Defending the Nobel Peace Decision

The decision to name the President as the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize has created a lot of discussion. Some commentators on the right have suggested that the award is completely unjustified. Some on the left have argued that the President's selection was a natural. A lot of fun has been made of it. In many of the previous awards, the prize was offered as work completed, clearly this award was aspirational. Jokes circulated on the Internet that the President would be considered for the Heisman trophy because last weekend he thought about watching a college football game. The Colbert Report did a very funny segment about the award poking fun at the selection.

Thorbjorn Jagland the chair of the committee tried to defend the decision by saying "He got the prize for what he has done." In an even more odd defense of the choice one other committee member said "I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," (Gee, it must have been a good idea because the President was not particularly happy about getting it.) Ultimately at least one of the committee members came up with the most candid response by suggesting that at least part of the reason why Obama got the award was because he was not George Bush.

Regardless of the decision and whether the award was a good idea, it presents some interesting problems for the President. This award is clearly an aspirational one much as the one to Al Gore was (although Gore arguably had achieved some movement on his quest on global warming). But if the President is unsuccessful in the things he is trying to do, he may be judged more harshly - not by the Nobel Committee - which has consistently in the last several years been a relatively reliable indicator of European elite opinion on international issues - but by the real guide of opinion. It raises the bar somewhat for someone where expectations are already very high.