RSS Feed MenuThe Nobel address was Obama at his worst or near-worst. Let’s count the ways.
Obama:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. (Bolding added.)
First Obama tells us how humble he is. Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.
But it gets worse. The slightness of Obama’s achievements is (the president says) only a partial and lesser reason for the controversy over the prize. The “most profound” reason that the award has been so disparaged is … George W. Bush! Yes, Obama’s prize is controversial because the country is fighting two wars, one of which it did not seek – but the other of which we apparently did seek. Or rather – that George W. Bush sought.
While the one war is an effort of self-defense , the other is … not.
While the one war mustered an international coalition deserving of respect, the other mustered an international coalition that is … not.
When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of American leadership.” But in Oslo he did not speak as leader of all America, but as leader of a party – and as a party leader who cannot refrain from snide insituations against the motives – not only of his opposite-party predecessors – but of all who worked with them, including the leaders of many allied governments.
* * *
The Nobel address highlights President Obama’s inability to share credit with any identifiable human being – or to speak of his nation’s accomplishments in any but the most round-about and apologetic ways.
Listen to this:
The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
“Of generations past?” Did those “generations” not contain any names? People – Americans! – who did brave things at risk and often at cost of their lives?
The memory of the crowd dismantling the wall is a lovely one. But the great events of November 1989 could only occur because of the successful defense of the Western world over half a century by the armed power of a military alliance headed by the United States. (NB – nor did the Cold War end in November 1989. It ended almost two years later, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.)
Notice the abstractions and passive verbs: “commerce” “have been lifted.” Unless the sentence begins with an “I”, there are no antecedents, no doers, no causes.
* * *
The sentence I am about to quote may well have begun as an attempt to pay tribute to another:
As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.
But on the way to the tribute, Obama managed to insert two references to himself in a sentence that found room for only one reference of King. And there are surely ways to praise Dr King without exalting yourself even higher. As is, it seems that King is a great man because he made Obama’s career possible. One wonders: surely there must have been at least one or two other beneficiaries of King’s work as well?
This tendency to present the person of Barack Obama as the magnificent culmination of history is growing into a bad habit. It was displayed at the United Nations in September, when the president opened his address with the most intense barrage of “I”s since the Iran-Iraq war.
* * *
A little before the midpoint of the speech, the president arrives at his tribute to the American soldier. It’s fine as far as it goes, but awfully minimal – and immediately followed by more barbs and more awkward silences.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
The president then proceeded from this praise of the US fighting soldier to a repudiation of that soldier’s most recently concluded fight: Iraq.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.
The word “Iraq” does not appear in the address, yet again and again the president flails out against that war. That is his opinion and his policy. Fine. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes. But Oslo is a horribly inappropriate venue for such criticisms. If he wants to argue with other Americans, let him do it in America, not in the course of accepting an award from some non-Americans for joining with them in their criticism of other Americans.
It’s human nature to prefer compliments to criticism, flattery to dissent. In that respect, Barack Obama is a very human man. But here he has gone too far: He has allowed an international organization to exploit his weakness to drive a wedge between this president and half his country – the half, ironically, whose support he most needs to sustain his ongoing foreign policy.
* * *
Toward the end of his address, the president acknowledged a previously unspoken cause for the questions about his award: his weak record on democracy and human rights.
He offered this self-defense:
And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these [democratic] movements that hope and history are on their side
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
“Painstaking diplomacy”? Obama gives himself too much credit. There are a range of adjectives to describe his approach to Iran, from naive to bungled to (most generously) unsuccessful. But a diplomacy based on disregard of all adverse information can hardly be described as “painstaking.”
How about this rewrite of the president’s sentence: “The promotion of human rights cannot be only about pathetic appeals to the tyrant’s supposed reasonable interests. At times it must be coupled with effective sanctions and forceful statements.” Reads different, yes?
* * *
This should in itself knock the president’s approval rating among U.S. Jews below 50%:
We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.
There’s something about this remark that reminds me of the line, no doubt apocryphal, attributed to a Nazi commandant as the Second World War drew to a close: “It’s time for us Germans and you Jews to bury the hatchet.”
And could somebody please note that the Iranian mullahs building nuclear weapons with the avowed intent of incinerating the Jewish state are not Arabs?
ltoro1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I’m not surprised Obama showed a lack of grace and I would argue that every war is a war of choice. I know this violates my typical gripe about blanket statements with few supporting details, but hopefully everyone will forgive me.
CentristNYer // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:40 pm
There seems to be an excess of nitpicking here, David, that isn’t becoming. When Newt Gingrich can provide a more reasonable and fair critique of Obama’s speech, I think something is wrong.
ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I would argue that every war is a war of choice.
……in a narrow sense maybe …..but the French in 1914 or the Poles in 1939 didn’t have much choice did they……although Iraq and Afghanistan both certainly were
bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:06 pm
MI -Goper. So tell me when were elections held in Cuba? That’s right they haven’t been. I merely pointing out that sanctions alone don’t change governments. The point of the sanctions at this point is to change the Cuban government. In that regard they have completely failed. If the Cuban government returned the property would sanctions end? Of course not. The purpose of the sanction have shifted.
Why do you feel the need to vent so much venom? I hate to break this to you but the far left doesn’t post on the Frum Forum. I realize that you are doing a poor Rush imitation but that doesn’t work in a forum. You are convincing no one but your own ego. Anonymous posting does that.
jruss89 // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Mr. Frum, I must say that with this post, my confidence in you to regard situations and speeches rationally and objectively has greatly diminished. I can understand a healthy scepticism of the president, and even a dislike of major points, but the degree into which you read into his statement is, in my opinion, overly paranoid and unnecessarily critical.
“First Obama tells us how humble he is. Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.”
- There was no suggestion that Obama was considering himself equal to or greater than Dr. King. He was merely say that as a result of Dr. King’s triumphs over racism and inequality, he had the opportunity to fully participate in American culture and eventually become president of the United States. Since you were associated with the Bush Administration, then why don’t you go ask General Powell and Secretary Rice whether they could have attained their positions of prominence had Dr. King not helped eliminate much of the structural racism in American culture. Under your logic, if I were to say that “because of Descartes’ Meditations, and my having read it, I am now able to consider this world from a purely rationalist point of view” I am considering myself Descartes’ equal. (Hint: it’s not the case) This is a cause and effect relation, because of Descartes’s actions, I can know how to reason from a purely rationalist point of view; because of Dr. King’s actions, Obama can become elected president of the United States.
“One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek”
- For clarification, the former is Iraq and the latter is Afghanistan. Notice that instead of saying something like “one of these wars, which was stupid, misguided, and wasteful, is winding down…” he just said that it was winding down. His quote is a statement of fact without offering any judgement, whereas what I propose could reasonably considered a swipe at President Bush. I do not think that your fear of him using this to criticize President Bush is anything but paranoia–a blatant paranoia that needs to dissolved if conservatism is to have any credibility in the future.
“Notice the abstractions and passive verbs: “commerce” “have been lifted.” Unless the sentence begins with an “I”, there are no antecedents, no doers, no causes.”
-And unless the sentence begins with “America is great”, it has no value. That’s the same unreasonable standard you’re applying. Imagine how crass it would have been for Mr. Obama to outright say that America drove post-war growth (which was true at least insofar as the Marshall Plan worked–arguing into the ’60s and ’70s would require more analysis, but let’s just take it as fact for now).
That’s all I feel like writing for now; take it as you will.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:38 pm
bde-spain, move the goalposts all you want with this non sequitur: “MI -Goper. So tell me when were elections held in Cuba?”
Elections weren’t the purpose in the original sanctions that Eisenhower established and most presidents, up to Jimmy-Give-Up-the-Canal-Carter, enforced… even though Kennedy waited ’til he had his stockpile of Cuban Petit Upmanns delivered by a WH staffer. We already covered the reasons for the sanctions; that you can’t or won’t agree doesn’t mean reality doesn’t properly exist here.
The sanctions were for Cuba’s unilateral seizure of American assets and investments… hundreds of billions stolen. When Bush 41 became special envoy to China, he wouldn’t step foot in China until that country had settled its debts for the seizure of American assets by the Kung Tsiang Tang and Mao Tse-tung. It’s a big, big deal, bde-spain, except when Democrats get into power and the key strategy becomes “Let’s Just Hug” or, as Obama spins it now: “BigHugsHeal”.
Move the goalposts, flip reality… it’s the sole province of the Trolls around here. But never try advancing the nonsense that Cuban sanctions didn’t work… because they did and there are a hundred ways to Havana to prove you fundamentally wrong. Absent reading Pravda op-ed pieces; put down the HuffPo and grasp a little reality for once. OK?
As for this equally nonsensical blather: “I hate to break this to you but the far left doesn’t post on the Frum Forum” -well, that is so laughable that even Balconesfault, automaticBS’er and PracticalGrrrrl are wincing in shame. Yeah, the far Left posts here –in fact, up til a few weeks ago, they were about the only ones who posted here. In fact, it was the far Left democrat activists that invented a dozen or more manufactured characters in order to appear that, after posting supportive comments in multiple names, the dynamic of the conversation agreed with their far Left views.
As in:
Balconesfault: “I think that’s very true, otto.”
Otto: “Yes, but not only that it’s that republicans are killing their future with Palin”
Mr Face: “This is exactly right; the GOP will never grow until it cuts off the fundamentalists”
Moderate: “Republicans can’t because they need wingnuts for phone banks”
HardlyConservative: “I wonder if David Frum realizes no one agrees with him”
BarryS: “It’s because he’s a birther”
Balconesfault: “I think that’s true, David is a birther but he can’t say that for fear of alienating people”
…and on and on and on it goes in some threads. Always the same thoughts echo chambered by manufactured characters for the purpose of appearing to be dominant.
Your role has been one of an enabler. That’s ok. But I still wonder what you’re doing on a blog dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to a majority party status? Sport? Fun? Balconesfault, rbottoms and other TrollTribe members have offered those reasons for being here.
Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm
This analysis is David Frum at his worst. Petty, insecure, undiplomatic. Obama went out of his way to downplay his own achievements – yet he’s an “egomaniac”? He’s the opposite of an egomaniac!
Obama gave credit to Republican predecessors, yet Mr. Frum seems upset that he didn’t give praise to George W. Bush. The temerity! Ignoring that Obama’s election and the Democratic victories of 2006-2008 were repudiations of Bush’s unwise foreign policy, surely Mr. Frum realizes that the entire reason for Obama’s Nobel Prize is that he has consistently condemned the Iraq War.
Sour grapes from Mr. Frum.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:41 pm
and bde-spain, while you’re deep in thought of how to spin away from reality, let’s look at this line of yours
“Why do you feel the need to vent so much venom?”
and contrast/compare with an earlier line of yours
“MI Goper – You sure are an ass.” That’s a healthy dose of hypocrisy even for snake-tongued guy like you.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Ahh, someone brought back Moderate for some light-hearted and quick to dismiss reading!
Glad to see you got the Code 5 Alert at the DemocratUnderground and keyed in the exact talking points of the TrollTribe.
Really guys, can’t you be a little more original. Now you aren’t even changing the talking points of the day; just spitting ‘em out like a robot.
Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm
MI-GOPer,
Oh no, my ruse has been discovered! Time to send the hammer-and-sickle distress signal to my comrades.
ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“Sour grapes from Mr. Frum”
I’m afraid Frum, and the totally deranged like gopher are eating their hearts out….and it’s showing……President Barack Obama: Nobel Laureate along with other notable Americans like Theodore Roosevelt, George C. Marshall, Martin Luther King, James Carter…….if the term graceless could be applied to anyone today it’s Frum, gopher and co….pretty sad really
bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm
MI-GOPer – I was responding to your attacks on me. I started this thread by commenting that sanctions alone have proven ineffective in numerous cases. You felt it necessary to through this little tidbit my way.
“Read Pravda much, bde-spain?”
Look if you are gonna through insults around don’t be surprised when someone pushes back. Look at your latest post.
“even for snake-tongued guy like you.”
I just joined this forum. You don’t know me from Adam. The reason I joined this forum because I like David’s ideas. I am interested in conservative solutions to improving government and reducing the size of government. I am interested in market driven solutions to health care. I was a Romney supporter during the primaries. If you think your approach to engaging people is going to help re-build the party and return us to majority status, you are wrong.
MR FACE // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Mi-Gopher
Mr Face: “This is exactly right; the GOP will never grow until it cuts off the fundamentalists”
I have never typed that. You lie.
MR FACE // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:59 pm
bdespain-
Just ignore Mi-Gopher. He’s not worth responding to. It is pointless. He lives in an alternate wingnut reality.
gmckee1985 // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:39 pm
It was a decent speech. Definately not an award he deserved though.
Chekote // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I liked the speech. Especially, the following passage:
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
Bravo Mr. President.
The Obama Doctrine:What we heard articul… « Legislative Aid // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:02 pm
[...] David Frum: When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of American leadership.” But in Oslo he did not speak as leader of all America, but as leader of a party – and as a party leader who cannot refrain from snide insituations against the motives – not only of his opposite-party predecessors – but of all who worked with them, including the leaders of many allied governments. [...]
anniemargret // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm
chekote: I thought Obama’s speech was both eloquent and pragmatic in the face of what lies ahead. I think Frum is being childish and unfair in his criticism calling it ‘graceless.’
I think you deserve a bravo, too, for yours and sinz’s fair assessment despite your political leanings .
Bravo.
Socrates // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:27 pm
graceless, indeed, is Frum’s comment!
JJWFromME // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 pm
From Mr. Frum’s post: “If he wants to argue with other Americans, let him do it in America, not in the course of accepting an award from some non-Americans for joining with them in their criticism of other Americans.”
Actually, it’s very smart diplomacy for an American leader to call attention to his dissent against a disastrous, internationally unpopular elective war that caused a 100,000+ deaths, according to the most conservative estimates.
It’s a way of saying “don’t worry, the old America is back.” It gives a sense of proportion, a sense of just how anomalous that war was. It renormalizes American foreign relations. It relights the beacon and says we’re the good guys.
Remember, Barak Obama ran for president on as an antiwar candidate (anti-Iraq War anyway), it’s kind of his calling card, his mandate from the people who put him in the White House.
Elections have consequences. Thank God for that.
Turnabout is Fair Play - Conor Friedersdorf - Metablog - True/Slant // Dec 11, 2009 at 6:50 am
[...] here is David Frum reacting to that part of the speech: The word “Iraq” does not appear in the address, yet again and again [...]
Toddtheconservative // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 am
I think we all should be proud of the speech,our president and our country. This link says it all and I agree with it 100% because it is well said:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/12/obama-prince-of-peace/
athensboy // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:09 am
With all due respect Mr. Frum I heard a totally different speech than what you heard. I heard humility and strength, not the fantasy interpetation bouncing around your head. Go back and listen to it again and give a unbiased account, not a Rush Limbaugh account. Good day sir!
MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:43 am
David, it turns out for the far Left, democrat activists here –yes, Susan-the-Avoider, there are far Left democrats who post on FrumForum– agree mostly with the Company Line (aka DailyKos-sack talking point), namely:
A DailyKos-sack writes for all Kos-sacks: “…here are my summaries, in no particular order, of some of the most serious philosophical criticisms (such as they are) from the right, as found on memeorandum, leaving aside the usual juvenile sniping and name calling (which as you might expect makes up most of it)”.
Mi-GOPer editor’s note: are these the same people who called Bush “Chimpy” as few months ago? Called McCain “McChimpy”? Called patriots “chicken hawks”? Called Rove “Hitler”? Called Cheney “Voldemort”? Yeah, well maybe we should label them hypocrites extreme.
My Kos-sack friend continues: “David Frum: Bush was Good, Republicans are Good, the Iraq War was Good, and Ronald Reagan was Good, and failing to sufficiently glorify their achievements or (God forbid) criticizing them, makes Obama Bad. It’s unbearably gauche for the first African-American president to imply in any way that he, personally, as an African-American, embodies any of the successes that have flowed from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s lifelong struggle for civil rights. No amount of praise for Our Glorious Military is sufficient, especially if your name is Barack Obama, and especially if you don’t mention that they won the war in Iraq. A good ten months into his presidency, he still hasn’t given up on diplomacy with Iran and nuked them yet. Stating any kind of equivalence between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East conflict is reminiscent of something a Nazi once said.”
Now there’s the trifecta of the far Left trolls: 1) get Frum on being a racist, 2) get Frum on arab-bashing, 3) get Frum on overt militaristic jingoism. Wow, the DailyKos and our TrollTribe pals at FrumForum sure know how to invent stuff when reality falls short of expectation.
Meanwhile, on the farLeft, former professor Zbigniew Brzezinski thought Obama gave a wonderful speech before the Nobel Committee of international Left Groupies… there’s a guy who should be sued by America for foreign policy malfeasance.
Yep, David Frum, according to the farLeft at DailyKos and with the TrollTribe here, got the Obama Nobel Speech all wrong. Who’d have figured that would be their Company Line “spontaneous” reactions, eh?
Sarah Palin Hits ‘Em Where It Hurts | Right Wing News // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:27 am
[...] homeland safe, his passion for respecting – honoring our troops."Well, then. If Sarah approves….David Frum must disapprove:When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of [...]