Ross Douthat,1 writing in the NYT (Heckuva Job, Barack) argues that turning down the Nobel Peace Prize “was Barack Obama’s last chance” to “cut himself free” from “the implausible expectations, the utopian dreams, the messianic hoo-ha.”
First off, the whole “messianic hoo-ha” business is a line of critique from the right that was hardly going to evaporate if Obama turned down the prize.
Second (and more importantly): the basic thesis of Douthat’s piece is that Obama has basically failed/is going to fail all in the context of the notion the Nobel Peace Prize was prematurely awarded (at best). The irony here is that Douthat is criticizing premature judgment while engaging in premature judgment. Surely if it is too early to declare Obama a success (and it is), then it is too early to declare him a failure, yes? That does follow logically, does it not?
He also ends the piece in peculiar fashion:
by accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes, that much more embarrassing and difficult to bear. What’s more, he’s etched in stone the phrase with which critics will dismiss his presidency.Slick Willie. Tricky Dick. Jimmy “Malaise” Carter. Dubya the Incompetent.
And now Barack Obama, Nobel laureate.
I am guessing that if one had to choose, “Nobel laureate” trumps Slick, Tricky, Malaise or Incompetent, yes?
I fully understand finding the Nobel committee’s choice to be odd and even to criticize it. However, one cannot simultaneously declare it too early and declare it the coda to Obama’s career.
- I must confess, Douthat has been rather disappointing to date as I expected better, more thoughtful columns from him. He has only been a marginal improvement over Bill Kristol. Quite frankly at this rate I would expect him to be gone once his contract expires. [↩]
October 12th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Your logic is all wrong on this. You don’t understand the basic underpinning of current conservative theory, which is:
* Barack Obama is the worst President ever.
* Therefore, every negative argument about Barack Obama is right, regardless of logic, evidence, or internal consistency.
* QED.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am
First off, the whole “messianic hoo-ha” business is a line of critique from the right
More precisely, the “messiah hoo-ha” is actually a creation of the right not a critique.
It is pretty clear that the bulk of Obama’s support comes from people critical of Bush Administration’s noxious blend of ideology and incompetence–not from people who think he’s a “messiah.”
The whole idea that Obama’s support is based on “utopian dreams” is really without any empirical evidence.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
“First off, the whole “messianic hoo-ha” business is a line of critique from the right that was hardly going to evaporate if Obama turned down the prize.”
Ah, but it fans it. I’m a right-leaning moderate inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and I find the whole affair repellant.
“Second (and more importantly): the basic thesis of Douthat’s piece is that Obama has basically failed/is going to fail all in the context of the notion the Nobel Peace Prize was prematurely awarded (at best). The irony here is that Douthat is criticizing premature judgment while engaging in premature judgment.”
You set yourself up for a (technical) critique of reading comprehension, IMO. From Douthat’s column:
“Great achievements may still await our Nobel president. If Obama goes from strength to strength, then this travesty will be remembered as a footnote to his administration, rather than a defining moment. But by accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes …”
This does not seem to be predicting failure as an overall thesis. And by setting such huge expectations, the Nobel has made adequate management of foreign policy, while dealing with domestic reform and a financial cris, effectively “failure.” It’s entirely possible for Obama to be a good or great President and utterly fail at bringing “peace” to the world’s currently intractable areas. And accepting it does seem to constrain his decision set regarding Afghanistan and Iran.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Otherwise:
If Alex takes Douthat’s column for an example of reflexively batty conservative logic, he’s in for 4-8 years of reflexive right scorn that should keep him warm (and righteous) at night. But the added heat leaves one immune to sensing the country’s honest political temperature.
As for Ratoe’s comment:
“The whole idea that Obama’s support is based on “utopian dreams” is really without any empirical evidence.”
Um … Change? Hope? shepard Fairey prints? yes we can? I live in DC. The number of people I see wearing t-shirts with Obama’s face on them and the sales figures for Obama collector’s plates and collectible hummels are disturbing. He’s a politician. The idea that *some* cult of personality hasn’t sprung up around this President because of his unusual charisma and the historic racial background of his election seems … “without empirical evidence.”
What, would you like to build a a Hopeychangeymeter to “empirically measure” the zeitgeist? In like, say, Joules? Meters? Obamaqualots?
BTW Caveat: I think much of the right is currently off its rocker. That doesn’t mean the left isn’t peddling its own, more currently self-confident brand of bullshit. This Nobel feeds a bad impression, whether it was his fault the Norwegians threw it at him or not.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:02 am
You set yourself up for a (technical) critique of reading comprehension, IMO. From Douthat’s column:
I take the point, but he starts off with the whole situation being a “last chance” and then he lumps him in with failed presidents at the end while in the middle basically predicting ruin.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Put perhaps a better way: the underlying theme of the piece is that this award will almost certainly be an albatross around Obama’s neck that will be a glaring reminder of his failures. Really, is there any other way to read the piece?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“But the added heat leaves one immune to sensing the country’s honest political temperature.”
Heh. I get the temperature from polling, which shows the Republican’s favoribility hovering somewhere around the gunk that you get on your shoe when you step on gum in the morning and don’t realize it until you get home. Or is a 25% favorability for the GOP somehow a good thing? I’m sure it can be spun that way.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I’m frankly not that enthused by the GOP’s meek marshmallow like stand on the issues, but I’m trying to figure out what are the good things we can credit the administration for. Abandoning our allies in Eastern Europe, turning a blind ear to the Iranian dissidents after the election, the stimulus program, that health care bill, which slashes Medicare, and seemingly follows the complete
lives’ system the wavering on Afghanistan, the takeover of the auto companies, including shutting down many profitable dealerships. A racebaiting attorney general, a homeland security secretary that chooses to classify all center right dissent as potential terrorists, Shutting down practically all domestic oil and gas production, with more to come with the cap n trade billI must be missing something.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
[...] is also a wee, wee problem of logic here: … [T]he basic thesis of Douthat’s piece is that Obama has basically failed/is going [...]
October 12th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
[...] is also a wee, wee problem of logic here: … [T]he basic thesis of Douthat’s piece is that Obama has basically failed/is going [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
[...] From PoliBlog: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=17080 More from the PoliBlog: [...]