Obama’s award hurts Nobel’s credibility, does little to help Obama’s

Full disclosure: I’m an Obama supporter. I (still) believe in his potential to make a significant, positive impact on the U.S.—the livelihood of its citizens, how it’s perceived globally, and so on. That’s a reason to vote for him; it’s not a reason to give him the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve heard the opposite argument already a few times today, that “the prize seems to be more for promise than performance,” as it’s stated in an Associated Press story headlined “Analysis: Obama’s Nobel honors promise, not action.”

With all due respect, that’s a pretty ridiculous position to take. Sorry to turn this into a semantic argument (hahaha…ug), but a prize is not usually something awarded for promise. Dictionary.com defines “prize” as “a reward for victory” and “reward” as “something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship, etc.” Not the potential for service or merit.

Even Obama seems to agree that it’s a bit silly, quoted as saying ”I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize.” Martin Indyk, on NPR’s site, claims that “critics who argue that he hasn’t earned it miss the point. The Nobel Committee clearly wanted to boost support for Obama’s worldview…”

The rub is that this doesn’t do much to help Obama—at least, not domestically, where I’d argue he needs more help right now. In fact, it does little more than inflame existing opinions that he’s all sizzle and no steak. I can’t think of sizzle much better than the Nobel Peace Prize, but for those who feel he hasn’t delivered on the other half of the equation, the smoke and sputter borders on caustic.

Worse yet, this hurts the credibility of the Nobel Committee and the Prize, risking that future winners won’t get the respect they (probably) deserve. It’s like giving Miley Cyrus a lifetime achievement award. Love her or hate her, she just hasn’t been around that long.