Green Room

The Nobel Cheese Prize

posted at 7:28 pm on October 9, 2009 by

The Norwegian Nobel Committee insists that the Nobel Peace Prize is not “politicized,” even in the wake of today’s award to President Barack H. Obama, essentially for having the “potential” to be the most internationalist, anti-American, defeat-and-retreat president in history. The chairman of the committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, actually admitted the pick this year was intended to bring about a desired political result:

“It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic,” Mr. Jagland said in an interview, “but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik.

But liberals and lefties still insist the prize is meaningful, that it’s not hopelessly debased and discredited because of its extraordinary embrace of leftism. They especially insist it’s not partisan.

All right, so let’s investigate the winners’ political leanings; to trim the field to something manageable, let’s restrict inquiry to American winners who were politicians, or who won the award for primarily political activity (as opposed to, say, Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, winners in 1997): Among all American politicians who have won the Nobel Peace Prize, how many were Republicans and how many Democrats?

At first blush, it appears fairly even: six Republicans and nine Democrats. But what fascinates is the distribution of those wins.

Here is a table of American political recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. To make things easier, I have colored the Republican recipients’ rows reddish and the Democrats’ bluish:


American political Nobel Peace Prize recipients
Recipient: Red for Republican, blue for Democrat Year
President Theodore Roosevelt 1906
Secretary of State Elihu Root 1912
President Woodrow Wilson 1919
Vice President Charles G. Dawes 1925
Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg 1929
Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Nicholas M. Butler 1931
Secretary of State Cordell Hull 1945
Diplomat Ralph Bunche 1950
Secretary of State, Defense George Marshall 1953
Chemist Linus Pauling (won for campaign against nuclear testing) 1962
Rev. Martin Luther King, jr (won for campaign against Jim Crow laws) 1964
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger 1973
President Jimmy Carter 2002
Vice President Al Gore 2007
President Barack H. Obama 2009


The point that jumps right out is the divide — the chasm — between those prizes awarded to American politicos up through 1931 and those from 1945 onward… which is to say, before the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (early prizes) and after World War II ended (late prizes).

There were six early prizes, and all but one went to Republicans. But this perfectly matches the party affiliation of the presidency — six presidents during that period, only one (Wilson) a Democrat.

The early prizes simply reflect the fact that political Nobel Peace Prizes during this period were typically awarded for administrative initiatives. For example, TR received his for negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth, ending the Russo-Japanese war; while Elihu Root got his for a series of negotiations, arbitrations, and treaties while serving as Roosevelt’s Secretary of State. Thus it’s no surprise that a recipient’s political party would correspond to that of the president who appointed him.

But look at what happened after World War II: Among the nine late prizes, only one went to a Republican, Henry Kissinger — in stark contrast to the presidencies during the post-war period, six Republicans and six Democrats. And the only Republican to receive the award during that time had to share it with Vietnamese Communist Party mass murderer Le Duc Tho.

More telling, Kissinger won the prize for brokering a “peace treaty” that overthew the spectacular victory in Vietnam, won by Gen. Creighton Abrams after he replaced Gen. William Westmoreland, and substituted an even more stunning and inexplicable defeat, which owed more to Richard Nixon’s domestic troubles than any military losses. Thus the lone award to a Republican was for betraying the conservative principle of peace through strength.

Since the end of WWII, conservatives have been utterly shut out of the Peace Prize sweepstakes:

  • Eisenhower did not win for winning the war against totalitarian fascism and Naziism;
  • Ronald Reagan did not win for winning the Cold war and liberating tens of millions from Communist tyranny (neither did Pope John Paul II, but I’m still talking about Americans);
  • George W. Bush did not win it for removing two of the three most violent, sexist, and repressive regimes in the ummah.

But Jimmy Carter (!) won the Prize for relentlessly wandering the globe, preaching appeasement of evil and bullying beleaguered Israel into signing fraudulent “peace accords” with the Palestinians, who never had any intention of honoring them.

And now Barack H. Obama has won it for… well, to be perfectly blunt, for being the first black President of the United States. He certainly had accomplished nothing else when he was nominated for the Prize, less than two weeks after being sworn in as president; and arguably, he hasn’t done anything more since then to bring about actual peace anywhere. Militarily, he has continued the (victorious) Bush policy in Iraq — and now advocates continuing the (failing) Bush strategy in Afghanistan. Some peacemaker!

I believe the point is made: Prior to the Great Depression and the huge boost it gave to the stature of international socialism, the Nobel Peace Prize was a meaningful recognition of attempts to bring about world peace — even misguided attempts, such as Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of the League of Nations (which the United States never even joined, so flawed was the design).

But after global depression and war, the Prize became a political football awarded to whomever seemed to best articulate the leftist view of politics and the advance of world socialism… whether or not his accomplishments had anything to do with fostering peace; indeed, whether or not he had any accomplishments at all. That it has remained, as today’s announcement makes clear. It’s unlikely that anyone associated with conservative principles will ever again win — and certainly not for upholding those principles.

The record screams for itself.

Cross-posted to Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Hmmm, where to continue?

So, the fellow that starts the prize, funds the prize, alliterates the nature of the prize, is on a guilt trip for facilitating death and destruction on a bit grander scale than human history had previously been accustomed. Assuage the guilt.

It seems that it’s now evolved into a kind of gauntlet, thrown at the foot of the designee, a challenge to rise to the occasion rather than a reward, a post-facto artifact of some grand change.

Perhaps next year it will be thrown at the foot of Ozzy Osbourne. Reunite with Black Sabbath, permanently. New tunes, new album. Nah, I gotta believe the target would have to have some influence over more than MTV viewers.

Hmmmm. Not Rush. Not Polanski. Certainly not Palin.

Ahmenijad !! Yeah, that’s it !! To bring HopeNChange to the non-Nuclear world. And with BarryO’s help, YES !!

Robert17 on October 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Daffyd, Martin Luther King was proud to be a Republican.

Agam on October 10, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Daffyd, Martin Luther King was proud to be a Republican.

Agam on October 10, 2009 at 12:37 AM

WOW, I thought the same thing the instant I read his name.
Why is MLK listed as a Democrat or a Lefty?

Jeff from WI on October 10, 2009 at 4:14 AM

Jeff from WI on October 10, 2009 at 4:14 AM

I have this concern as well. He was a Republican and his non violent protests were proof. Change minds and attitudes through words as opposed to violence like those of SDS and the Weather Underground.

larvcom on October 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Martin Luther King is the epitome of a great American conservative. Remember he was the one who wanted his children to be judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.

Don’t mistake him for 21st-century “civil rights” leaders who think that half of all black children being murdered in the womb is a fair trade for food stamps and affirmative action.

joe_doufu on October 10, 2009 at 10:43 AM

HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2017, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint

Trump signs VA reform bill into law

John Sexton Jun 23, 2017 2:41 PM
Top Pick

“What happened was a national disgrace, and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls.”

Top Pick

A new era of something.

“…died suddenly in less than a week just after his return to the U.S.”

The shortsightedness of “Denounce and Preserve”

Taylor Millard Jun 23, 2017 12:11 PM

Pragmatism for the sake of pragmatism doesn’t always work.

Perhaps if you threw in a new car?

Gay marriages still growing, but not as fast

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 10:31 AM

More, but not as quickly.

Should’ve stuck with the pirate gig. It was working for him

The battle for the rubble of Raqqa is underway

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 8:51 AM

Won’t be much left.

Your list of demands is a publicity stunt

“what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives…”

“The jobs are still leaving. Nothing has stopped.”

Bad vendor. Bad! No cookie!

“The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified.”

“So you want me to sing my praises, is that what you’re saying?”

Why would we possibly want that?

“I mean he sold our country to The Russians.”

I could think of someone else you might want to ask about…

“You can ask a hundred people what hate speech is and you get a thousand different answers”

Trump: I never made any recordings of Comey

Allahpundit Jun 22, 2017 2:01 PM


Hackers stole private data from election databases

John Sexton Jun 22, 2017 1:21 PM

“90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers”

Failure to protect the city

Big man on the Middle Eastern campus

Biased Americans see media as biased.

Tough times down on the liberal ranch

Will Nancy Pelosi survive this latest Dem disaster?

Andrew Malcolm Jun 22, 2017 8:41 AM

Eat quick, before it’s gone.

Slow your roll, boss

“I’m bothered by the lack of emerging evidence…”

FIrst look at the Senate health bill

John Sexton Jun 21, 2017 9:21 PM

“the Senate bill would go farther than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid spending.”

Divide and conquer?

“If we do nothing, more companies will back out and more people will lose coverage.”

You know, I may have cracked the case for you, guys

“They’re still running against her and still winning races.”