Posted on 11 Oct 2009 at 11:22am By GavinoLiberals love giving awards. A large number of interests groups, campaigning on everything from animal rights to social welfare, together with a whole string of liberal arts organizations such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, confer a welter of awards to honor those who have made a special contribution to sharing their values.
Never has this been so clear to so many people around the world than with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to America’s most liberal post-war President just nine months into his four year term of office and before he could achieve anything of substance to advance the cause of global harmony.
Peace or elitism?
The world’s most powerful person need not have been so embarrassed to join this particular honor roll. Openly supportive of progressive causes since it honored anti-nuclear campaigner Joseph Rotblat of the Pugwash Conferences in 1995, the Nobel Peace Prize has become just another politicized award. Its value seemingly decreases with each passing year, taking a significant credibility dive in 2007 when it was presented to Al Gore for producing perhaps the most infamous and alarmist propaganda movie of modern times.
As with the Oscars, a certain mystique surrounds the Nobel Peace Prize, as a politburo of commissioners dispenses its patronage. This small cadre of individuals alone is possessed with the power and – in their view – the collective wisdom to adjudicate on behalf of civil society. Any notion of democracy, openness or broader representation is vanquished. Regular folks are considered far too crude and uneducated to participate in such judgments.
All this is simply a character trait of liberalism. President Obama and the Democratic Congress are busy establishing more panels and adjudicators to determine winners and losers in everything from health care to consumer finance and carbon dioxide trading. The President has appointed over thirty “Czars” to oversee key areas of U.S. society. The liberal dream is for a Supreme Court manned by progressives who assert that the Constitution evolves in ways only they can determine and who rule according to their political sentiment instead of the established law.
As people around the world question the appropriateness of President Obama’s award, could the Nobel Committee become a metaphor for liberal orthodoxy? Will its fundamentally undemocratic, prejudiced and elitist nature come under the spotlight? If so, with its ludicrous choice, the five-person Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee may have unintentionally advanced the cause of freedom.
I have no particular beef with liberals rewarding their own for apparent services rendered (as long as it is recognised for what it is – political cronyism). It is, in this case, that word apparent which is at dispute. If Obama had actually achieved something substantive for peace, then fine – let the commissioners reward him. But he has not – he may yet do so, but to date, nada. The scrutiny of this award has brought the partisan politics of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee more starkly to the fore and has left its reputation seriously damaged. Obama should not be particularly embarrassed by this award – the Nobel cabal should be deeply so.
A predictable outcome of years of Liberal incest.
This has nothing to do with President Obama but simply the latest manifistation of hatred for George Bush and European jealousy of the USA. I think this is simply an effort by an Aristocratic European organization to encourage the President to continue on his path of making America more like Europe. As I’ve said before – misery loves company!
Arguing in generalities is facile. I see and hear many Americans arguing that Europe is jealous of the USA. Jealous of what precisely? Jealous of the fading economy, increasing poverty, declining education standards, a xenophobic foreign policy, America’s self-appointment as ‘the world’s sherriff’? Ad hominem arguments always descend to the ‘we’re better than you’ level which takes us back to the playground, or worse, prehistory where the best fed and strongest physically imposed their will on the less well off. Europe (a polyglot of widely differing views) may look askance at America from time to time, but Europe can’t be said to be jealous of the US simply because their individual views do not accord with those of differing political persuasions in the US.
“I may not be able to say who developed the (HIV) virus but it was meant to wipe out the Black race,” said the 1st African Female Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Muta Maathai from Kenya who received the award in 2004. President Barack Husein Obama will be in good company now since he is used to hearing this theory from his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright as he has preached that America is the “No. 1 killer in the world” and blamed the country for launching the AIDS virus to maintain affluence at the expense of the Third World. The updated definition of Nobel Peace Prize Winner = elite environmental-minded anti-America socialist liberal professor who helps the advancement of a global socialist agenda.
@Kiwi
I ‘m assuming you were addressing my misery loves company post.
I wasn’t making a broad statement about Europe but addressing my comments directly to the Nobel Prize committee (I think this is simply an effort by an Aristocratic European organization to encourage the President to continue on his path of making America more like Europe.)
That’s semantics and unimportant. I would like to address some of your other points though.
When you make reference to our “xenophobic foreign policy” are you referring to our anti-AIDS effort in Africa, started by George Bush and unmatched by any other nation? Perhaps you’re referring to our support of Georgia against Russian aggression. When you talk about America’s role as a self-appointed world sheriff my mind is immediately drawn to US efforts in the Balkans or maybe even working to isolate N. Korea. The reality is that you’re probably referring to our Middle East policy, specifically Iraq. While I wish we had done many things different in the run-up to and conduct of the war, President Bush didn’t have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. In the 90′s and leading up to the invasion of Iraq there was general agreement in the intelligence community both domestically and internationally that Sadaam Hussein had or was pursuing nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that there were European leaders who desired to stop Hussein from acquiring and using nucs. The problem was that their feckless militaries were incapable of doing anything – unlike the US, they were incapable, not unwilling, of going it alone. This impotence has understandably driven European foreign policy over the years. Lots of talk but nothing to back it up. Even on the playground this type of behavior is met with scorn by both big and small. What’s going on in Afghanistan is a perfect example; our NATO allies have lots of great ideas about how to more effectively use US troops than our bumbling Generals.
This leads me to your comments about our moribund economy, failing education system, and ever growing poverty. This attitude is surely driven by jealousy, thinking that the mighty US is finally getting its comeuppance. The US economy has been prematurely written off many times, particularly in the 70s and 80s, only to come roaring back. We probably could plus up our spending on domestic programs if we would just cut back on our profligate defense spending – we’d be the world’s largest Norway! Don’t get me wrong, I love Norway but that is not the position the US finds itself in.
Finally, I, and most Americans, could care less what the Europeans think about our country or how they run their lives. I just wish we’d be given the same latitude. That was my only point about the Nobel Peace prize. Obama received it simply because he is perceived to be more willing to align himself with international efforts deemed acceptable to the European aristocracy. The fact is, George Bush probably was more deserving of it for his efforts in Africa but the European hatred of a man who put his country first would never garner such an affirmation.
As with most things in life, when I look at other countries there are always things I agree with and disagree with going on simultaneously but if it doesn’t effect my family’s or my nation’s well-being, I generally let it be. A good example is your country ( I’m assuming you are a Kiwi) in the 80s. David Lange embarked on a retooling of the NZ economy which I agreed with but prevented the US Destroyer Buchanon from pulling into a NZ port which I disagreed with. NZ, as a sovereign nation, was perfectly in its right to do both of these things and the US was also in its rights to curtail the scope of the ANZUS alliance- which it did – in response. Now was this the action of an overbearing nation imposing its will on a weaker nation? Or was this more of a case of a country which had willingly aligned itself with a stronger nation in order to enjoy enhanced economic and security benefits wanting to have its cake and eat it too? I guess it all has to do with perspective.