Reflections of a Thankless Stupid Moron

By John Ballard

The Nobel committee's decision to award their famous Peace Prize to Barack Obama has generated an unbelievable reaction on all sides of the political spectrum, including many who were instrumental in electing him. Yes, even his friends cannot justify this honor. The response is surreal.

A commenter choosing the name "Evangelical" provided a perfect title for this post since I fall among that population of thankless stupid morons responsible for this man's election. I have nothing original to add by way of analysis, but my emotions are intact. Speaking at a strictly emotional level I am pleased and proud as an American that another US president has been presented this honor. I may be both stupid and a moron, but I can say truthfully that I am not thankless. So at least that much of Evangelical's hateful description of those of us who elected Obama is way off the mark.

My friend Deborah White wonders if the Nobel committee might have moved quickly, fearing a premature death. She speaks the unthinkable but is not alone in that fear, a development which for many would be wish fulfillment rather than fear.  We have seen and heard thinly-veiled warnings along the same line in recent protests where those waving American flags outnumbered but did silence those among them advancing that threat. 

Within hours of the announcement Barack Obama and his closest advisers crafted remarks for him to read that are a study in humility and leadership. My imagination is not fertile enough to guess how his predecessor might have handled the situation, but in the short space of a few hundred words Barack Obama drove home several noble ideas with the same dry, matter of fact language that is his hallmark. In language that even morons can grasp he once more patiently connects the dots.

1. [T]hroughout history the Nobel Peace Prize [has] been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes and that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

2. [T]hese challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why ... all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.

3. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people
And that's why...all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

4. We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change...
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

5. We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

I can't speak for others but I got it.

In a few paragraphs he basically accepted the Nobel prize on behalf of not only America but every other country in the world community that wants to be numbered among those seeking a better future. Along with the honors and hopes comes grave responsibility. For him. And for all of us.  What more is there to add?

Has anyone noticed that when Barack Obama stands in a spotlight he holds a mirror, not to look at himself but for others to see themselves? I think about that as I wade through page after page of commentary on yesterday's announcement -- Obama as Rorschach.

Excuse me if I copy and paste: I am reminded of the example from Confucian tradition in which the master is asked what is the best model of leadership -- to be loved and respected by everyone in the community, or feared and hated be all the community?

The master replied: Neither is enough. The best model is to be loved and respected by all the good people in the community, and feared and hated by all the bad people in the community.

Here is a link worth noting.

A good man is one who treats others as he would like to be treated. A generous man is one who treats others better than he expects to be treated. A wise man is one who knows how he and others should be treated: in what ways, and to what extent.

The first man is a civilizing influence. The second man is a refining and spreading influence. The third man is a higher-development influence.

Everyone should go through the three phases typified by these three men.

To believe that goodness or generosity are ends in themselves may be good or it may be generous. It is, however, not an informed attitude -- and that is the most good and the most generous we can be about it.

If someone said: 'Is it better to be good, generous or wise?' one would have to reply: 'If you are wise, you do not have to be obsessed by being "good" or "generous". You are obliged to do what is necessary.'

Buried in a comment thread I found this by the author of the linked post.

To be wise, one has to not only be generous and good, but to know when and when not to be those things...or rather, the right way to be generous and good, given the circumstances and the desired outcome.

For example, it may be generous to give money to a friend who is down on his luck. But if that friend is an unacknowledged alcoholic who plans to spend that money to buy a bottle instead of a meal, withholding your support may actually be the wiser course of action -- since it may "precipitate a crisis" in which he is forced to admit to his illness and seek help. In this example, the good is actually served by withholding what would appear to be generosity.

Treating goodness and generosity "as ends in themselves" divorces those virtues from context, and has the result of trivializing their exercise. Being "good" can then become mere politeness or formalistic adherence to norms of acceptable behavior, for instance, and generosity can devolve into a grudging and guilt-assuaging handout to anyone random person who demands it.

Even worse, a devoted adherence to an uninformed (or naive) conception of goodness and generosity can lead to one being exploited by those who respect neither virtue themselves.

The wisdom here consists of the acquired and consciously-exercised judgment to know what one wishes to accomplish by being good or generous in a given situation, and what actions (including inaction) with regards to these virtues will further the recipient -- and/or oneself -- towards the greater goal.

That's one possible interpretation, anyhow.