After further reflection upon my previous post Congratulations Mr. President I’m struggling. What have the detractors lost with Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? What do they gain by so vehemently bashing the decision? What do they get by taking such a negative position surrounding, what is traditionally a positive event. What is the threat? Why the anger?
I’m thinking this is what the book I just finished reading (Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me) would call cognitive dissonance.
I think all this comes down to self-preservation. For those who are opposed to Obama and his policies, any event that puts him in a good light threatens their position that he is no good for the country and must be removed. Any evidence suggesting Obama might be good for the country implies their opinion or position may be wrong. Any insinuation their opinion or position may be wrong is completely unacceptable to their view of self. Therefore, they HAVE to denounce it as vehemently and decisively as possible.
The sad part is this award does little to hurt the opposition or his detractors. It doesn’t make the Republicans less right on health care or taxes or immigration. It doesn’t make Obama the right choice either. It just makes him the Nobel Peace Prize award recipient of 2009.
I don’t think Obama’s detractors lost anything with the award being awarded to him. They lost when they so bitterly challenged the decision. What is gained with this behavior? I’m not sure too much of anything?
What do you think?
Loading ...
1
I guess I would turn it back and ask the question: why is questioning something considered anger?
Saw on Bloomberg this morning a really good point: nobody would have questioned giving the President the Nobel Prize for Economics. Agree with him or not, he's done a tremendous amount of work in that field and accomplished a great deal in this first year of his presidency.
Sure, some are reacting about President Obama because they don't like him and they feel like they can't afford to let him look good.
I don't think Joe Klein or Thomas Friedman fit that category. The rest of us are just wondering why the Nobel committee did what it did. They certainly did the President no favors.
Comment by aaronklein — October 12, 2009 @ 10:30 am
2
this is a very interesting discussion.
Don't think the “questioning” is something to be considered as anger.
It's the Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh type comments.
Look at it this way. If your Mother had won “Mother of the Year” and
you thought Mrs. Jones down the street should have won it. You
wouldn't have called it an “embarrassment”? You wouldn't have openly
and vehemently said “What has my mother done to deserve this?” You
would have humbly accepted it as an honor to your mom who you love and
respect. You might have quiet discussion with her and those close to
you but you would have never, EVER yelled aloud in a fashion that
would have embarrassed her and suggested she wasn''t worthy. This is
what many of the Obama detractors are doing and what my post was
addressing.
It's not the questioning, it's the how some are doing it. Don't think
we are too far off from one another.
Comment by Keenan — October 12, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
3
It is a good discussion, and thanks for making it an interesting and civil one.
I really do understand your point, and I'm not a big fan of some of the comments that have been made.
That being said, your analogy is a bit off. Let me try one on for size. I have two brothers-in-law. One who is 15, and the other who is 25 and is a great dad to his three kids.
If they gave the father of the year award to the 15 year old, I think I'd be awfully critical of that committee for snubbing the actual father of the year.
Another American, this one named Greg Mortenson, was also nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize award.
From TIME Magazine: “Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.”
It's too bad the Nobel committee chose to make this year's award about George W. Bush and politics, rather than awarding $1.4 million dollars to build more schools for girls. And it was a slap in the face to President Obama to use him to try to insult George W. Bush — just my opinion.
Comment by aaronklein — October 12, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
4
I guess I would turn it back and ask the question: why is questioning something considered anger?
Saw on Bloomberg this morning a really good point: nobody would have questioned giving the President the Nobel Prize for Economics. Agree with him or not, he's done a tremendous amount of work in that field and accomplished a great deal in this first year of his presidency.
Sure, some are reacting about President Obama because they don't like him and they feel like they can't afford to let him look good.
I don't think Joe Klein or Thomas Friedman fit that category. The rest of us are just wondering why the Nobel committee did what it did. They certainly did the President no favors.
Comment by AaronKlein — October 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
5
this is a very interesting discussion.
Don't think the “questioning” is something to be considered as anger.
It's the Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh type comments.
Look at it this way. If your Mother had won “Mother of the Year” and
you thought Mrs. Jones down the street should have won it. You
wouldn't have called it an “embarrassment”? You wouldn't have openly
and vehemently said “What has my mother done to deserve this?” You
would have humbly accepted it as an honor to your mom who you love and
respect. You might have quiet discussion with her and those close to
you but you would have never, EVER yelled aloud in a fashion that
would have embarrassed her and suggested she wasn''t worthy. This is
what many of the Obama detractors are doing and what my post was
addressing.
It's not the questioning, it's the how some are doing it. Don't think
we are too far off from one another.
Comment by Keenan — October 12, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
6
It is a good discussion, and thanks for making it an interesting and civil one.
I really do understand your point, and I'm not a big fan of some of the comments that have been made.
That being said, your analogy is a bit off. Let me try one on for size. I have two brothers-in-law. One who is 15, and the other who is 25 and is a great dad to his three kids.
If they gave the father of the year award to the 15 year old, I think I'd be awfully critical of that committee for snubbing the actual father of the year.
Another American, this one named Greg Mortenson, was also nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize award.
From TIME Magazine: “Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.”
It's too bad the Nobel committee chose to make this year's award about George W. Bush and politics, rather than awarding $1.4 million dollars to build more schools for girls. And it was a slap in the face to President Obama to use him to try to insult George W. Bush — just my opinion.
Comment by AaronKlein — October 12, 2009 @ 9:53 pm