the next President would not be George Bush. So would you argue that President McCain would be equally deserving of the Nobel Peace prize?
This writer and others like him are either blinded by their hatred of Bush or their love for Obama. Perhaps it is a little bit of both? Either way we have to prepare ourselves for at least 3 more years of Bush style politics.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 10, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
"3 more years of Bush style politics"
I pray that they will be that good. I miss Bush. He knew how to make decisions.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-10 7:54:14 AM
You probably won't have much to complain about then, Zeb. Obama has shown he can make decisions. In fact, remarkably little of substance has changed under him so far, and any changes will likely be gradual. People of sense knew this would be the case, and the voters are beginning to find it out.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-10 9:48:56 AM
You know so much more than I about international attitudes that I hesitate to disagree with your few paragraphs regarding the above award. But, based on my reading of the news, I do not believe the Bush administration was as unpopular or hated in the whole world as you state.
Pres. Bush established a good working relationship with China, India, and Brazil. He was a good friend to Columbia, which in my view was a good thing. India had not been regarded as friendly to the U.S. for a long time. Many countries in the Mideast relied on Pres. Bush to protect them from Iran's ambitions (albeit quietly), and in Africa there was genuine appreciation for his Aids project.
On the other hand, North Korea, Iran, and Russia have not given our new President any actions he can call a success - one might say quite the opposite.
I believe that by raising settlements in West Bank as a major issue early on Pres. Obama in fact set the stage for new Palestinian intransigence, undermining good work Bush administration had done there to create an alternative to Hamas. Now are we headed for another intifada because of the pressure our present administration put on Abbas?
And the Russian bear is signaling that our new approach to misslle shield in Eastern Europe "raises questions"?
I don't care that much about the Nobel one way or another as it does seem to be European-centric.
I am more concerned about the future of our country.
I do not understand the Bush hatred, any more than I understand what to me are crazy "birthers" opposing Pres. Obama. But I believe Bush hatred was a phenomenon primarily of left Democrats in this country and in Europe. And I guess they are the opinion makers of the world.
Posted by: YO | 2009-10-10 10:38:02 AM
Exchange reposted from a largely U.S. "Conservative" list:
I always suspected prizes like this were a joke, and God knows there has been plenty of evidence to back it up. I'd like to here the justification. Maybe Jack Danforth has it right:
“What's he done? He’s announced the closing of Guantanamo Bay,” says Danforth. “He’s announced that he’s getting rid of enhanced interrogation. He’s announced he’s getting out of Iraq. He’s clearly revisiting his prior commitment to Afghanistan. And, on various occasions, he’s gone around the world apologizing for the United States. That’s what the Europeans like to hear.”
=========================
Yah, that sounds about right. No more torture. No more torture prision where people are held indefinitely without charges on a theory that said prision is outside the boundaries of the United States. Less commitment to the United States as World Policeman. Apologies for Americans acting like fools in sticking their noses into everyone else's business for the last 50 years. Sounds about right.
But if that explanation doesn't catch the essence, here's the explanation of the self-certified intellectual leader of contemporary U.S.A. Conservatism, the honorable Rush Limbaugh: http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m10d9-Video--Rush-Limbaugh-goes-on-verbal-assault-regarding-Obamas-Nobel-Peace-Prize
Posted by: Craig J. Bolton | 2009-10-10 7:36:40 PM
They nominated Obama for just being elected. When you look through the list of NB Peace Prize winners, Obama starts to look like a joke. But the bigger joke was Al Gore. He got it for making a movie. Isn't that what the Oscars are for?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
Posted by: GF | 2009-10-13 4:44:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.