Letter From the Editor 

When I heard that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was surprised and a little cynical about it. It seemed premature, to say the least. As others have suggested, it's possible that the prize committee may have intended to honor the U.S. for replacing George W. Bush, who was despised by Europe.

click to enlarge nobel.jpg

It's not a bad thing that Obama won, but we all know such "prizes" are often awarded for subjective and political reasons. The appropriate response in my view would be a quiet golf clap, the kind you might get after parring the first hole. Nice putt, but there's plenty of golf left.

Then, perhaps foolishly, I started reading web posts from wingnut conservatives. You would have thought Obama had stubbed out a Marlboro Light on Old Glory, then used it as a golf towel. The rhetoric was coming from the usual suspects, the same people who led the cheering when Obama failed to get the Olympic bid for the U.S. — right-wing media types and certain of their GOP lapdogs. (John McCain and a precious few others were gracious — or at least good-natured about it.) The trash-talk was venomous, over the top. Remember, Obama didn't pay off somebody to win the Nobel Peace Prize. They selected him. And trying to win the Olympics for your country has never been seen as a bad thing before, as far as I know. Suddenly, it is.

If George Bush had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I would have been surprised, appalled, and, yes, cynical. When Obama won, I was merely surprised and cynical. If George Bush had gone overseas to try and win the Olympic Games for the U.S., I can confidently say I wouldn't have cheered if he had failed, though I have no doubt that there are some on the left who would have.

How did we get here, to the place where the president's winning a prestigious international award is an occasion for outrage by many of his countrymen? And, seriously, why would any American — liberal or conservative — cheer his country's losing the Olympic games? How did we become a nation where allegiance to one's party — or race or religion — supercedes one's allegiance to country and community?

"Divide and conquer" has been a political truth for centuries. In America's case, we're doing the dividing all by ourselves. Which makes conquering the easy part.

Comments (17)

Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment


More by Bruce VanWyngarden

Readers also liked…

  • Zooey and Bowie

    Time moves in one direction, memory in another. — William Gibson

    This week, an old friend sent me a photo of myself, circa 1978. In the picture, I was thin, long-haired, and standing barefoot on the porch of an old farmhouse where we lived, just outside of Columbia, Missouri. It was a shock to see it. I don't remember my friends and I taking many photographs, and I didn't remember this moment ...

    • Jan 14, 2016
  • The Death of Status Symbols

    • Oct 6, 2016
  • Vendor in the Grass

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks. — William Shakespeare

    Is there such a thing as "bad activism"? I'm asking because I'm seeing a lot of criticism of the folks who are protesting the Memphis Zoo's encroachment onto the Greensward at Overton Park.

    • Mar 31, 2016
© 1996-2016

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation