Turn It Down


Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

39 Responses

  1. Freddie says:

    Yeah. Turn it down; let’s move on.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    It strikes me as yet another “who isn’t George Bush? Let’s give it to him!” award in the vein of giving it to Al Gore.

    I see it as intended to be a pointed message to his predecessor (and assorted hangers-on) rather than an attempt to celebrate the new era of fluffyness that Obama has ushered us into.Report

  3. If the President has the balls to turn this down, I will be EXTREMELY impressed and more than a little bit surprised. I think it would be a huge PR win for him here at home and with a very full domestic agenda, he needs American goodwill far more than that of Europe at the moment.

    After the complete embarrassment which were the Obamas’ two speeches in Denmark, I have been more than a little concerned that the President’s ego is getting to be a real liability. Declining this award would be a great step back towards reality.Report

  4. Bob Cheeks says:

    This is Socialist Europe acknowledging the greatness, the wisdom, the truth of THE MAN!
    Eleven days in office and the NPP!!!
    Please, dude, don’t turn it down, please, please, please (in the words of the immortal, James Brown).Report

  5. Michael Drew says:

    I had the same thought, but dismissed it immediately because it is unserious. In fact, if he wants to move on, the thing to do is accept it, take the hit, and then get on with the moving on. The bigger event, the prima donna move,the statement that his view of matters is the most important one, is to turn it down, much as I suspect he’d like to.

    You turn down this prize only if you have contempt for it; doing so is a statement of such contempt and can only be such. This is not a public award: the Nobel Committee decides who receives their awards. It is not up to the president of the United States to second guess their judgment. Accept and move on.Report

  6. Zach says:

    Instead of turning down the prize he ought to accept it on the condition that he give the acceptance speech in Islamabad and use the momentum leading up to that to make some peace related progress regarding Af/Pak or India/Pakistan nonproliferation or nonaggression pacts.Report

  7. We’ll find out momentarily what he’s going to do. The speech was apparently pushed back a bit, so maybe he will decline….Report

  8. North says:

    If he cares a damn about his domestic agenda he will turn it down. Very politely and humbly but he will need to turn it down. The only people it will impress are the peeps already in his collumn. The right wingers will froth and the undecideds will yawn and the leaners will likely lean away from him.

    His decision should make for a very interesting window into what is more important to him. Adulation or accomplishment.Report

  9. Michael Drew says:

    I’m not concerned about the Nobel Committee — they can take it, they have before. I’m maybe a little concerned about the optics of the U.S. president turning it down, but as you are suggesting, it would probably endear him to may here and would be a good move by that measure. Depending on how it was done, he might avoid it being a contemptuous move, I’ll concede. If you look at the history of people turning down Nobels, it’s never because they second-guess the judgement; it’s always because of a principled belief about the nature of reward itself, or because they have contempt for the exercise.

    But none of that was my point. You said he should turn it down so we can move on. I say turning it down is the opposite of moving on. Turning it down is the ego-driven, self-aggrandizing, prima donna move that increases attention to himself and the award. He is not in control of this development; the low-key way to move on is to do the customary and gracious thing: accept politely (with a low-key speech) and go on about your business.Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

      We’ll see what he says momentarily, though. For the record, I agree the committee has marginalized and enfeebled itself with this selection. But they care little about our American opinions. This is a non-American award made for a non-American audience for explicitly political reasons. I was just reading where part of what explicitly guides them in this selection is not just a recognition of work that promotes peace, but also where possible to endeavor to strengthen the cause of peace by the conferral itself. That may be what they think they are doing by doing this. They may very well be grievously miscalculating, but then I do not move in those circles where the conferral of this award the Committee may think it could enhance our president’s clout in ways they think could advance the agenda they support. One thing this is not is a lifetime achievement award, and the Committee probably has the leeway in its bylaws and whatnot to do this. Nevertheless I still stand by the view I stated above — I think they are erring, even by their own lights. But I am not sure. It will definitely be interesting to see how he handles this. Perhaps he’ll stun us.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

        Nope: accepted “as a call to action.”Report

      • adolphus in reply to Michael Drew says:

        You said, “For the record, I agree the committee has marginalized and enfeebled itself with this selection. ”

        I have seen this a lot on the tubes this morning, and for the record my continued reaction to this award is WTF?, but the more I read of international reaction, the sentiment should be amended that this award has marginalized and enfeebled itself with this selection IN THE EYES OF AMERICANS. Much of the international community, including former Peace Prize winners, appears to be positive.

        Of course it is as early in the “fallout” phase as it is in Obama’s presidency, but the only people in the international community who have expressed outrage are the Taliban and Hamas. Again, it is early and this could absolutely change. But the only people who seem to think this diminishes the Nobel committee are Americans who think the world is defined by our politics.Report

        • Michael Drew in reply to adolphus says:

          That’s what I’m getting at where i say that i don’t move in the circles where the question of who gets the Peace Prize still has some significance. Maybe the members are perfect realists about the effects of this on the people who might still be influenced by it for what they consider the good, or maybe they’re perfect fools about it, I just have no idea. No doubt among the chattering classes here people regard it with disdain. I do about the “average man” here : maybe he’s just like, “Cool.” Who knows?Report

    • adolphus in reply to Michael Drew says:

      See: Marlon Brando, Oscars, Sacheen LittlefeatherReport

  10. Zach says:

    On second thought, he should accept the prize and mail it to John Bolton.

    I think people going “what the hell are they thinking” don’t quite appreciate the impact, symbolically and realistically, of transitioning from a United States that appointed a UN ambassador who’s primary cause in life was dissolving the UN to one that made UN ambassador a cabinet-level position.

    And, yeah, you’d have to have the PR acumen of the McClellan-vintage Bush White House to not be able to wind up with a positive spin on winning a Peace Prize without giving it back.Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to Zach says:

      “you’d have to have the PR acumen of the McClellan-vintage Bush White House to not be able to wind up with a positive spin on winning a Peace Prize without giving it back.’

      Right. This is not in fact a disaster.Report

  11. E.D. Kain says:

    Thanks for the updates Will.

    I just think the Nobel folks should ask the civilians whose families have been killed by drones and airstrikes in Afghanistan if they Obama deserves the Peace prize. Maybe the Nobel folks wanted to give Obama the prize before we could justifiably start calling the wars “Obama’s Wars.”Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to E.D. Kain says:

      Two words: Yasser Arafat. Two more: Henry Kissinger. This is the Nobel Peace Prize, not the World-Consensus-Most-Peace-Promoting-Person Peace Prize. They do things the Nobel way, according to Nobellian logic. Remember who Nobel was.Report

  12. Freddie says:

    Can I make something clear? The prize has been awarded many times to people who have not yet accomplished specific goals for peace but rather have initiated the process. That doesn’t mean I like it. But it’s incredible the number of people who are lashing out at this without even a cursory understanding of the history of the prize.Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to Freddie says:

      True, but other than the missile defense issue (which really does deserve at least some emphasis – it’s not exactly small potatoes), Obama hasn’t really initiated any peace process yet.

      Also – so far as I can tell (I have no access to audio), the acceptance speech seems like it was as good as could be hoped for under the circumstances.Report

      • Kyle in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        Yeah and the nominations were due on February 1st, so even if the vote was persuaded by presidential actions…he was nominated – at the latest – days after being inaugurated…Report

        • Mark Thompson in reply to Kyle says:

          I think the nomination side of this is pretty unremarkable though given the large number of nominees there are in any given year. Hell, George Bush was nominated fairly consistently.Report

          • Kyle in reply to Mark Thompson says:

            heh, George Bush and John Bolton, perennially bad choices.

            I just meant to give more credence to the idea that as much as people are saying he hasn’t done much, he had done a whole lot less when he was entered into the running.

            Which is to say, after the inaugural I thought, “hmm good speech, great day.” Not, “get this man a Nobel Peace Prize.”

            Though, Freddie’s point and yours are well taken.Report

    • E.D. Kain in reply to Freddie says:

      It seems to me they’d have done better waiting until some specific goal was attained. It would have carried more weight.Report

    • Bob Cheeks in reply to Freddie says:

      A true believer, Fred, ever faithful….that’s great!Report

  13. Ugh. Opposition to this award is now akin to supporting terrorism? Crikey. What the hell is this, 2003?

    ““The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.”Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Mark Thompson says:

      I don’t want to be, yet again, the first guy to bring up Hitler in any given League thread.

      And yet here I stand.Report

    • ““The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.”

      Yeah, that’s classless. Doesn’t Woodhouse know that Obama pals around with terrorists?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        I would like to know if Brad Woodhouse realizes that Hamas was legitimately elected and if he would like to insult more democracies that are being oppressed by western cultures in the Middle East.

        Perhaps he could mock Rachel Corrie as a follow-up.Report

  14. Michael Drew says:

    What do they do if he gets the two-state solution or reunites Korea (the good way)? If I’m Barack Obama I’m pissed that they sullied my Peace Prize this way.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Michael Drew says:

      They could cease calling it the Nobel Peace Prize and start calling it the Obama Peace Prize.

      Now that I think about it, I wonder why they haven’t renamed it to that yet.Report

  15. Creon Critic says:

    “The great honour bestowed on me by the awarding of this prize can only, I believe, be understood as an encouragement to my political endeavours, not as a final judgement upon them.”

    The opening of Willy Brandt’s acceptance of the peace prize in 1971. As Freddie remarked @ 12, Obama’s award is in line with the history of the prize.

    A president who’s so adored that he is, by some peoples’ lights, unwisely awarded the Nobel Prize – or – a president who’s so toxic that even when proposing sensible reforms at the UN, allies have trouble sticking around?Report

  16. zic says:

    Sure. Just say no to peace.

    That’s about as dumb a notion as I can imagine.Report

  17. This is Obama’s Mission Accomplished moment. The difference being that Obama didn’t award himself the prize.Report

  18. Michael Steele must get today’s Douchebag of the Day award:

    “the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”

    Though if you made him eligible, you might as well retire the award.Report