The reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Prize for Peace at the end of the week came as quite a surprise on an otherwise banal news day of business, banks, bombs and bloodshed. And it raised the usual storms of pro and con with sharp crosswinds of bloviation ranging from absurd to zany.  Some think the Prize is deserved, others not, still others believe that the Nobel Committee, Obama, the Pope, Bin Laden and that fellow in North Korea are in some Marxist-Leninist league against the last remaining free, red-blooded, meat-eating  Americans. So what is new? Choosing a worthy candidate out of a large pool is not easy, so whatever the choice, it will end up as a sort of food fight.

The main complaint, though, is that Obama has achieved nothing yet. For the so-called left, America is still embroigled in two pointless wars. And the so-called right is seething because Obama has been seen as reaching out to America's sworn enemies. That, at any rate,  was the substance of Obama’s speech in Cairo, which was held in June. The Nobel Committee came together four months earlier, at which point Obama was still sweeping pretzel crumbs out of the White House, looking for possible cabinet members who had paid their taxes like everyone else, and pushing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through Congress. He also announced a withdrawal from Iraq in 2010, sent more troupes to Afghanistan.

Indeed, not that many strides down the long road to universal peace. So what in earth was that Nobel Committee thinking? They are, after all, a fairly reasonable group, hardly hippies, or liberal college kids, and they are not a part of some sinister and non-existent conspiracy. In their reasoning, they merely described his diplomatic efforts, his vision for a nuclear-free world, and his efforts to bring all nations to the table. This is all material from Obama’s expressed policies or intentions since February.

 

Among the big names to weigh in against the Nobel decision was Michael Steele, the nominal head of the GOP. He echoed the general tenor from the nay side of the aisle: "It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights," he said with no absence of sarcasm and perhaps a touch of envy.

There is some truth in this statement. First, however, it would be a mistake to mix up the Nobel Peace Prize with a winning lottery ticket. The latter might allow you to finally throw that laptop and cell phone out the window and retire to some sunny climes. The Peace Prize, on the other hand, like many awards of this sort, is considered recognition and encouragement to do more and better. It is a kind of signpost. Thorbjørn Jagland, the head of the Nobel Committee, was clear on that point: “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do. It could be too late to respond three years from now.”

However, Steele and the anti-Obama crowd, their collective eardrums reverberating from the steady blasts from the right’s professional wind machines, may have missed another more important point. The Committee did not overlook the fact that there are many people out there who have devoted years of energy to fostering peace. Their key point was: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

This also refers to the pre-February 2009 Obama, the candidate who galvanized people around the world. What the Committee members seem to be saying is that Obama's emphasis on diplomacy and dialogue, so different from the violent, unilateral, chest-thumping policies of the past eight years, is finally giving all those advocates in the cause of peace a far more auspicious global matrix with which to work. The Committee actually gave the entire country a vote of confidence, which Obama understood and responded accordingly:

“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations,” he said in his acceptance speech, which he concluded with the following words: “That's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity. For all those men and women across the world who sacrificed their safety and their freedom, and sometimes their lives for the cause of peace. That has always been the cause of America, that's why the world has always looked to America and that's why I believe America will continue to lead.”

In some ways, it's the American people themselves who were being honored by the prize. They, after all, are the ones who elected Obama. Well, at least some of them. This says a great deal about the strange offshoots of super-patriotism. The people who hate and fear Obama are the likes of Ahmedinejad and Rush Limbaugh. Birds of a feather, apparently.