The Nobel: Consequences - Washington Wire - WSJ

After the surprise comes the question: What does this portend, both for Barack Obama and for U.S. politics more broadly? It’s early, obviously, but here are some points to ponder:

Robert Reich, Clinton Labor Dept. Secretary: It underscores the paradox of Obama. On his blog, Reich writes that the president “has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight—temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does.

Associated Press

Chairperson of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, holds a picture of Nobel Peace Prize laureate 2009 Barack Obama at The Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Friday.

George Packer, New Yorker: It could damage Obama. “This seems like a prize for Europeans, not Americans, and I worry that at home it will damage him politically by reinforcing the notion that he is—and will be—a world icon rather than a successful President.”

Daniel Pipes, Hoover Institution, Stanford University: It could tie the administration’s hand on Iran. The prize citation, Pipes writes, “lauds him for not using force: “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” This is obviously gibberish: Whereas Bush did not use force against North Korea, Obama does not rely on dialogue in Afghanistan. But the statement does pressure Obama not to use force in the theater that counts the most, namely the Iranian nuclear build-up. So, from the Leftist Norwegian point of view, it’s a twofer — bash Bush and handcuff Obama.”

Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University: It could discredit the Nobel: “We don’t know what Obama will be forced (or will choose) to do in the rest of his presidency (which could last another 7+ years) and if he ends up escalating any existing conflicts or-heaven forbid-starting a new one, it will make a mockery of the whole idea of the prize. I wouldn’t be surprised if this award doesn’t generate more than a little resentment around the world, especially if U.S. foreign policy changes less than many people still hope it will.” In a separate post, he casts doubt on the idea it could constrain U.S. foreign policy.

Marc Ambinder, the Atlantic: It could increase domestic hostility to the Obama administration, not only from conservatives, but also independents. “One argument I’m hearing and reading from Democrats and others who are skeptical of the prize: it will turn the volume and enthusiasm level all the way to the extreme end of the dial for conservatives—overmodulating at 110%; the resulting hyperpolarization will hurt Obama’s agenda. (Representative of this opinion: “I think it will feed not just conservative dislike but the growing concern of independents and elites, that he is a man of rhetoric, a work of imagination, but as of now an unaccomplished statesman. The smartest thing he could do is turn it down. It will backfire on him.’”)

John Dickerson, Slate magazine: Pundits win! “The Nobel committee has validated the idea that speeches and atmospherics are really important.”