Nobel Prize: The Surprise

The news that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize inspired almost universal incredulity. Even his most loyal supporters responded with a "what?" Nobel Prizes often are seen as capstones to careers, recognition of a singular accomplishment, or encouragement for a transformational cause. Many observers describe Obama's Nobel as a reward not for achievement but for aspiration. Yesterday Obama agreed with the assessment and said he will take the award as a "call to action."

The New Republic considers the prize a mixed blessing, in part because it implicitly tries to tie Obama's hands as he addresses threats such as the one posed by Iran's aggressive nuclear ambitions. The Nation's advice that Obama "earn" the prize with his "deeds" suggests the intellectual left cannot fully grasp the news, either. Many on the right have erupted.

The Nobel Prizes do not lie beyond criticism. Yet doubters confront dilemmas. When they undermine the Nobel process as an institution, they forfeit the opportunity to cheer when someone they admire receives the nod. Rush Limbaugh's statement that Obama's Nobel is a bigger embarrassment than Chicago's loss in the Olympic sweepstakes does precisely that. If the Nobels are by nature a hoot, then the peace prizes for Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Andrei Sakharov, Elie Wiesel, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dalai Lama must be derided, too. Moreover, if the Nobels are as meaningless as skeptics assert, then why did the bloviators make a mad dash to mock Obama's selection? We detect envy and impotent rage against perceived unfairness. In this instance, fever reflects fear. Fret not, the political consequences will be slight. Take this for what it is. Nothing dramatic will change, for better or for worse. Al-Qaida is not impressed.

The Nobel record remains spotty. The prizes occasionally seem less examples of recognition of the great and the good than partisan-like ploys to influence events. Nobels used in the latter sense typically fail to produce the intended results. To survey the list of winners past is to invite a serial reaction of "who?" and "why?" and "for crying out loud." The worst offense ever was the solo award to Mikhail Gorbachev, when the prize should have been shared with Ronald Reagan. Awards early in an individual's career seem precarious. With Obama, the Nobel committee has put its reputation at risk, again. Its haste smacks of vulgarity.

President Obama deserves congratulations. For all the system's flaws, a Nobel Prize confers honor, which can be problematic and which always demands humility. Acclaim imposes burdens. Amid loud laud and lamentation, presidents, laureates, and commentators alike have great need to return to the silent land.