By now, Gentle Reader, you've obviously already seen the news that Barrack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. In the speculative article that I read before the announcement, his name was never even mentioned as a viable possibility.
My main reaction is that I think that it way too early to properly judge his accomplishments. Don't we need to let things percolate to see what actually transpires in practice? I am much more used to prizes in other topics where it is typical that many decades pass before the awarding of such a prize. I can understand the argument and arguably even the need for a much faster percolation time for the Peace Prize---perhaps it will provide appropriate encouragement for the intended good things to transpire---but this still seems really early to me. I'm not suggesting his work thus far won't eventually merit the Peace Prize (and most of you probably know that I am pro-Obama), but it seems to me that we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. It makes it feel to me like the choice was made in part as a result of getting a lot of press time, and the Peace Prize (as well as other prizes, of course) should be more than a popularity contest. Admittedly, I have my cynical hat on for this comment.
See this article at 538: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/obamas-prize-for-peace.html
ReplyDeleteIt suggests that what he's done already is substantive enough for the Peace Prize. I agree with you that it's still early to judge his accomplishments (as president), but that's not necessarily what they were basing it on, depending on what news source you read.
This is definitely an interesting take (and your point is taken about what points actually led to the prize being awarded), though as far as I can infer from the text, the author still seemed skeptical that this is sufficient. I definitely think that there should be more percolation time.
ReplyDelete