There is an active discussion going on over at Politico’s Arena about Obama’s Nobel Prize, so I thought I’d throw open the topic to readers of The Monkey Cage as well.
To get the conversation started, two points. First, for people who study this sort of thing, is the awarding of the prize to Obama “unique”? I ask this based on the assumption (which could be wrong) that in the past, the award has generally been used to recognize achievement, whereas this particular decision seems to be based more on rewarding a shift in the US’s approach to diplomacy that the committee hopes will bear fruit in the future.
I also find myself wondering if there is going to be some cost to the Republican Party for its by now almost reflexive anti-Obama spin on everything. After all, a big charge Democrats have been making at Republicans is that they have turned into a party of no, and now we’ve seen the right cheer when the US loses the Olympics and boo when the president wins a Nobel Peace Prize. While John McCain at least was gracious enough to note that “Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order”, RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s response (see here) doesn’t even pause to say “congratulations” before going on the offensive. I continue to wonder if at some point there is going to some sort of backlash against Republicans for this sort of behavior, especially among the independents who will be crucial to their electoral chances in 2010 and beyond. Anyone with research that speaks to this type of question is especially encouraged to respond.
Finally, it is worth checking out Nolan McCarty’s prediction of a surprise second Nobel Prize for Obama that may be coming in the near future!
{ 6 comments }
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Obama to Accept Nobel Peace Prize: ‘A Call to Action’.
Seems pretty unique to most people. I think it must be affirmative action for Nobel Prizes. Maybe this will help to make up for the few chances black Americans have had to be in a world peacemaking role.
This might be worth a look. He does some analysis of previous winners, though his definitions seem a bit sloppy. It was also pre-Obama winning the prize, so it has that going for it. What I mean by this is that Obama’s winning doesn’t impact this analysis.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/30/dangerous_prize
Presidential pets theory: Obama mentioned Bo’s birthday in the first line of his comments this morning in order to insulate himself from the inevitable right-wing attacks that the award means he is a Euro-pansy.
The Washington Post just put up an editorial arguing that the deceased Iranian protester should have won the award instead. The point that selecting Obama was strange and unhelpful is a good one — but Nobel’s cannot be awarded posthumously. How did they miss that? Seems like a significant mistake to write an editorial advancing an ineligible candidate over the actual recipient.
Isn’t this similar to what the Democrats were doing the previous 8 years of Bush? Minority parties always play the obstructionist role, although it does seem to get worse every year. My strategy is just to stop listening to jackasses……..so consider it an endorsement that I’ll read your posts.
Comments on this entry are closed.