Obama's Noble Alternative

I wish this year's Nobel Peace Prize had gone to the people of Iran who vigorously protested an oppressive regime. Instead, President Obama got it for noble aspirations and well-directed first steps. I wish he had declined the prize, but what should he do now?

Obama, after learning that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, tried to strike a humble tone: "Let me be clear, I do not view [the prize] as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace."

He then pointed to the tireless efforts of freedom-fighters everywhere. All those who share in the aspirations of freedom and dignity deserve the award. He said: "That's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace."

The true heroes, Obama tells us, are the protesters and innocents around the globe who fight for their dignity (and the soldiers, diplomats, and NGO workers who sacrifice to help them). They have already marched in the streets and trenches and built roads, wells, schools, and hospitals so that freedom might develop in far off places. Accepting on their behalf was one noble way to handle the situation.

The Nobel committee is certainly free to do as they please, and many have noted the intense political messages they conveyed by choosing to give the Peace Prize to Obama. In making the award, they pointed to the President's "'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples' during his nine months in office and singled out for special recognition Obama's call for a world free of nuclear weapons, the subject of a major speech April 5 in Prague."

Obama has pushed our foreign policy in this direction, to be sure, and has taken some notable first steps in a grand foreign policy that just might work. But I wish he would have declined the prize. (John Dickerson and Mickey Kaus in Slate beat me to print with that thought.)

Why? Because it would have been an incredible opportunity for him to lay out his agenda of what he hopes to accomplish in the next 3 or 7 years--overcoming immensely complicated challenges around the globe, working in concert with many other countries, organizations, and freedom-seeking peoples. He has nothing more to gain from accepting the award--he already "won." But he has much to lose (see comments on any blog or news story from across the political spectrum).

Here's my wish for how this morning had played out:

The President comes to the podium and says he is deeply humbled. He then declares that he hopes in 7 years time he would deserve this recognition after tirelessly working on many fronts.

He then asks the Nobel committee to instead recognize the brave, defiant protesters in Iran who for weeks earlier this year exemplified the common human struggle for recognition of basic rights like religious freedom, political recognition, and some measure of basic dignity. They are, he declares, paradigms and models for all those who strive for the same rights as the oppressed around the world. (He invokes Desmond Tutu's speech from U2's 360 concert tour).

He then proceeds to give the speech of the century.

He lays out how he will work on multiple fronts with every willing partner to pursue security and peace in the face of global threats. He promises to continue the legacy of the past few Presidents in eradicating nuclear weapons (even the staunch, nuclear-armed Reagan did a huge amount to reduce nuclear proliferation and capacities!). He pledges to continue the immense work of President Bush on eradicating AIDS and other diseases. He commits to ensuring that he will not engage in political horse-trading for strategic goals that trump our intolerance for religious oppression, torture, genocide.

He echoes themes from his brilliant Cairo speech, laying out how hatred cannot rule our hearts, how misunderstanding and stereotyping cannot be allowed to trump our need to work together and the common humanity recognized by most people of good will. He calls on everyone to distinguish between those who use religion to lay waste to human life from those who are motivated by religion to seek peace and the betterment of their fellows.

He powerfully reiterates that those who resort to violence will not only not be tolerated, but will be stopped in their tracks wherever they may be.

And then he lays down the gauntlet: He hopes in seven years he deserves the prize and history will judge him accordingly. But he asks that we give him time. Please work with him where you can and challenge him where you disagree. Give him the space of time to analyze situations like Afghanistan so past mistakes are not repeated.

And then he goes back in the Oval Office and gets busy as a leader we can all believe in.