Last week I said that I agreed with the concept that actions speak louder than words. Many of those who disagreed with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama have cited the same to support their views. But while I have a great deal of respect for many of the political analysts who feel this way, I still strongly disagree with them.
As I mentioned before, the motives of political extremists on the right and left who condemned Obama’s Nobel Prize are just as transparent as those of the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who have become their newest allies. Sowing seeds of mistrust and hate is an integral part of the message these rigid-thinking people want others to believe.
But ascertaining the motives of more thoughtful political commentators is a much tougher task, especially when they are people you respect. Many of them are just as dismayed by the political gamesmanship they see on display in Washington DC as I am, so stoking partisan flames doesn’t make any sense as a motive. Nor do any have radio and TV shows that would benefit from rousing anti-Obama supporters to bump up their ratings. Furthermore, most have been generally supportive of President Obama’s economic stimulus, environmental and healthcare reform proposals, so undercutting the President doesn’t make sense in this regard, either.
But while I think their motives are genuinely sincere, I also think they are rooted in the fact that they are products of America’s somewhat unique cultural affinities. Like me, they were all born and raised in a culture that celebrates and recognises real achievements more than it does hopeful aspirations or abstract ideas. We expect lofty words to be translated into action.
But precisely because they, like so many other Americans, have been raised to believe that actions speak louder than words, I think those commentators who were so critical of the prize missed a very critical point. The world may no longer be threatened by the possibility of nuclear destruction, but there are still many other potential disasters lurking on the horizon. So the words and vision of America’s President matter, because the world is looking to America for solutions to these problems.
President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and their neo-conservative Republican allies used the American public’s anger and revulsion over the 9/11 attacks to advance their idea that America was powerful enough to replace enemy regimes and transform their countries into a mirror image of America. They demanded concessions from their adversaries as a pre-condition to even talking directly with them. But their bullying tactics didn’t work, and President Obama is now trying to salvage what he can from the disastrous economic and military policies his predecessors implemented.
Obama knows that while America may still be the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world, it no longer has the political power or the wallet it needs to bend opponents to its will. He realises that the process of resolving the worlds many conflicts can’t begin until we first change the rhetoric we are using and stop demonizing those we disagree with. The President is also secure enough that he can talk to America’s enemies instead of trying to bully them.
The Nobel Prize is recognition that President Obama’s use of rhetoric is important, because he is setting an example for other political leaders around the world. Unlike some US commentators, the Nobel committee also realises that without a change in leaders’ rhetoric, the chances of resolving the world’s conflicts are between slim and none.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU
