Some Thoughts on Obama's Nobel Prize

No, really, I'm not kidding, he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I questioned the prize committee's definition of the word "peace" when Al Gore won it for environmental activism, which seemed a wee bit of a stretch for me. This time around, the committee at least seems to be thinking in the general direction of "peace":

The committee praised Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" during his nine months in office and singled out for special recognition Obama's call for a world free of nuclear weapons, which he first made in an April speech in Prague.

Heralding Obama as a transformative figure in U.S. and international diplomacy, the committee said: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

So. This will, no doubt, make conservatives flip the fuck out. Maybe it'll move his poll numbers among the rest of the population. (Maybe the Nobel committee just wants us to get some decent health care?) But what reaction do I, an American progressive/hippie pinko commie type have to the bestowing of the Peace Prize on the president whom I spent the better part of a year volunteering to get elected?

The snark is flowing fast on Twitter. Melissa Harris-Lacewell: Because he appointed all his electoral adversaries to the cabinet. #ReasonsBHOwonNPP and Because he invited a white policeman over for a beer! #ReasonsBHOwonNPP #BlackMenDontDoThat.

But really, it does seem a little...early? I mean, the man's been president for nine months. The extraordinary goodwill that he's generated around the world? Mostly a result of him so very obviously NOT being George W. Bush. I mean, yes, he's done some things that are impressive. He's given speeches in Muslim countries calling for understanding, he's called for a world without nuclear weapons, he's not behind the coup in Honduras and has actually taken some steps to return the rightful president, etc. He wants to get out of Iraq, though it appears to be going far slower than we'd have hoped.

Let's be clear: we didn't elect Dennis Kucinich. Shit, we KNEW we weren't electing Dennis Kucinich. But I think a lot of us were hoping for more than we've gotten. Pushing for the Patriot Act renewal and more funding for war in Afghanistan harder than he seems to be pushing for a public option on health care is only the latest set of disappointments.

I wonder what's left to give him if he DOES accomplish something major? If he manages to broker peace between Israel and Palestine? Hell, if he actually ends the two wars he inherited? Our own Matt Duss joked: Obama will receive prize on Dec 10. Has until then to end Isr-Pal conflict, get Iran to abandon nukes, end Iraq/Afgh wars. No pressure. (I guess they could always give a prize to Hillary Clinton for all that, and once and for all cause Bill's head to explode: Carter, Gore, Obama and HIS WIFE?)

Others pointed out the massive peaceful protests in Iran this year and how that deserves more of a peace prize than Obama. Mousavi's history with prior Iranian regimes probably discounted him (fairly, I think) but what about acknowledging the people who crowded the streets protesting for change? What about the people in Honduras calling for the return of their president under repressive conditions?

The Nobel Prize and other things like it celebrate individual achievement, but working for peace isn't an individual thing. It requires collective action. It requires solidarity, communication, interaction. It's not like writing a great book (or a great oeuvre). In a way, giving the peace prize to a sitting president while peace protesters are arrested in this country demeans the massive, not-officially-sanctioned peace movement that marched against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet a lot of those people worked to put Obama in office as the best way to stop American warmongering, so perhaps blogger Cyn3matic was right when she said: Nobel Peace Prize=GIANT repudiation of W and the misbegotten Bush-Cheney years. This is the world saying, '08 voters, we AGREE. She noted that she felt vindicated in her anti-war marching years ago by this vote, and so perhaps in some way this is an acknowledgment of all the American people.

Spencer Ackerman thinks so:

But turning it down would be a slap in the face to an international community that is showing, in the most generous way possible, that it wants the U.S. back as a leading component of the global order. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.

So while I see what Obama's done so far as a step in the right direction on some issues, perhaps, but mostly just shifting us back to where we were under Clinton (a place that I was not at all happy to be, so we're clear), I guess the rest of the world thinks something bigger is changing here.

The Peace Progressives

Rob needed a bit of extra time to get his review of the last chapter of Herring's From Colony and Superpower so we are waiting until next Sunday to discuss the next chapter. In his reply on the 1920s last week, he discussed the Peace Progressives. They were a group of lawmakers (largely Republicans from rural states) who believed in world peace and fiscal responsibility. Rob notes:

they made the (almost heretical in the current political climate) connection that weapons cost money, and that the interest of small government is best served by tight limitations on the size of military forces. The pursuit of international routes to peace (Kellogg-Briand Pact, for example) abetted the interest in fiscal responsibility by reducing the need for large military establishments. I think it's odd that this combination (preference for low tax, low domestic expenditure, low defense expenditure) seems to occur so rarely in the American political context; perhaps the development of the military-industrial complex served to capture pro-business (such that the term has any meaning...) legislators, or the perceived threat of communism helped purge Republican party doves?

An interesting point. These Peace Progressives, many of whom became the "isolationists" of the 1930s who tried to stay out of World War II, have been unfairly vilified. Their actions made perfect sense at the time--it seemed that ending war was possible. They didn't respond particularly well to the rise of Hitler and Japanese militarism, but they were also supported by a lot of people in this country. It's highly unfair to accuse them of not foreseeing the rise of Nazi Germany and to laugh at the peace treaties of the 1920s.

I do want to caution though about taking the Peace Progressives as some kind of model today. It sounds great--I'm for peace and I'm a progressive! I'll write more about this, probably tomorrow, particularly in the context of the Progressives of the 1900s and 1910s, but I'm seeing a lot of people on the left starting to identify with these older movements based on the common ground of name and a shared desire to reform. That's fine, but these movements don't provide us much guidance for the present. The Peace Progressives were responding to the disaster of World War I and the violation of Washington's Farewell Address, two issues with virtually no relevance for the present. As I said in my post on the 20s last week, the decade feels like the last gasp of pre-modern America colliding with a young and headstrong moderism. A lot of people, importantly from rural states, were uncomfortable with much of this, including an activist US foreign policy that consistently embroiled the nation with conflicts around the world. As Herring points out, the Peace Progressives did help end the U.S. occupation of Nicaragua, avoid war with Mexico, and cut off funds for naval construction. Surely the first two of these things were very good and the last is ambivalent.

Of course Rob's point remains valid. Almost no one will call for a reduced Defense Department budget. Despite our severe financial problems, this sacred cow cannot be touched. Rob is certainly an expert of absurd military programs, but I'm sure if people started seriously discussing it, Republicans (and many conservative Democrats too) would use a strategy that combined calling Democrats soft on terrorism with saying that the military provides a lot of jobs. The latter point is true but at a very high cost rate per job. Soldiers don't get paid a lot but planes and submarines are insanely expensive for the amount of jobs they create. Barney Frank is arguing for a reduced military budget in The Nation and he is a pretty powerful guy. But he's also a voice in the Congressional wilderness on this issue.