Political Pundits Give Their Take on Obama’s Nobel Prize

In a stunning turn of events, the world awakened Friday morning to the news that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Just nine months in office and only the third sitting U.S. president to win the award, he was nominated within days after the inauguration.

It’s an extraordinary feat for a number of reasons, but what stands out the most is the way in which it has united the American public–friends of the president and foes, alike–in their standard reaction: Why?

According to a release issued by the Nobel Committee, Obama was chosen for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” It also cited his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

In brief remarks delivered from the Rose Garden, the president expressed both surprise and acknowledgement that the committee is in essence recognizing aspiration over achievement.

“Let me be

clear: 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 in all nations,” he said. Obama also said he doesn’t deserve to join the transformative men and women “who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

Yet, his own ability to inspire a nation to elect its first black president and choose change last November, as well as what critics have disparagingly called his “star power,” contributed to the win. The committee said it’s very rare that a person can capture the world’s attention and give people hope for a better future as Obama has. Is that enough?

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele certainly questioned the decision. “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s

star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working toward peace and human rights,” Steele said in a statement. “One thing is certain–President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

Since taking office, Obama’s most notable achievements on the international front largely have been centered on changing the tone of US foreign policy. He has, for example, extended America’s hand to countries that former President George W. Bush dismissed as being part of an “axis of evil,” reached out to Muslim nations, and is trying to work with Russia to reduce its and America’s arsenals of nuclear weapons.

“There certainly has been a dramatic change in tone, but I don’t think that’s worthy of a Nobel,” said Michael Mezey, a DePaul University political scientist. “Obama won the award for not being George W. Bush, whose

tone was us against them, you’re with us or against us. He said we’re not going to take that tone anymore; we will talk to enemies as well as friends, and he’s taking some risks in that respect.”

This award comes as Obama is engaged in making some monumental decisions, such as whether to increase the troop level in Afghanistan for a war that has lasted eight years–so far.

“He’s struggling with difficult and complex issues and I think the award will remind him that the entire world is looking to America for responsible leadership that will require taking some bold steps. That may mean challenging the military industrial complex and powerful right-wing interests here at home in pursuing nonmilitary solutions to challenges [in the Middle East],” said Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. Zunes does not, however, believe the prize will have any impact or influence on Obama’s foreign policy agenda. “There are some hard choices and a lot of it will come down to defining what our goals are.”

Calvin Mackenzie, a government professor at Colby College, agrees. “The political and policy factors are much more powerful impacts than being a Nobel laureate. But it may impact the way people in other countries view him. It gives Obama a little more gravitas than he would have as a relatively young, first-year president, which is beneficial to him and the nation,” said Mackenzie.

Obama’s speeches before the UN, in Cairo, and during the campaign in Berlin, Mackenzie adds, “resonated powerfully with foreign audiences and contributed to the view of him as a person breaking new paths for American foreign policy. When others see him in contrast with Bush, whom they detested, it really does look like change is taking place in the United States.”