Obama's Best Option: Earn It

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize a burden and an opportunity

Amidst the competing bombast from either side of the stark ideological divide, it can actually be difficult to decide just what, precisely, the reasonable position on Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize may actually be.

As McGill History Professor Gil Troy notes in a column in the Globe and Mail, it may indeed be simply too early too tell:

"As liberals rejoice in Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and conservatives grumble, let's be honest: It is too early too tell. Awarding this prize either may be prescient or premature. Regardless, the award reflects the noble aspirations of the award committee and the prize winner.

The committee beautifully described Mr. Obama's greatest accomplishment thus far. 'Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,' the citation says. The fact that despite its racist past, despite the stains of slavery and Jim Crow, the United States sent a black man to the White House was a modern miracle. That this President was only 47 when elected, and had, by his own description, a 'funny name,' is even more amazing especially following 9/11."

If an argument such as this were to hold true, perhaps the entire United States -- not just its President. But that may be beyond the point.

As Troy notes, Obama's Presidency and his Nobel Peace Prize were both born out of the noblest of intentions. But the greatest test of noble intentions is how well they can be applied in the real world, with all its dark blemishes:

"Alas, even with Mr Obama in office, the world is menaced by ignoble characters who disdain his noble aspirations. The jury is still out whether Mr Obama's politics of hope and diplomacy of engagement can work in a world of al-Qaeda killers, North Korean dictators, Iranian madmen, Iraqi insurgents, Taliban fanatics, Afghan warlords, Pakistani generals, Russian strongmen, Saudi Sheiks, Sudanese slaughterers, Guinean rapists and Hamas terrorists.

So far, there have been no major disasters on Mr Obama's watch – but no major successes either. North Korea and Iran continue to develop nuclear power: North Korea launched missiles on July 4 to defy Mr Obama, while Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole an election and cracked down on democratic forces with barely a peep from the US President. Mr Obama has kept pressing Al Qaeda with drone attacks, the Taliban with talk of more troops, Iraqi anarchists by refusing to withdraw precipitously.

But the Russians seem to think he can be pushed around, horrific crimes like the mass murder in Darfur and the mass military rapes of opposition protesters in Guinea continue to occur (inevitably, alas). And in a striking, but characteristic contrast from the Middle East, this week, Professor Ada Yonath won Israel's ninth Nobel prize – and the first chemistry Nobel for a woman since 1964 – even as Hamas and other Palestinian agitators called for violence in Jerusalem.

The contrast between noble societies that invest in science and ignoble societies addicted to terror, between noble political cultures that produce hope-generators like Barack Obama and ignoble political cultures that produce mass killers, remains stunning – and daunting."

It should go without saying that this will be the greatest test of Obama's Presidency.

But, as many Canadians will draw upon the life and experiences of former Prime Minister Leaster Pearson when discussing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, it's interesting to note the key difference between tne experience of Obama at the time of his award and those of Pearson.

By the time Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize he had already earned it by skilfully defusing the Suez Canal Crisis.

Pearson was thus already pre-committed to the path of diplomacy in all things. In cases where diplomacy was ineffective or inapplicable, Pearson was left with very few options. Far too often this rendered Pearson all too silent on key international issues -- such as the Vietnam war.

Obama, however, has essentially received the Nobel Peace Prize with his good intentions as a deposit. But his actions haven't precommitted him to any particular course. Obama can still earn his Nobel Peace Prize, and even has the luxury of winning it with a realist foreign policy.

Many members of the so-called "peace" movement may consider it to be anathema to win the Nobel Peace Prize by militarily securing Afghanistan -- and thus helping to secure Pakistan -- from government by terrorist-harbouring religious fundamentalists.

But when one considers the stake of stabilizing Afghanistan -- which will help, in turn, stabilize Pakistan -- could be as high as preventing nuclear war between Pakistan and India and preventing nuclear terrorism abroad, the Nobel Peace Prize committee should be able to forgive Obama if he's willing to help contain and defeat one of the most tyrannical governments of the 20th century (deposed in the 21st) with military force.

Judging by the conclusion of Gil Troy's article, he may or may not understand this:

"Good people throughout the world should unite in hoping that the aspirations embedded in this award to a rookie President quickly transform into impressive achievements. Thus far, Mr Obama has dazzled the world with his poetry. Let us hope that when we look back on this moment, his Nobel prize will be a milestone in his ability to turn his transcendent poetry into workable, governable prose, the hopes into feats, and, nations' swords into plowshares."

There are, naturally, few better ways to ensure peace than to defeat forces like the Taliban who only thwart it.

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't an award typically associated with wartime leaders. If Obama can successfully help contain and defeat the Taliban, however, that Nobel Peace Prize may have been earned.

Moreover, it may be earned in a manner that fuses Barack Obama's noble intentions with the means to make them reality.

RIP - The Meaningfulness of Racism as an Issue

Vapid accusations of racism do the issue a severe disservice

As Michael Coren notes in his SUN media op/ed column, racism used to mean something.

"A racist was someone who judged another person not on their ability, character or achievements but purely and exclusively on the colour of their skin or ethnic background," Coren writes. "Members of racial minorities such as blacks, Jews or Asians lost jobs, were denied basic human rights, enslaved and even murdered. Racism, as I say, used to mean something."

"Not now," Coren continues. "Racism still exists of course, but being called a racist often means you are winning an argument against a liberal or merely stating a conservative or orthodox opinion."

Former US President Jimmy Carter and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took turns accusing Obama's political opponents of being racists.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," said Carter. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

How is it that people like Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd know that Barack Obama's opponents are racist? Why, because they say so.

"[Joe Wilson's] outburst was certainly rude but there surely was no racist aspect to it. Not so explains Dowd. She heard the unspoken, 'You lie, boy!'" Coren writes. "Ah, now I see. Even though the word 'boy' was never uttered it must have been meant because Obama is of mixed race and Wilson is a white man who opposes him."

Carter's and Dowd's arguments don't hold water in a rational mind. Then again, they were never meant to.

Rather, they're meant to obscure the issues being debated in the United States right now and shame and intimidate Obama's opponents into silence.

"It is unfair and itself divisive to impute racial motives to Mr Obama's opponents without evidence," writes McGill political scientist Gil Troy. "The shrill opposition reflects the high stakes surrounding the current debate, Americans' enduring ambivalence about big government and the ugly way modern politics plays out in the media, within the blogosphere and on the streets."

"Mr Obama is controversial because he is seeking big changes," Troy continues. "Mr Obama wants to be a transformational president. ...Spending nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, taking over the U.S. auto industry, and now trying to solve the perennial health-care riddle – while protecting America and seeking world peace – are sweeping goals. No wonder there's pushback."

"The conservative counterattack is particularly intense because Mr Obama seems to forget that Americans have mixed feelings about big government," Troy explains. "There's a strong individualistic streak in American thought. Every major jump in the government's mandate has encountered fierce resistance."

Yet because Carter and Dowd have found such an immediately receptive audience amongst the political commentators at the increasingly-FOX News-like CSNBC, people like themselves -- and clods like Janeane Garofalo -- have been utterly unrepentant about their relentless playing of the race card.

Carter, for his own part, ought to be embarrassed. Race-baiting should be considered below any former President, even one as terrible as Carter was.

“I’m deeply disturbed by those accusations because it’s a unfair and untrue commentary on the American people and them exercising their god-give rights to disagree with the administration," said John McCain. "It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as – if not the worst President in history – certainly the worst in the twentieth century.”

McCain, as some may recall, was also accused of racism during the 2008 election, particularly when Obama's most unscrupulous supporters had no other rebuttal to offer.

Fortunately, Barack Obama himself takes a very different take on the matter. He knows full well that there isn't a total absence of racism in the movement that has risen against him, but at least he refuses to exaggerate it.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," Obama recently said. Instead, Obama rightly attributes the criticisms to a debate over the role of government "usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes."

Just like Gil Troy suggested.

"Even though we're having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil with each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people's motives," Obama concluded.

To which any rational individual should be able to say "amen".

But people like Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow clearly don't want cooler -- and more rational -- heads to prevail. It's just not in their game plan.

"It is dishonest for Mr Carter, Ms Dowd and others to play the race card, implying that anyone who dares disagree with Mr Obama's health-care plan or stimulus package is a redneck," Troy concludes. "American politics needs a different tone – these delusional, demagogic, racial recriminations only make things worse."

Barack Obama -- in his handling of this issue and others -- has shown himself to be a very wise leader. But unfortunately, both Obama himself and the issue of racism are being done a severe disservice by Carter, Dowd and company. By envoking racism for petty political purposes they risk casting the entire issue as permanently vapid and meaningless.

The very best that can be hoped for is that the opportunistic and savage attempts of these demagogues to steamroll their opposition under accusations of racism will help challenge some traditional -- but fallacious -- notions about racism.

" It was always said that racism can only come from a group with power. That's a deeply fallacious argument and, even if it were true, power is no longer in the hands of a creamy few," Michael Coren concludes. "Obama is powerful, not a racist. Some of his friends who are black, such as his former minister Jeremiah Wright, are not powerful but are racist."

Unfortunately, it all may be too much to hope for so long as partisan demogogues are bastardizing the issue.

The Return of American Imperialism

Heh... not really

As they meet in Halifax this weekend to chart the way forward for their party, the NDP has once again elected to become the party of American imperialism.

Well, not really. But if their ideological counterparts were up to some of the things they're doing this weekend, they'd be the first to denounce it.

Appearing at the NDP convention this weekend are Marshall Ganz and Betsy Myers, two high-profile campaigners for Barack Obama's successful 2008 Presidential run.

There's actually nothing wrong with this. But when the Conservative party enlisted the help of Republican party advisors in recent elections, the NDP and its supporters were quick to call foul, with accusations of American imperialism all around.

The perrenially-loony and normally-NDP-leaning website Global Research even suggested this alluded to an insidious plot to help the United States annex Canada.

Unshockingly, however, the NDP and Liberal party have generously helped themselves to support from the Democratic party whenever its offered, despite the fact that they scream blue murder whenever the Conservative party accepts support from the Republican party.

The NDP are even willing to go south of the 49th parallel to provide help and support of their own.

More recently, the NDP has been active in the American debate over President Obama's health care reform bill. Jack Layton even wrote an op/ed in the vociferously partisan Huffington Post.

"There are way more bridges and doors opening [for the NDP] within the Democratic Party, because of Obama winning," says NDP National Director Brad Lavigne. "There's more of our friends in their campaign and their offices than at any time in the recent past."

Even former CAW President Buzz Hargrove is buzzing around the NDP convention -- despite having embarrassed himself and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin at the direct expense of his NDP membership -- and is supportive of the move, even if his enthusiasm is somewhat tempered.

"It's always interesting to have these relationships with the White House," Hargrove said. "You learn a lot about what they're doing, but to somehow translate that into electoral success in Canada, I think it's blowing in the wind."

Of course there's nothing wrong with the NDP and the Democratic party working together if they decide they hold common goals.

But for the NDP to accept help from an American political party while demonizing their opponents as "American imperialists" for doing the same thing is grossly hypocritical.

Once one finishes with the subject of NDP hypocrisy on this particular matter, there's still the risk that the Democrats are taking by associating so closely with the NDP.

"Obama and his people are lucky that Americans ignore Canada and are ignorant about Canadian politics," adds Gil Troy. "I can imagine how much fun the Fox News crowd would have with this news, playing it up as if it showed that Obama had ties to the [Communist] Internationale."

Which is, in and of itself, hyperbole. But then again, so are the age-old charges of American imperialism.