I’m not a big fan of political speeches in general, but I thought President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech today was unusually good. (If I were a speech-y kind of writer, like Rick Hertzberg, I’d have used a better adjective in the last sentence than “good.”)
After again acknowledging that he doesn’t really deserve the award--“I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize--Schweitzer and King;
First he rebuked the left:
For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. 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. …
the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations--that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the
The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from
Later he rebuked the blinkered nationalism of the neoconservatives:
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the
That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at
Obama attempted to explain how he blends idealism with diplomatic realism:
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach--and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable--and yet it surely helped set
Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the
The last sentence is key--it’s a careful middle ground between the bloodlessness of realism and the unrealistic hope that
On that latter point, the weakest section of Obama’s speech occurred when he tried to explain his response to ethnic cleansing:
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in
“Standing together” can make it “less likely” that we face the choice between intervention and complicity. Okay, but it can’t eliminate the choice. And when faced with that choice, what do we do? Obama doesn’t say, but his administration’s actions, or non-actions, in the areas he cites provide the answer.
The speech ends strongly with a call for shared humanity, which Obama contrasts against religious extremism. Interestingly, he concedes that Christianity is also capable of this same extremism:
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.