P U L S E

News of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to yet another war profiteer was received with shock from both sides of the political spectrum when Barack Hussein Obama was named the winner last week. American historian, intellectual and long-time peace activist Howard Zinn’s reaction was fair and to the point:

I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.

Conversely, famed right-wing radio-host Rush Limbaugh shared Zinn’s dismay and disapproval, although for different reasons:

He’s not only the first post-racial president; he’s also the nation’s first post-accomplishment president. He has risen above incompetence. He’s now judged on wishful thinking. Gore, Carter, Obama…Don’t worry about it, Mr. President, your day is coming. Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton, you see a pattern here, folks? Liberal sellouts get this prize.

The following latter part of Limbaugh’s spiel is cited because quoting the hate-monger is a necessary evil. No matter how confused and demented his ideas may be, he is referred to by many as the voice of millions of American Republicans:

George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims. Ronald Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans, saves parts of Latin America. Any awards? No. Just derision. Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it. This actually makes total sense when you look at who these Nobel people are, these elite Norwegians, Europeans. They love what Obama is doing. And this fully exposes, folks, the illusion that is Obama. This is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympics bid was, and Obama got it right. He knows exactly why he was given this award. The elites of the world are urging him, a man of peace to not do the surge in Afghanistan, they are urging him not to take on Iran. If you want to get serious about this for a minute that is what this is really all about.

The fact that two polar opposites in the American political sphere actually agree with one other about Obama is symbolic of an ironic trend that is currently surging through American political debate. Admittedly, Obama’s centrist positions leave almost everyone wanting to push him off the fence, but isn’t it ironic that many factions of the Left and Right are constantly united by what amounts to incessant criticism of this one person? Most Leftist rage also seems to be directed specifically at Obama rather than at the Democratic Party as a whole, an imprudent mistake in and of itself.  Lest we forget that for all the people who cite him as a liar for failing to close down Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp, only a few have provided any meaningful commentary about how his own party’s refusal to back up his initiative actually aided the Republicans in voting out this possibility in the first place. Perhaps even more importantly, the Left’s constant and seemingly insatiable disapproval of the President’s decisions and indecisions have also succeeded in keeping the spotlight off the Republican Party – a tactical advantage over the Left that the Right didn’t even have to work for.

Certainly, as Tariq Ali noted on Democracy Now! this past Friday, there are many people who are far more deserving of the prize, but rather than join the likes of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly in bashing Obama for winning the award (remember, he had no control over the committee’s decision) wouldn’t it be more effective to use it as a peace promoting incentive?

Writer and filmmaker Michael Moore issued two posts on his website following the news of Obama’s win.  His initial response was in line with many other prominent progressives in arguing that Obama didn’t deserve the prize, which was uncharacteristic of him considering his unwavering support of Obama in the past. However, after considering the Right’s response to the President’s win, Moore modified his stance with a second post and did something the Left does not engage in nearly as much it needs to considering all its failures – Moore turned his critical eye away from Obama and onto himself:

I went back and re-read what I had written. And I listened for far too long yesterday to the right wing hate machine who did what they could to crap all over Barack’s big day. Did I — and others on the left — do the same?

Obama is no Nelson Mandela and never claimed he was. He is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and would not have gotten to that position had he been a radical or seriously progressive in any way. He is actively continuing two wars that were perpetuated by the previous administration and has not ruled out the prospects for more war in the near future. He also has the blood of thousands of innocent Afghans, Palestinians and Iraqis on his hands and should never be allowed to forget this. That being said, he is also doing things to infuriate the GOP, which means he must be doing something right as well. Indeed, if all goes well, the Obama administration may even be listed as the indirect source of Dick Cheney’s next heart attack.

All jokes aside though, there is definitely a part of me that wants to argue that since Obama is unlikely to be elected again, he has nothing holding him back from engaging in some radical politics which will at least enable him to go down with a bang.  But then reality sets in — since I know that he is first and foremost a politician and would never do such a thing — and I am forced to consider other alternatives. All right, Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he, like many other recipients, didn’t deserve it.  We all agree on the absurdity of this notion, but now what? Should we engage in the expected outcome, that is, spend the next week regurgitating our outrage and making lists (that anyone could produce) explaining why Obama doesn’t deserve the prize? Or, can we opt for the more result-driven alternative that Moore alluded to in his second response to the win:

Instead of waiting to see what the president is going to do, we all need to be pro-active and push the agenda that we want to see enacted. What keeps us from forming the same local groups we put together to get out the vote last November? C’mon! We’re the majority now — the majority by a significant margin! We call the shots — and we need to tell this wimpy Congress to get busy and do what we say — or else.

I had initially started this post by making an imaginary list of deeds which would have, had Obama partaken in them, actually justified his win of the Nobel Peace Prize, but stopped after asking myself what good I hoped to achieve with it.  With this in mind, I’ll end instead with a quote from Noam Chomsky, which will hopefully help some of the readers I have no doubt infuriated with this piece understand why I have taken this position in the first place:

We shouldn’t be looking for heroes, we should be looking for good ideas.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and he didn’t deserve it. So now what?

He is certainly not our hero, but where is our next good idea?