Catharine Fulmer's Blog

What Kind of Action in the World Justifies a Noble Peace Prize?
October 14, 2009, 9:17 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

President Obama was elected the  2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Most consider this a controversial statement for a president who hasn’t been in the Whitehouse for more than two years. Despite the upheaval, most Nobel Peace winners slave their life away to devotion towards their dreams and goals, which in many cases put their lives in danger. So the question arises, “What kind of Action in the world justifies a Noble Peace Prize?” Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox wrote on Twitter, “Apparently Nobel Prizes are now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush.” Jennifer Loven at the Associated Press wrote: “He Won, But For What?” (

Obama won on the grounds of creating peace throughout humanity with concentration on enforcing an eco-friendly environment. Yes, Obama has done wonders for our country by providing a national healthcare that does not bankrupt those with catastrophic diseases, he has laid to rest most issues dealing with racism in his race relations speech, and he has inspired not only America but the whole world to make climate change efforts the highest priority.  However, how does Obama’s claim make him on the same grounds as the other contestants such as two formerly jailed Chinese presidents, or Morgan Tsvangirai, a Columbian politician who helped secure the release of 16 hostages and was kidnapped herself ten years ago.  Or even in the past, how does Obama’s work viewed as revolutionary as that of Mother Theresa?

I respect Obama, but I do not view him any different from any other liberal politician.  One day the Obama saga must come to an end,  people will come to realize that he is just a man that was elected president, who happened to be elected when his country was in great need of change. He will always be remembered by his revolutionary campaign, however, he does not need to be awarded an Nobel Peace Prize in order to receive the our unending gratitude.


1 Comment so far
Leave a comment

Although I’ve come to admire President Obama a great deal, I agree that he should not have been given the Nobel Peace Prize. If he does a tremendous amount of good for the world during the course of his presidency, then it would be appropriate to consider giving him the prize in 4 or 8 years. At the time he was nominated for it, however, he had only been in office for a matter of weeks, and had thus achieved very little. I think Ana Marie Cox is right: he was given the award simply for being very different from President Bush. On television a few weeks ago, I heard the journalist Christopher Hitchens suggest that the president ought to have refused to accept the award, and I thought it was a great idea. I don’t fault President Obama for not doing so, but I think it would have been extraordingarily classy and humble if he had.

Comment by jpandrew1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: