Does Obama deserve the Nobel peace prize? Do hookers deserve the Oscar for moaning?
(The Nobel peace prize: Pretty pathetic…)
Ah well, so it goes – again, and again, and again…:
“US president in surprise win for ‘extraordinary efforts’ to improve world diplomacy and co-operation. The US president, Barack Obama, said today he was “surprised and deeply humbled” after being awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize, a decision that stunned international experts. “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honoured by this prize,” he said.”
He is quite right, of course.
Obama doesn’t really deserve to be in the company of people like Yasser Arafat (1994) and Menachem Begin (1978), who were both terrorist leaders before they became head of state. Or someone like Obama’s fellow American Henri Kissinger (1973), who was as much of a peace maker as the eponymous Colt Single Action Army (1873) ever was.
Which still begs the question: Did Obama deserve to win the Nobel peace prize?
The lazy answer is, “Why the Hell not?”
It isn’t as if many others on the list of winners actually succeeded in bringing peace in their time – and unlike quite a few others on that list, Obama hasn’t actually started any war or terrorist campaign.
Come to think of it, in that sense he might be slightly over-qualified for this prize – or under-qualified: Compared to some of his illustrious predecessors, Obama’s merely inheriting & continuing two wars should be filed under the Nobel’s ‘Must try harder’ list.
On a less ‘ad absurdum’ note though, does Obama really deserve the Nobel peace prize?
Well, to be brutally honest, only if you think that a politician’s promises mean anything – and history has shown us, time and again, that doing that is like putting your faith in a hooker’s encouraging moans.
The nature of political elections is such that the (leader of the) party that lies most effectively and/or most charmingly wins. Without hollow rhetoric, meaningless promises and mostly baseless scare-mongering democracy as we know it could not exist.
We have come to expect – and grudgingly accept – this fact. We choose those candidates from a field of liars, who we think are the least disgusting or who we guess will serve our personal interests most.
That’s where this tolerance for deception should end, though. The moment that politicians and/or parties have won one of these liars’ contests we call elections, we should judge them on what they actually do while they are in office.
This should, obviously, also be the policy of the Nobel prize committee.
In other words, so far Obama has not delivered anything beyond the usual election type rhetoric. This may change. He might prove to be more than just another self-absorbed, lying politician. He might even end up doing enough to really deserve the Nobel peace prize.
History has taught us though that not many politicians ever came close to living up to their election promises and honeymoon snapshots & sound bites.
So, no: In the same manner that the Olympic Committee doesn’t hand out gold medals for the marathon to someone, mere seconds after the starting shot, the Nobel Committee should not have given the Nobel peace prize to president Obama.
(Blessed are the peacemakers…)
If you enjoyed this post, subscribe today to get free updates by email or RSS.
