I'm not the only one a little impressed with Obama's speech. After failing to see the immediate merits of graciously turning down the award on the morning of October 9th, he's gone some way toward redeeming the apparent inconsistency of announcing the Afghan surge days before his Nobel recognition. Admittedly, the Peace prize has discredited itself over the years with awards to Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa, and so too has the prize for Literature (Philip Roth, for instance, still criminally overlooked), but the political implications are huge. After a shaky affirmation of the non-violence (cough*) of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the presentation ceremony, Obama followed up the reference with his own slant:
As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. […] But, as a head of state, sworn to protect and defend my nation […] I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. […] To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism. It is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.
Though that last bit about the "limits of reason" is rather questionable, what he's saying is admirable, and the argument holds. His rhetoric walks a tightrope, a tightrope stretched over a ravine of jagged rocks, but he balances the dichotomy nicely. The task, he explains, lies in "reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly." Our innate shortcomings, then, manifest themselves through War. This seems fair. He goes on: "yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace." That's a fairly bold thing to say in front of the committee for the Nobel Peace Prize, as I'm sure you'll agree. His command of the language is impressive, and he uses it to good effect here. He acknowledges the contradiction, rather than evades it. Would Bush, or even Brown have done the same?
I'm not the only one a little impressed with Obama's speech. After failing to see the immediate merits of graciously turning down the award on the morning of October 9th, he's gone some way toward redeeming the apparent inconsistency of announcing the Afghan surge days before his Nobel recognition. Admittedly, the Peace prize has discredited itself over the years with awards to Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa, and so too has the prize for Literature (Philip Roth, for instance, still criminally overlooked), but the political implications are huge. After a shaky affirmation of the non-violence (cough*) of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the presentation ceremony, Obama followed up the reference with his own slant:
No comments:
Post a Comment