Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Most everyone I know was stunned
by President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace
Prize. But it’s not people’s initial
reaction that I want to discuss, but rather
their second and third thoughts, which tell us
a lot about our collective condition. It’s
also something we have the power to do
something about.
I must admit that I was among those who were taken aback when the Nobel Committee named Obama. In fact, I remember going online that morning only to see the headline and wonder if this was some kind of news spoof. Had he achieved enough, yet? Of course, it wasn’t some kind of trick. The Nobel Committee awarded Obama the prize as part of his aspiration-based approach to politics and world peace.
What followed maybe says more about us than about either the Nobel Committee or the president. Those who consider themselves Obama’s loyal opposition came out swinging. Rush Limbaugh said, “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama." He was joined by a chorus of negativity from his many friends.
But, Limbaugh is not alone. Those who pride themselves as Obama supporters can be heard vehemently heralding the president. It’s as if he can do no wrong, and no one can say anything remotely critical.
I actually liked the responses that came from the two 2008 presidential candidates who ran against each other. Obama said of his Nobel Peace Prize, “Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." Senator John McCain was quick to say, “As Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."
I know they deftly calibrated their comments before issuing them. But they did so because they care about public life, the fact that they see themselves as part of a larger conversation, and they recognize the potential impact of what they say.
Over the years I have made it a point to take on “both sides” of our political debate when people dig in their heels and simply parrot predictable lines. Let me be clear. I am not in favor a kind of Miss Manners Civility that drains the public square of emotion and candor. When we wring out passion we strip out meaning. Indeed, the answer to people’s anger and anxiety nowadays is not to drive their concerns and them underground, but to listen, engage, and figure out what’s possible for moving ahead.
But here’s the kicker. It is not just pundits, celebrities and politicians who contaminate public life; we must see our own role, too. When we assume hard and fast positions in ways that squeeze out room for others to try out their own views, search for possible common ground, and engage in real debate – well, then, we essentially close down the public realm. And that’s what I think is happening with the Obama peace prize discussion.
I was in Santa Fe the morning the Nobel was announced - working with teams from three communities. That morning, my good friend Karen Aldridge Eason, with whom I’m working on a Kellogg Foundation-support initiative, said to me that I would write about it this week. I told her “No way!” that I didn’t want to jump into this debate. Walking away from me, she replied, “Oh, yes you will!” As usual, Karen was right. I don’t want to stand by and watch the further coarsening of our public discourse and say nothing. There’s more at stake than a prize.
Most everyone I know was stunned
by President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace
Prize. But it’s not people’s initial
reaction that I want to discuss, but rather
their second and third thoughts, which tell us
a lot about our collective condition. It’s
also something we have the power to do
something about.
I must admit that I was among those who were taken aback when the Nobel Committee named Obama. In fact, I remember going online that morning only to see the headline and wonder if this was some kind of news spoof. Had he achieved enough, yet? Of course, it wasn’t some kind of trick. The Nobel Committee awarded Obama the prize as part of his aspiration-based approach to politics and world peace.
What followed maybe says more about us than about either the Nobel Committee or the president. Those who consider themselves Obama’s loyal opposition came out swinging. Rush Limbaugh said, “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama." He was joined by a chorus of negativity from his many friends.
But, Limbaugh is not alone. Those who pride themselves as Obama supporters can be heard vehemently heralding the president. It’s as if he can do no wrong, and no one can say anything remotely critical.
I actually liked the responses that came from the two 2008 presidential candidates who ran against each other. Obama said of his Nobel Peace Prize, “Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." Senator John McCain was quick to say, “As Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."
I know they deftly calibrated their comments before issuing them. But they did so because they care about public life, the fact that they see themselves as part of a larger conversation, and they recognize the potential impact of what they say.
Over the years I have made it a point to take on “both sides” of our political debate when people dig in their heels and simply parrot predictable lines. Let me be clear. I am not in favor a kind of Miss Manners Civility that drains the public square of emotion and candor. When we wring out passion we strip out meaning. Indeed, the answer to people’s anger and anxiety nowadays is not to drive their concerns and them underground, but to listen, engage, and figure out what’s possible for moving ahead.
But here’s the kicker. It is not just pundits, celebrities and politicians who contaminate public life; we must see our own role, too. When we assume hard and fast positions in ways that squeeze out room for others to try out their own views, search for possible common ground, and engage in real debate – well, then, we essentially close down the public realm. And that’s what I think is happening with the Obama peace prize discussion.
I was in Santa Fe the morning the Nobel was announced - working with teams from three communities. That morning, my good friend Karen Aldridge Eason, with whom I’m working on a Kellogg Foundation-support initiative, said to me that I would write about it this week. I told her “No way!” that I didn’t want to jump into this debate. Walking away from me, she replied, “Oh, yes you will!” As usual, Karen was right. I don’t want to stand by and watch the further coarsening of our public discourse and say nothing. There’s more at stake than a prize.