For more recent posts, go to http://www.hopeandchange.net

 

The surprise award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama has touched off an interesting debate on his accomplishments. There is no real dispute that it is still early in President Obama's term, and that he cannot claim any solid, completed achievements such as a treaty or other resolution of an international conflict. Nevertheless, there is significant disagreement, largely on partisan lines, as to whether Obama deserves the award. That suggests that people are using different criteria for determining who is deserving of a peace prize. This disagreement also suggests that many people still do not understand or appreciate the nature of Barack Obama's achievement, and the transformation he has already effected in the course of being elected president.

Whether one supports or is hostile to Obama may spring from two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. The first way is to view the world as comprised of a number of hostile forces that must be overcome. Your mission in this view of the world is to defeat these hostile forces, usually by demonstrating your own superior power. The second way is to view the world as comprised of a number of problems that must be solved. In order to solve those problems, you need to bring together the competing forces that view these problems in different ways, and attempt to find common ground with these differing views. What Barack Obama achieved even before he became president, was to persuade the voters of America that they ought to try viewing the world in a more problem-solving way, instead of an adversarial way. The world view of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, the two candidates he defeated, comes from the more traditional, combative approach to politics and to governance. Because Barack Obama has been able to bring America around to a more problem-solving, and unifying vision of the future, he has already changed the image of the United States around the world. Note that I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is a pacifist. He has already decided to wage a more vigorous war in Afghanistan, and he also doesn't shy away from fights with political adversaries at home. What I am saying is that Obama's instincts are more conciliatory than adversarial. He would rather bring parties together than try to find ways to divide them.

I think the main reason Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was that he already been able to transform the way Americans view the world, which has in turn changed the way the rest of the world views America. That is not an insignificant accomplishment. I also think that people who feel Obama is undeserving of this award are mainly people who are fundamentally opposed to a problem-solving, unifying vision of the world. They believe that attempting to find common cause with one's adversaries is dangerously naive, that compromise should be scorned, and that the only proper way to deal with opposing views is to fight and defeat them. In other words, people who don't think President Obama deserved the peace prize could be people who are not really on board with the whole peace concept, or who think that the only reliable way to achieve peace is through strength.

My conclusion as to the reasons behind the hostility to the peace award is in part based on comments to my previous post on this topic below, as well as reaction I provoked to comments I made on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as reading the reactions of a number of prominent conservatives. I should note that there are quite a few Obama critics on the left who also view the world in an adversarial manner (for example critics who advocate fighting harder to ram the liberal agenda through the Congress). It is interesting that some of those people also seem wary of embracing the President's receipt of the Peace Prize. (another example here)

Finally, I think that whatever one's degree of skepticism of the Obama approach, people should remember that we are talking about a peace prize, after all. Peace prizes are not generally awarded to successful generals, or others who advocate vanquishing one's enemies on the battlefield, even when those enemies are real and need to be vanquished. There are other awards for recognition of bravery in battle. So whether one fully supports President Obama's transformative vision of the way politics should be conducted, or whether one believes that the president is hopelessly out of touch with reality, maybe we could find some common ground in agreeing that the qualities that the Nobel committee might have been seeking to reward do seem to fit in the peace category.

Last night the 28 year old prodigy Gustavo Dudamel made his triumphant debut as the new director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic (and I have tickets for the same program tonight), with giant screens set up on the street so more people could see it. The Dodgers won game 2 of the Division Series after being down to their last out in the bottom of the ninth (after strong pitching by their 21 year old prodigy Clayton Kershaw). And to top it off, this morning, 48 year old prodigy Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize! I'm not sure I could stand any more good news.

T-ball on the White House lawn was a great innovation by the last administration. But how about inviting 150 middle-schoolers for an astronomy demonstration, hosted by Buzz Aldrin, Sally Ride and other astrophysics luminaries? The students got a chance to peer through telescopes, touch a moon rock, and meet actual astronauts and amateur and professional astronomers. Instead of fearing or censoring science, we are now embracing science, while at the same time promoting education and American competitiveness.

Yesterday, truth serum was surreptitiously administered to the members of the Senate Finance Committee after they emerged from voting down two public option amendments to their committee's proposed health insurance reform legislation. After receiving his dose, cleverly added to his water glass while he wasn't looking, ranking Republican member Charles Grassley stepped up to the podium and made the case for defeating the public option very clearly: "We cannot allow the American people to have the choice of a publicly-administered insurance plan. The public plan would probably cost less and deliver better service than any private plan. That is the last thing the American people need." Gulping down his shot of truth serum, his colleague Orrin Hatch chimed in, "My friends in the insurance industry say that if private insurance companies have to compete with a public plan, there is no way they will be able to provide their executives with the summer homes and yachts they deserve. These people have been providing valuable services to their shareholders by finding ways to deny coverage to millions of unhealthy Americans. Why should they be deprived of their piece of the American dream?" Senator John Kyl then provided a political perspective: "If we Republicans can just stick together, the Democrats might not be able to pass any bill at all, given all the disagreements among their members. It is absolutely critical that we prevent reform from happening, otherwise Americans might be so grateful to the Democrats for finally establishing the right of all Americans to decent, affordable health insurance that the Republicans will never win an election again."

Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, who was also slipped a dash of truth serum before he spoke, was asked why he and several other Democrats had voted against a public option, even though it is supported by nearly all of their Democratic colleagues, and over 60% of the American people. "Well on the one hand you have the Democratic party, and over 60% of the American people. But on the other hand, look at the millions of dollars of campaign contributions I have personally received from the insurance industry. What have the Democrats or the American people done for me to match that?" Senator Conrad, another of the three Democrats who voted against the Schumer amendment, quickly added: "We don't want people to get the idea that Democrats are able to resolve their differences and govern effectively. That would destroy one of the great traditions of the Democratic Party. Plus, it will be much easier for me to get re-elected if I can stand up and tell my constituents that I helped contribute to continuing gridlock in Washington. I still score points back home by claiming to be anti-government." "Look," said Senator Blanche Lincoln, "this is not about doing what is best for the Democratic Party. It's not even about doing what is best for the American people. This country was founded on good old-fashioned values of self-reliance and independence. That means that I vote according to what is best for Blanche Lincoln. That's the American way."

The gathered reporters thanked the senators for their most informative press conference in some time.

The President is meeting with top advisers to consider how to move forward in Afghanistan, in light of the report of General McChrystal, which said that a new strategy and greater commitment is needed for the mission to succeed there. My question is whether it is possible for the country to have an intelligent debate on Afghanistan policy. My fear is that political divisions will prevent us from seeing the real problems at stake in that region.

One obstacle to an intelligent debate seems to be an inordinate focus on the question of appropriate troop levels. The issue of how many troops are needed to perform a mission seems particularly ill-suited to a political debate by non-experts, and particularly prone to political grand-standing by both sides in the debate.

Another thing that seems to stand in the way of intelligent discussion is our tendency to replay debates over past wars. Both the left and the right see the debate on the Afghanistan conflict as a way to vindicate their prior positions on Vietnam or Iraq; or as a chance to bash each other over prior policy mistakes in Afghanistan itself. While it may have parallels to past conflicts, the unique situation in Afghanistan deserves unbiased study and understanding.

The fact is that the United States, and NATO, have a substantial interest in preventing the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan, unless the Taliban were able to demonstrate that it will play by the rules of the democratic process, and respect the rights of Afghan citizens. We also have an interest in preventing Al Quaeda from having safe havens in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But even apart from our own interests, we should be concerned about the human rights of the people of Afghanistan, who have suffered through decades of civil war, in part fomented by the United States, the Soviet Union and other outside powers. When the great powers last got tired of Afghanistan, the Taliban stepped into the void. Women could then forget about going to school; men could not shave their beards; and people had to bury their radios and televisions in the backyard for the duration. We have a responsibility to try to prevent that from happening again. A new strategy is surely needed in Afghanistan to accomplish these important goals. Whether that requires more troops or not is beyond my expertise. But those who question the military assessment of what is needed should have the burden of proposing alternative strategies that might have a chance of success, and should not simply throw up their hands and suggest that we pull out and leave the Afghans'--and the world's--fate to a group that has shown no respect for people's rights in the past.

(White House photo)

Last night I heard Colin Beavan at the LA Public Library promoting his book No Impact Man. I had already seen the documentary recording the year he and his family spent trying to reduce their impact on the environment to zero, by radically changing their consumption and lifestyle habits. What makes the documentary so enjoyable is the character of his wife, who is somewhat skeptical of the whole project, and who provides most of the dramatic tension and comedy in the film. Colin comes off as a more earnest character who is sincerely trying to confront the dilemma of how one little person can save the planet.

The part of Beavan's talk most relevant to the themes of this blog was his discussion of whether we can best bring about change by demanding that the government solve these problems for us, or by making the needed changes ourselves. Ultimately, he seems to have concluded that we need to do both. It might seem absurd to expect that we can save the environment just by individually deciding to drive less, eat locally, or reduce consumption. Clearly, we need much more massive re-engineering of our transportation systems, energy generating systems, agriculture, and a lot of other structural issues, if we want to live more sustainably. On the other hand, there is obviously a lot that individuals can do simply by making different choices in their own lives. Beavan's point is that making these adjustments, in his case very drastic ones, might in addition to helping the planet, also help people enjoy their lives more. In his case, he noticed benefits to his family's health, and to the quality of time they spent together. His own sense of well-being also improved, because he felt he was actually doing something about problems that were troubling him.

Imagine the surprise of New Yorkers as they received thousands of copies of a fake New York Post, presenting a lot of scary information about the effects of global warming. Unlike the fake New York Times distributed last year by the same pranksters (the Yes Men), everything in the fake New York Post was supposed to be absolutely true.

I saw these guys at South by Southwest earlier this year, introducing their new film which is due out in theatres soon, and they are really clever and interesting. Someone in the audience asked them if they ever got sued, and they said no, but they would welcome it, because it would only draw more attention to their pranks.

Every year the government of Iran holds a gigantic rally to condemn Israel. This year the organizers of the rally were surprised by the thousands of anti-government protesters who flooded the streets, the largest demonstrations since the series of demonstrations that followed Iran's questionable elections in June. As reported in the Los Angeles Times:

"Some opposition protesters came by subway, nervously moving out into the streets and hiding green ribbons in their pockets as they walked past phalanxes of helmeted riot police and hard-line pro-government Basiji militiamen.

They chanted quietly at first, nervous among the many government supporters headed toward Friday prayers, where the sermon was delivered by an acolyte of Ahmadinejad after the relatively moderate Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was barred from speaking.

Eventually, their murmurs gave way to boisterous choruses, as they realized that they were among thousands of protesters."

The story goes on to report that while the government spokesmen attempted to incite the crowd into chanting anti-Israel slogans, the protesters were more interested in chanting slogans of support for their opposition candidate Mousavi. One gentleman in the crowd is quoted as saying, "We are unable to make ends meet as the prices go up and up. Who cares about Israel? 'Down with Israel' does not make jobs for our youths or grow our money."

I read this hopeful story just before heading to temple Saturday morning for Rosh Hashanah services. The opening prayer, Ma Tovu (the first line of which is the title of this post, which translates as "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!"), held striking parallels this year with events in Iran, and made me realize that many things have not changed in the Middle East for thousands of years. This prayer comes from a story in the Book of Numbers in which the King of Moab hires Balaam to curse the Israelites in the hope that this curse will help him defeat his enemies. Balaam is instead so struck by the beauty of the Israelites' encampment that he blesses them instead, forming the basis for the prayer that continues to be read to this day.

It would be too much to expect that the crowd in Tehran that Ahmadinejad hoped to whip up into a frenzy of cursing Israel would instead decide to bless Israel, but it is encouraging that much of the crowd was a lot less interested in blaming Israel for Iran's problems, and instead wants to put the blame where it belongs.

(photo from New York Times)

President Obama's decision to scrap a planned missile defense system that was to be constructed in the Czech Republic and Poland represents another triumph of fact-based decision-making. As an article in Foreign Policy points out, the proposed missile defense system represented a shield "that did not work against a threat that did not exist." Instead the US and NATO will consider deploying much cheaper and more effective interceptors against the actual threat of short range missiles from Iran.

Of course, the usual gang of neo-cons are outraged, as reported by TPM. Interestingly, however, none of them contend that the Bush-planned missile-defense system would have been efficacious in any way. Max Boot even admits that the thing probably wouldn't work, but thinks we should have built it anyway just for show. No doubt this faith-based defense community will continue to portray President Obama's and Defense Secretary Gates's decision as caving in to the Russians, and demonstrating America's weakness. In reality, however, it will demonstrate that America finally has some common sense.