I will tell you flat out, I thought it was an Onion-like scam when I saw the WAPO breaking news email in my Mac account. I honestly looked the page over for the "tell" that said, this is one glorious joke. I mean, this is just after SNL's devastating takedown Saturday night (which I caught live).
The stunning bit of the story is that he had to have been nominated only two weeks into office.
Yes, he changes our foreign policy tone, and that matters a whole helluva lot.
Yes, he's done nothing rash in Iraq (which fades nicely with little-to-no effort from him) and will probably do only the politically expedient in Af-Pak (but maybe his spine stiffens a bit on nation-building thanks to the award?).
As for citing his call to rid the world of nukes, that one is just weak. Every president has done that at one time or another. Getting the UN to vote for it was historic but meaningless--purely aspirational.
None of that adds up to serious achievement.
So why the award?
I wrote Great Powers because I came to the conclusion that Americans had no sense of how much we had scared the world the previous seven years (more a problem of the Right) and little understanding (definitely on the Left) of how America was the one country in the world that could kill globalization--its greatest gift to date to the planet. The fear in America was one thing (e.g., our sense that we went off course in foreign policy, were unsustainable in our economics, and were feared more than respected--and we really do prefer respect for a lot of logical reasons surrounding our "shining city on the hill" example throughout history), but the fear in the world was another--especially in retiring Europe. I think we had come to the point where, in our mania over such extremes as terrorism and CO2 (the Bush narrative and Gore counter-narrative), we were simply giving the world this vibe that we no longer recognized this system of our creating, which, quite frankly, the vast bulk of the world, emerging successfully as it is, really and truly appreciates (to include a retiring Europe that has no stomach for any serious remaking effort in the aftermath of our trashing).
So here comes Obama, showing that he's entirely sensitive to this vibe--this intense fear of America being off-track from its own creation and possibly considering destroying it in a fit of pique (admit it, we all would have been scared of McCain going off some deep end under the right circumstances). He says all sorts of soothing things and makes all the defensible gestures (like the holier-than-thou stance on nukes, which will never happen but which makes the nervous types feel better as North Korea and Iran come online), and he signals a clear post-Euro-centric-view, meaning he's sensitive to Russia's rise, China's rise, Brazil's rise, India's rise and so on, and yeah, even that makes the Europeans a lot more relaxed ("This isn't some American wing-nut committed to "containing" every rising power!").
Obama simply comes off as highly realistic and pragmatic about where the world is, in its current evolution, which is momentous (the evolution, that is, and--apparently--Obama's response too!). He represents an America that will do nothing dangerous at a point in history in which we represent, quite franky (and I said this in Great Powers), the one country capable of really screwing things up.
So, in many ways, the award is a measure of fear in the system. It is simply a signal.
What will Obama do with this gift? I honestly don't worry too much about that. I voted for the guy because I wanted careful. Will I always be happy with just careful? God, no. And I'm already expressing my frustration in that regard. But careful sure beats strategically self-destructive, and apparently Oslo wants the world to know that right now.
I plan to write my WPR column for Monday on this now.
Since I expect to get plenty of such responses, here's one from Andrew in DC and my reply, just to save some people from unnecessary effort:
ANDREW IN DC WRITES:
Stunning is a good word for it. Laughable would be a better one. Tom, you yourself deride his calls for a nuclear-free world as both foolhardy and potentially destabilizing. How can you turn around and say Obama simply comes off as highly realistic and pragmatic about where the world is, in its current evolution, -- he doesn't. Where, exactly, is his realism when he implements protectionist measures against China? Where's his moves toward peace as he stands idly by during the Iranian protests in June? Where is his realism toward the hermetic little monster in North Korea? Or his pragmatism when dealing with Israel? Even in the relatively clean-cut situation of Honduras, his indecisions have caused unnecessary tension and strife. And now he teeters on siding with Biden's absurd plan for Afghanistan from which no good can come.
We elected the man with no real accomplishments and a small leftist committee in Norway has now awarded him with a formerly renown prize on the same basis. I can't say I'm wholly surprised - but we should restrain ourselves from making very tenuous logical leaps to try to rationalize their decision.
AND HERE'S MY REPLY:
Andrew,
The big picture isn't a collection of snapshots. You're letting your emotion equal your analysis.
Obama comes to office in a world a lot of people are convinced is spiraling toward 1930s-like collapse and conflict. His potential for missteps is gargantuan.
But where has Obama made any irreversible mistakes to date? Nowhere.
You want him to fix DPRK? You're dreaming. You want him to make democracy appear magically in Iran? You're dreaming. You deride him for the tariff tactic on China, but that's peanuts compared to what he got in Pittsburgh (the elevation to the G-20 and the tie-in on the IMF is truly historic). Do you expect him to never flash a stick amidst carrots?
Yes, he makes the same idealistic call on nukes that every president before articulates, and gets an unprecedented UN resolution on it. But he also ditches a stupid missile shield in east Europe and hasn't freaked out one whit over either North Korea or Iran. So where has he left the ranch? The White House already declares no troop decline in AFghanistan. I believe there should be an increase, but I respect the opinion of those who argue against an up-tick, believing there's plenty of realism and pragmatism in that stance too.
So some perspective please and a little bit less partisanship.
You cite tactics he's engaged in, but you have to look at the larger relationships, all of which have been dramatically improved or stabilized during THE WORST ECONOMIC CRISIS IN SEVEN DECADES. Meanwhile, America's standing goes from despised to admired overnight. You may not see any accomplishment in that, and you may be unhappy with tactics in many situations, but to say the guy's been anything other than realistic and pragmatic, given his hand and this point in history, is just plain wrong. Too careful perhaps, but that's about as heavy a charge you can lay. I have no idea what your definition of realistic is, if you expected Kim to be gone, Ahmadinejad to fall, Zelaya to magically disappear and America's middle-class anger and fear over China to be whisked away.
You're clearly pissed, and any attempt to provide larger perspective now angers you further. I get that.
But this prize isn't about political partisanship inside the U.S. Again, it was a clear signal from an old friend.
As usual, though, America is too obsessed with itself to notice.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 1:01PM 
