Obama has won a Nobel

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Little32

The committee collectively decided that Obama deserved the honor and they are the ones that matter with regards to the prize, which is theirs to give. To me, that's the bottom line to the question of merit. To paraphrase a colleague, only in America could a Nobel Peace Prize inspire so much hate.

I'm absolutely not "hating on" Obama for winning the award - I'm questioning whether he was the best recipient, sure, but that's fundamentally different. I can completely appreciate the net positives that may come out of this, but my first reaction was similar to some: what's he actually done to earn it?

I mean, it's kind of reductive to insinuate that he's earned it 'just' by being the first black President - while that's a tremendous accomplishment, it seems bad for racial lines in the US to simply use that, and actually works against goals of equality. I can appreciate the rhetoric that has softened foreign distaste for American politics, but it's just that - rhetoric, without corresponding action (yet). I hope we get there, but the Peace Prize seems like more of a lifetime achievement award, and less of a "look what great things you'll do!" thing (which is borderline children's novel, now that I read it).

Edit to address your edit: The things that I run, I take care of. My whole point is that the decision of the committee of this private organization--in which the assertion of merit is implicit--should be respected.

In no way is this an implicit truth - a private organization carries implicit merit? That's absolutely an untenable position.

What does all of this second-guessing gain anyone? Why do people feel that their perspective has more merit or validity than those of the people that were chosen to sit on this committee? Why does anyone feel a need to talk about who does or does not deserve the prize? What is the point?

The "point" is that the award carries tremendous cachet and public interest, and a great deal of implicit power - you can name an unbelievable number of those awarded right off the top of your head. Since the recipient carries newfound power in the public eye, it is certainly within the public purview to discuss whether this was justly awarded.

Again, I'm not arguing that the committee somehow violated its tenets or duties in any fashion - I'm merely stating that, by their stated goals and the history of the award, there's certainly reason and foundation to argue that the committee doesn't always get the right guy, whether by reason (such as politics, like some have asserted) or accident (which is completely reasonable, and indeed human nature). I completely understand your points and appreciate the thought-out responses, I just disagree that there is no utility or rationale behind discussing this - in fact, if there weren't, it would seriously devalue the award, in my mind.