This morning’s news that Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has been greeted with nearly universal derision among the creative class. “He hasn’t accomplished ANYTHING”, they tweet. Or, “he won it because he’s not George W. Bush”. But lost in the “WTF?” outrage is this fundamental fact:
On November 4, 2008, a black man with a Muslim name was elected president of the United States.
In the intervening months since then, that incredible moment has been forgotten, lost in a sea of angry shouts and cynicism about the political process. But today’s news shines the spotlight right back on that euphoric time, the moment when the nation, and the world, was forever changed.
A black man with a Muslim name would never be elected prime minister of Sweden, the home of the Nobel. Nor would he be elected leader of Britain, France, or Germany. Until 1993, it was unthinkable for a black man to be elected president of South Africa. America proved itself to be a unique exception to an unspoken, and disdainful, rule.
The West has had a long, painful, and brutal history of racism within its borders. That racism has meant that millions of human beings have suffered the evils of slavery, war, and genocide.
But when Obama won on that November night, the way the world looked at itself fundamentally changed. From wide-eyed children in Africa, to cynical adults in Europe, people were forced to re-evaluate their definition of what is and is not possible in our world, in this time.
To be sure, Obama is a symbol. People project onto him their own hopes and desires. But Obama is also a shining example of what’s possible. Because if a black man with a Muslim name can become president of the United States, then yes, peace is achievable in our world, in this time.
Comments
Leave a response
I like Barack Obama, but I think a little perspective is in order. It’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that Bill Clinton for his diplomatic work from the Oslo Peace Accords to the freeing of the two journalists in North Korea to the Clinton Global Initiative; Neda Soltani as a remider about the popular struggle for democracy across the world; or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for global anti-poverty work would be, at this time, better candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.
As it is, Barack Obama’s political and diplomatic ideology is remarkable only in the context of following the Bush administration—hardly a high bar for achievement. By the same standard (promoting global diplomacy), George HW Bush would be as or more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.
Perhaps if the prize had been awarded to “the American electorate” for “electing a black man with a Muslim name,” then your point might hold. That said, I do worry if you really believe that because a black man with a Muslim name became president of the United States, then peace is achievable in our world, in this time. Because I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Unless, of course, the world decides to have the American electorate vote on whether or not to have global peace. On second thought, even then…
I think it’s fine that the Nobel committee awarded the prize to President Obama. I didn’t have a horse in the race, so it’s little to me either way. Obviously, I’m glad they awarded it to him rather than someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but I don’t think we need to bend over backwards to pretend like it makes a lot of sense.