The awarding of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on a man who has been President not even for  10 months (before that, briefly, a U.S. senator, and before that, briefly, a State senator) sends as clear a signal as might be sent that it is hoped that the foreign policy of the United States will be run by the enlightened elite in Oslo (and fellow travelers).  The message:  join us in our aims of achieving one-world cosmopolitan peace.

The prize money comes from a renowned munitions inventor and war profiteer.  Norway’s extensive welfare system receives extensive monetary support from its oil bonanza in the North Sea, oil that is massively consumed by the profligate American public of which the Oslovians highly disapprove.  The American budget which President Obama oversees  devotes massive sums through its military portion on the protection of the world’s oil economy – thus effectively subsidizing the Oslovians – using the munitions that can trace their lineage to Mr. Nobel.    In sum:  the worst thing for theorists of one-world cosmopolitan peace would be one-world cosmopolitan peace.  But that’s besides the point – not only do they high-handedly declare what American policy should be, but they assuage their own guilt over their complicity.  A win-win.

Congratulations, Mr. President.  But don’t mistake this award to be for something that you’ve done – it’s for what you’re supposed to do (all the while knowing that while you are to play the Kantian, we also want you to be a Machiavelli when necessary).  If you had sufficient humility and cojones, you’d politely but forcefully send the prize right back to Oslo.

24 COMMENTS

  1. Dr. Deneen,
    I am upset with your cruel and inaccurate description of His Magnificence.
    I would remind you that his resume includes some time spent as a mouthpiece for ACORN and, so far, he has not been indicted.
    “Obama, Obama,…mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!”
    If you keep up this sort of negative writing of His Belovedness you will be reported to the authorities!

  2. Bob,
    I didn’t take out an irresponsible mortgage (thus have paid more for my fixed-rate note than those who were dazzled by LOW LOW monthly payments of gimmicks and gimcracks), so I haven’t been able to get any Gummint assistance when they started rewriting those contracts.

    I didn’t have a “clunker” to trade in, because we try to live frugally and prudently, not driving vehicles of excessive tonnage. We got no help for the purchase of a new vehicle.

    I worked hard to put myself through college, so have no student loans to forgive. I have saved every year for retirement, so I won’t be getting the bailout that will inevitably come when people discover that they can’t retire. In fact, I fully expect that my retirement funds will, before long, be seen as a social good that should help provide every American with a good retirement.

    So, what you say here – that there may be a comfortable bed for me perhaps in Guantanamo – gives me hope that my bad behavior may yet provide me some piece of the firesale on America’s future. I may yet get on the gravy train. Thanks for these hopeful words.

  3. Well, Pat, why in heaven’s name do you think He-Who-Sees-Our-Pain kept Guantanamo open?
    I should tell you that you’ve bumped Arben out of his spot on FPR favorites and are quickly zooming to the top of the heap! If you, and your family, are forced to flee, I have an available cabin in the deep woods of eastern Ohio for youns (colloquial expression). Bring Fr. Schall with you, I’m certain he’s on the list as well.

  4. Bob,
    Don’t taunt a desperate man. A cabin in the deep woods of eastern Ohio? Tell me where, when. I have a nice bottle of bourbon that a well-educated student just gave me. A suitable amount of pipe tobacco. We shall have much to discuss on the Front Porch – and a few here would doubtless join us, given half the chance.

  5. Patrick,

    We can work with this as the humble acreage abuts a rich man holdings and he is a vacant owner, and is so overgrown that not even BO’s spy planes will detect youns.
    Also, in the deep woods there’s a cave in which any number may take refuge and in which lie any number of myth’s aborning, water, and a constant 55 degrees. So bring ’em all, along with guitars, banjos, fiddles, tobacco, books and booze. We shall be the last Americans and live as free men!

  6. Arben, dude, as you know, I’m just kissing up to Dr. Deneen, shining his boots as it were!
    Now, now! And, you can come and live with us too! The New American will need a librul or two.

  7. Russell,
    Realize that we’re both in a pretty low in Bob’s rankings, and no-one can touch Sabin in the top spot. Of course, I can’t disagree with that particular ranking…

    Bob,
    “guitars, banjos, fiddles, tobacco, books and booze” – I think this must be what Aristotle thought were the requirements for eudaimonia…

  8. Interesting. I would have expected a more magnanimous spirit from the front porch. The tone of these comments sounds much more like urban loft than front porch.

  9. Artie,
    I wrote “congratulations” – that was sort of magnanimous. But I’m far from alone in thinking that the prize is not exactly a deserving reward for the achievements of this President. On the Porch, you call ’em like you see ’em.

  10. P.S., I agree with Rod Dreher, who writes that Obama received the award especially “for not being George W. Bush.” I can drink to that.

    But, in the name of magnanimity, perhaps O. should thank W. in his Oslo acceptance speech. “Thank you, W., for making this moment possible…”

    Or maybe it will suffice for him to say, “You like me, you really really like me….!”

  11. If Obama had used his considerable oratorical skills and bully pulpit to actively solicit this award, I could understand a certain amount of bile from these quarters. He didn’t ask for this. And yes, the sentient creatures of the world should rejoice that George W. Bush no longer occupies the Oval Office. No surprise there. But I’m guessing by now Obama’s asking “Why me? Don’t I have enough trouble appeasing the commentariat without this?”

    My charitable take on this is that the Nobel committee had the hubris to think their award could somehow steer Obama away from the McChrystalline notion that there’s a military solution to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  12. Artie,
    I agree pretty completely with your concluding remarks. But isn’t that what I was getting at in my post – which was not a critique of Obama, but of the motives of the Nobel committee?

    Yes, we engaged in some playful banter here in the comments – which I usually don’t do, I guess because everything can be so serious here on the internets. Sorry to have offended, but I got a few chuckles out of the exchange with the good Mr. Cheeks. Not a bad way to start a morning.

  13. I hear that the Messiah-in-Chief has just been named the NFL MVP for the 2010 season, he’s just been awarded the gold medal in the giant slalom in the upcoming Vancouver Olympic games, he’s been given a Pulitzer in 2020 for his memoirs, he has won the French Open in 2010 (he’s very good on clay), and is the first individual to have won by himself Lord Stanley’s Cup (which hereafter will be renamed Lord Obama’s Goblet). There has, of course, been a waiver as to actual participation in any of these events granted to Obama because of his special meaning to the entire world.

    Indeed, as Aristotle put it in The Politics, ‘if there is one person…so pre-eminently superior in goodness that there can be no comparison between the goodness and political capacity which he shows…and what is shown by the rest, such a person…can longer be treated as part of the state…There can be no law which runs against men who are utterly superior to others…The only alternative left…is for all others to pay a willing obedience to the man of outstanding goodness. Such men will accordingly be the permanent kings in their states.’ Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that the US Congress and the Supreme Court have willingly abdicated their positions to King Obama.

  14. The problem with your post, despite its superficial look at Oslo’s motivations, is that it is one removed from John Médaille’s short-sighted “small man” comment.

    As for Oslo’s motivations—namely Alfred Nobel, oil wealth—isn’t it possible that Oslovians/Norwegians might act out of guilt over the problems with their wealth? And if they are feeling guilty, isn’t it appropriate that they put their health, wealth, and inconsistent place in the international community to good use?

    Also, why the harsh words for one-world cosmopolitan peace? How is that unrelated to your ability to sit on a front porch, with tasty bourbon and an aromatic pipe, and think through the problems of one’s neighborhood, the weather, and how the boy scouts are going to make it through their camping trip? Indeed, one-world cosmopolitan peace insures your ability to do that without worrying about erratic corn and barley prices, ecological imbalances that produce lyme disease or bee shortages, and affordable tobacco? – TL

  15. The problem of one-world cosmopolitan peace is that it’s not based on reality. To the extent it seems real, it’s based on the military-industrial complex (one of the points of this compressed post.). Life on the porch is doubtlessly easier in some respects because of the m-i complex, but it is not dependent upon it. It existed before its rise, and will exist after its demise. Among other things, tobacco and bourbon might have to be locally grown and made – which is fine by me.

    People on the Porch can honestly call for the reduction if not outright disassembling of the m-i complex knowing the porch will persist, because it’s real; one-world cosmopolitans can only fantasize about the apotheosis by overlooking their complicity in supporting war and big biz. They should be guilty, but much guiltier than they allow themselves to be – hence why there is such a great need to avoid facing facts by handing out prizes to people like O. Big diff.

  16. My charitable take on this is that the Nobel committee had the hubris to think their award could somehow steer Obama away from the McChrystalline notion that there’s a military solution to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    As if the alternative plan is less of a military solution. Obama is committed to a military solution either way, unless he’s contemplating a complete withdrawal. McChrystal isn’t the only one to blame.

  17. Patrick,

    I’m surprised at your pessimism. You’re well aware that a great many women and men of the Christian world choose to chase after ideals that appear to be pipe dreams to others—that are unreality in light of the current world: minimization of sin, converting the world, making contemplatives out of people of all shapes and sizes, living up to the Beatitudes, etc. How is *pursuing* the notion of world peace under the guise of cosmopolitanism any less utopian, or any less real, than the everyday goals of serious Christians—a number of whom are FPR contributors? It’s one thing to be and think locally, and another to misunderestimate (hah!–keeping it light) the universal ideals of your brethren who seek common understanding across the urban-rural, nation-state divide. This borders on fantasizing about the local.

    Finally, I think you’ll find that a large percentage of cosmopolitan peace-seekers also want to see the dismantling of the M-I complex. Perhaps we all feel complicit in the construction of that sorry edifice?

    Peace,

    Tim

  18. SteveK: I know the rest so far as dystopian fiction writers are concerned. But I have no idea what that would like in reality. I can say, however, that I have no fear of a conservative, limited “one-world government”—no logical philosophical supposition that it can’t work. I fear that no more than I fear the ability of my neighborhood association’s petty tyrants to make my life miserable. – TL

  19. McIntyre, consider yourself on report. We expect a little more “diversity” from the academic crowd, not to mention a severely dulled sense of humor!
    You and yours will have rooms in the Cave of Kumbaya…bring your own instrument.

  20. Whoever introduced the word “magnanimous” into the discussion of this award is hereby put on notice that the word has been mothballed and is out there in the high plains of Alberta bleaching in the cold sunshine next to a few retired war planes that are casually scavenged as the spirit moves.

    Until yesterday, I was unaware that Norway is a home to comedy.

    One does have to admit that it is a far better world now that the Vikings running amok in the far seas has been replaced by a few technocrats dispensing lofty awards with the charming conceit of actually thinking they will have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of the American Suicide Watch.

    Next Year, perhaps they shall solemnly dispense the award to Dr. Kervorkian.

Comments are closed.