A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Obama's High Bar
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 WaPo
Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority -- as unworthy of such recognition?
Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?
Okay, I know, it's just some conservatives who've been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as "Hanoi Jane" behavior. Others who haven't taken leave of their political senses -- and are familiar with the concept of manners -- responded to President Obama's unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.
Some of Obama's most strident critics, however, just can't give it a rest. They use words like "farce" and "travesty," as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?
The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.
Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear their vocal cords out. Politically, they're only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders -- except RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- are beginning to realize, "I'm With the Taliban Against America" is not likely to be a winning slogan.
More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation -- by otherwise sane commentators -- that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.
If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn't matter whether Obama had won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world's approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.
Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush's cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama's credit -- and to our country's.
The peace prize comes as Obama is reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining -- and some advocates of a pullout are hoping -- that the award may somehow limit the president's options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgement of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations -- or that he once called Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision.
What I really don't understand is the view that somehow there's a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say -- as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.
The only reasonable response is McCain's: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he's already set it for himself.
You use terms such as "totally ignored" "all being labeled" "totally pushed to the side" "calls us all bigots" "totally taboo" "every time" (underlining is mine). Statements like those cause backlash because you seem to be saying something extreme.
I think you might be a part of a group that is disparaged by the liberals, the Tea Party. Please do not think that because we strongly disagree with that group we don't think you may have some valid points during civil discussions. I know it's hard to be a minority, but don't let your anger get to you.
NJ
He has won the Pulitzer prize in journalism, I tend to respect his opinion. Of course the Pulitizer prize is probably a meaningless politically influenced award like all the others that reward democrats for exceptional merit.
Good point. You said they hate and/or fear the opposition's positions or progress. Still, when that hate is expressed in the ways it has been, hating everything that the opposition accomplishes even if it is good for the country, that leads people to make the connection that the opposition hates the country, would like to see bad happen to the country if it makes the one they hate look bad.
Rush has not been the only one to say it. He would like to see Obama fail. That is not patriotic, not by a long shot. It fact, it's hateful in the extreme, and proves Rush doesn't care for his country.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, we know Rush does it for the money. I think he'd spout out whatever philosophy would get him the most listeners, and talk radio has a pretty specific audience.
NJ
There are ton of good people on the left though who are easily misled with inflammatory rhetoric and don't bother to get the facts before taking a position. That isn't hate either, but it's just as destructive.