"Pop quiz: What do Bertha von Suttner, Henri La Fontaine, Ludwig Quidde, Norman Angell, Arthur Henderson, Eisaku Sato, Alva Myrdal and Joseph Rotblat have in common?
Answer: Barack Obama.
If you're drawing blanks on most of these names, don't be hard on yourself: They're just some of the worthies of yesteryear who were favored with a Nobel Peace Prize before disappearing into the footnotes of history.
On the other hand, if you're among those who think Mr. Obama's Nobel was misjudged and premature, not to say absurd, then you really know nothing about the values and thinking that have informed a century of prize giving. Far from being an aberrant choice, President Obama was the ideal one, Scandinavianally speaking."
Stephens doesn't think that the Obama prize is really that far off the charts judging by past Nobel awards. Yes, he points to awards to Yasser Arafat and others as being "grotesque" and to others as being "inspired" but they are more the exception than the rule.
"most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of the sorts of people the late Oriana Fallaci liked to call "the Goodists."
"Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good."
So, Obama is a perfect candidate for an Peace Prize, he's in good company with other folks who, at the end, didn't amount to a hill of beans. But his selection is reflective of their selection and, therefore, quite the norm.
Read the full article, A Perfect Nobel Pick
Well, that's what I have to say.
Stephen M. Flatow
No comments:
Post a Comment