Why Obama Should Turn Down the Nobel PrizeS

No, of course he won't. But Mickey Kaus thinks he should, and we agree. And ABC News' characterization of Obama's imminent Rose Garden speech is curiously neutral: "Obama will make a statement...reacting to the Nobel Peace Prize award. "

As opposed to accepting the award. That reaction should be: Thanks but no thanks. Obama has accomplished quite literally nothing in terms of reducing the number or intensity of wars on this planet. The Nobel Committee's own statement attributes the award to his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." As for his extraordinary accomplishments in those arenas, well—"A" for Effort!

The award to Obama is part of a long-term devaluation of the Peace Prize—Al Gore? Global warming is bad, but it's not violent. We can have global sustainable environmental policies and still have war. Yasir Arafat? That worked out well.

If he rejects it, he still gets to say that he was awarded it, and at the same time appear humble and self-aware. Let's see how he does over the next four (or eight) years before we start handing out the gold stars.

[White House photo of haloed Obama via Flickr.]