This was against the backdrop of a president who lied to the UN so he could depose a dictator, initiated ground invasions of two countries, had a VP who openly advertised that he was okay with doing evil stuff to accomplish his objectives - e.g. Gitmo and Abu Graib, and created a regulatory environment that led to the GFC.
That prize was awarded to Obama but it was meant for the US electorate for embracing what you reductively call "hope".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Maha...
I gotta agree. I'm not sure Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back in that particular regard.
That said, it depends on how old you are. I think there are a lot of young people on HN, and for them, maybe that was a meaningful indication of a purportless Nobel Peace Prize?
Some slightly older than them may have checked out with the whole Aung San Suu Kyi - Arafat - de Klerk thing.
They don't really attach much import to that prize in any case because of the bad taste those picks left in their mouths.
I guess I mean that every generation kind of learns anew that, "Hey.. wow, this prize doesn't really mean what it did even 60 years ago."
It's definitely the Nobel Prize that's the most politically biased and least merited by winners at the median over the last 30-40 years.
Asking genuinely as a person who is not familiar with the US political climate before the 90s…
• Vietnam War and Bombing of Cambodia: Kissinger played a key role in the secret bombing of Cambodia and the escalation of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, which expanded the conflict, resulted in significant civilian casualties, and destabilized the region, enabling the rise of the Khmer Rouge and contributing to mass deaths.
• Bangladesh Genocide (1971): Kissinger and President Nixon strongly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship during its violent suppression of Bangladesh’s independence movement, despite well-documented human rights abuses and U.S. officials’ warnings about atrocities.
• Support for Dictatorships and Coups in Latin America: He was instrumental in U.S. support for right-wing military coups, notably the 1973 ouster of Chile’s democratically elected president Salvador Allende, and the subsequent support for General Pinochet’s regime, which was responsible for widespread human rights violations. Kissinger also backed Operation Condor, a campaign of repression and assassination by South American dictatorships.
• Indonesia and East Timor: Kissinger has been implicated in supporting Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which led to widespread killings and humanitarian abuses.
• Undermining U.S. Principles and Rule of Law: Kissinger’s tenure saw numerous secret operations and violations of U.S. and international law, including illegal arms transfers and covert interference in foreign elections and governments.
• Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks: He was accused of interfering with peace negotiations in 1968, potentially prolonging the Vietnam War for political gain.
That piece of corrupt foreign policy has spoiled U.S.-Iran relations ever since, but Kissinger had nothing to do with it.
Anyways, the first couple paragraphs of his Wikipedia is an introduction.
>Kissinger is also associated with controversial U.S. policies including its bombing of Cambodia, involvement in the 1971 Bolivian and 1973 Chilean coup d'états, and support for Argentina's military junta in its Dirty War, Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor, and Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Bangladesh genocide.[6] Considered by many American scholars to have been an effective secretary of state,[7] Kissinger was also accused by critics of war crimes for the civilian death toll of the policies he pursued and for his role in facilitating U.S. support for authoritarian regimes.[8][9]
But back on Obama, was your expectation that he wouldn't hurt a fly? Did he start a war? Did he not set the stage for withdrawing from two wars (both justified imho!)? Did he order the killing of anyone who wasn't a legitimate military target? I'm not saying he should have been given any award, and certainly his was premature, but it is hardly without precedent.
The peace prize is given to leaders who worked towards peace. It gives them recognition, sort of like a pat on the back so they won't give up.
Would you rather a retired politician get the prize so he can boast about it? or an active politician so that he now has the prize as a reminder of their promises and work towards peace?
He said it best:
"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. But the US did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and conflicts in Syira, Libya and all over the world sprung that were too easy for the US to be involved in but the US didn't. The US military responded to various natural disasters providing crucial aid, such as with the 2011 Haiti earthquake.
I think this sentiment is held largely by people who don't want to be bothered by nuance and who have an immature concept of peace, one that doesn't involve violence or military action (despite concepts like "peace keeping force" existing).
But especially in this specific case, where he actually presided over a dramatic US escalation in Afghanistan:
https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releas...
in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider.
Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.
Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone.
I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
Depends on who he's making the promises to.
Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way.
In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president?
I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract.
You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now.
Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes.
Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.
Obama ran on change, he shouldn't have been "listening to advisors" like bush did with Iraq.
If he jailed bankers for example, both the left and right would support that, except the corporate ruling class and other politicians. The ACA on the other hand, there is a lot of misinformation around it that made it a partisan thing, and we still don't have universal health care, despite all the work he put into it.
I'm not saying it's fair, but even most on the left expected him to be a force of change, and that's mostly because he's black. The thing is, democrat presidents spend their first term cleaning up after the previous guy anyways, so I get it isn't realistic. But look at how trump is basically trampling on the constitution, long established norms and institutions,etc.. Obama didn't need to do all that, but he tried to be moderate and safe. Racists were going to hate on him no matter what, he needed to piss them and his own party off enacting change. Moderation and stability was not why he was elected.
And I think the democratic party lost its head a bit because Obama became president, they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia, which caused a lot of moderate people, and even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals to revolt against the left.
All that said, I have no idea what can be done to fix things. I just wish I knew how to brace for the fall.
I think it depends on the voters. A lot of people at that time were not able to afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Or they'd have a plan that would get cancelled when they ran into an actual serious illness because the insurer would find some pre-existing condition that was ubiquitous. I was very glad that the ACA passed. Could it be better? Sure, but given the political realities it is what it is.
> even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals
What opportunities are gen-z voters losing out to because of liberal ideals? If anything, the Democrats were much better on helping people pay for college, job training, etc.
> they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia
But as you've indicated above, Obama wasn't even all that liberal. More of a centrist which seems to be what you're critical of if I'm not mistaken? Biden was probably more of a classical liberal.
What do you mean by this?
It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards.
China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far.
If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him.
One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.
The sentiment wasn't because of Obama, it was because of the Koch brothers and others like them funneling billions to corrupt American discourse.
Over decades they funded conservative think tanks and academia to make their libertarian ideals more widely accepted. They funded the tea party and divisive mentalities. Others like Rupert Murdoch built up media empires to drive lies, outrage, and manufactured stories to build anti-government sentiment. None of that was Obama's doing.
Here's one way he could have handed it dramatically worse with a huge amount of empirical evidence: started lobbing random tariffs and abandoning trade deals and going isolationist.
But again, people being racist to Obama isn't the catastrophe I outlined. It isn't even trump. But the chain of events he set off and the collapse of this greatest republic. I called it back then, I liked Obama, but this is America, he wasn't even far-left or that controversial but the reaction to him will tear apart the country. America like it or not is the new rome, and when rome's fall, there is usually times of upheaval and instability until a new rome takes its place. Except things are at an exponentially more connected and interdepndent state. The '08 financial crisis alone started in the US and destablized the whole planet. Countries are now learning to rely a lot less on the US, to do less business with the US,etc.. realizing the risk relationship with the US carries.
I'm not even talking about the current admin and their lunacy, but consider that even if in '28 a more sane administration recovers all the allied relations and financial reputations, who is to say that in '32 there won't be someone even worse than trump? I'm sure after trump, his family would be in line to take his reign and build upon what he started.
The Koch brothers, fox news, etc.. they still care about money and they've always been around. It isn't even "racism" so to speak, that's just the excuse they're using. such people historically used religion or national pride instead. The gift Obama gave is riling up enough of the people that weren't even voting to begin with to vote for trump. and the DNC deciding hillary clinton was a good idea, just like kamala harris because they're good politicians. people voted for obama (twice!!) because he represented change. Yet "occupy wallstreet" happened under him. People voted for trump..you guessed it, change. But none of that matters, what matters is the source of wealth. If I had to speculate, the country will split up and Whatever new state has California will become the new center of power and finance because of silicon valley, sure. But also because of geography. Spain, England, Portugal rose because of their geographic proximity to the new world, as did Rome with the levant , baghdad, persia,etc.. with China & India,etc.. geography and its influence on wealth and commerce. California is on the west coast, close to east asia, south america and canada.
There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. you're right about that. But timing the right thing properly makes the difference between making the whole thing worth it and a lasting change vs making it performative and temporary. I like to think the only reason these people aren't actively plotting the return of slavery is because LLMs are more efficient.
Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted.
This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France.
> As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage?
No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon.
Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
Because having a government that follows the law is more important than one man's life.
Either way, if a US citizen is a legitimate target in an combat operation, it doesn't make sense to risk the lives of soldiers (US citizens) just so he can get a trial. In a perfect world,he would turn himself in and face trial to vindicate himself and his innocence but a drone strike kills that person and risks no more people that required.
Yes, you would prefer no killings take place, and I would also prefer to live in a utopia where there was no violence. I find our attitude obscene, that someone else on your behalf committed violence, minimizing to the absolute necessary amount and you pass judgement on them. Someone has to make the hard decisions that involve violence and war which are unfortunate realities, not inventions of some comic book villains. People have been warring since there were people. A peacemaker isn't someone that waves a magic wand and makes peace happen but someone who avoids violence unless it is required.
Citizen or not, if someone is providing material aid to a group that is intent on specifically targeting unsuspecting civilians, they're not criminals. They didn't break laws, they are engaging in combat. a domestic terrorist can be a criminal, so can a foreign terrorist working as non-state actor. But a terrorist group that's acting as quasi-state and waging military action is by definition a military target participating in war. Any such person must be treated as a combatant.
Truth is, Obama didn't commit enough justifiable violence,he could have done a lot more in syria and the levant, against Iran and elsewhere. but he was too peaceful and wanted to appease his voters. Ultimately, war is necessary at times, and it can even reduce the amount of actual death and suffering in the long run. Let's not forget that it was nuclear bombs and 50M+ people dying that ended the cycles of warfare in europe and most of the world for over half a century. Although people forgetting the lessons of that violence are repeating history again now. If there are aggressors intent on violence, the only way to achieve peace is through violence. You can't appease such people or debate with them (the allies tried that with hitler and learned their lesson).
My position is to refrain from criticizing too much any party that is responding to aggression or violence.
This obsession with Obama’s award is just further evidence Fox News decides what we recall and get angry about. It comes up every single year. It’s a meme at this point. Obama but not Arafat or Kissinger? Get out of here lmao
Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ received it because they "jointly worked for a ceasefire and for bringing peace to Vietnam," though Lê Đức Thọ refused it and Kissinger did not attend the ceremony.
Obama received it nine months into his Presidency for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having few if any concrete foreign policy achievements.
Obama could have at least matched Kissinger by ducking the ceremony, or even by refusing it like Lê Đức Thọ did because it wasn't justified.
That alone, in a sane world, would tell you these people had no business having a Nobel Peace Prize. At least Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ had the common decency not to stand at that podium. Most of those other Nobel Peace Prize winners did not have that kind of self awareness.
It is amazing how many hits you get when you Ctrl+F 'Obama' on this post.