Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

I, like most people, was stunned to wake up and find that Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I really have no idea how the deliberations on these things go beyond looking at the description of the proper recipient from Nobel's will. It said that the prize should be awarded:

. . . to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

I think you can make a credible case for all three of these criteria on Obama's behalf. But pretty much any US President is in a position to come out on top there every year if he's interested in peace and committed to multilateralism. So, only in the weakest sense of the term do I think that Obama "earned" the prize.

Over the course of the day, the rationale for Obama's selection became a bit clearer. In an interview with the New York Times, the Nobel Peace Prize's new committee chairman said:

It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik. It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.

He then went on to use the examples of Willy Brandt, who won the prize in 1971 while Chancellor of Germany for his policy of rapprochement with the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), despite the fact that his policy had yielded few results at the time he won.

This seems somewhat akin to handing out gold medals in the Olympics to the athletes with the most promise. The point of prizes like Olympic medals and the Noble Peace Prize is to reward achievement, not promise of it. I strongly believe that Obama is going to achieve things during his time in office, but he hasn't yet. But giving him the Prize now degrades its value. So, when Obama wins again for something like brokering a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, it will mean just a little less.

---

Update: Hat tip to my friend TD for emailing me a particularly well-phrased question that helped me work out my thoughts on this.

Thoughts on the President's Speech

I'm much happier with this speech than I'd expected. I think the President made a strong case for the public option, which was in itself good. And he also referred to a plan that includes the public option "my plan". That's good, too.

But, even better, I think the President drew a line in the sand on the public option. A fine line, and a line that is open to some interpretation, but a line nonetheless. I haven't gone back to the video to confirm my notes, but I am pretty confident that I got at least the gist: he's open to any alternative to the public option that achieves its goals, that is, anything that insures that all Americans have access to affordable insurance. Short of a single-payer system--which is certainly not in the cards today and I doubt will be in my lifetime--I don't see how you achieve that goal without a government-backed insurance plan that introduces real competition into the market.

Both substantively and tactically, I think that the President made a smart move by mentioning medical malpractice reform. Republicans have a valid point about fear of lawsuits and the cost of medical malpractice insurance being a contributor to the rising cost of health care. It is far from the biggest cause, but it is a cause and we should be looking at ways to address everything that's contributing to the spiraling cost of health care in the US. I'm genuinely interested in what happens with this. Tactically, of course, it makes it just a little bit harder for the Republicans to use malpractice reform as their default alternative to broader health care reform.

Update: Josh Marshall also notes the President's drawing a sort of faint line in the sand on the public option, though he is a bit more skeptical than I am. I agree with Josh's contention that there is a lot of wiggle room in the President's position, but, I think it gives those of us who support the public option rather more leverage than I'd expected from the speech.