Obama's Nobel Acceptance Speech

This speech, in a lot of ways, demonstrates that the guy just has a hopelessly bad view of what a "moderate" position consists in. You can't quote King's view of violence, call yourself a direct result of his struggle, and then turn around to claim that view of the world is completely unrealistic and expect to be taken seriously when you say you respect it. Taking both sides of an issue isn't an act of moderation, it's an act of indecisiveness.

I actually liked it a lot. Especially this.


"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. 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.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet 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 United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

Taking either of those positions is one thing, quoting a statement that rejects violence in absolute terms, saying that that view doesn't mesh with the world in which we actually live, and then still trying to weave yourself into the source of the quote's legacy is another. You can't separate the King legacy from absolute nonviolence. He's trying to have it both ways.

This guy is too nuanced for his own good.

First it was "He gave a war speech without saying 'victory'!" Now it's "He accepts a peace prize and mentions 'war'!"

Damned if you do...

I think St. Augustine and others have expressed that balanced before (re: Just War). I think Obama did a good job explaining it, you can't take an absolutist stance either way and be a fundamentalist on this. When you hear 'turn the other cheek' that's at the individual scope, but if you applied that at the level of a society it could be pretty irresponsible, there's no conflict there.

Plus there's a difference between talking about the world you wish we lived in and dealing with the realities of the world in which we do.

"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!" Is that what we're saying?

I don't take issue with the fact that he isn't a pacifist. Wilson won the award and the guy was a KKK sympathizer and got us into WWI. I don't take issue with his argument that war can be, in his view, justified. What I take issue with his the fundamentally dishonest way he presents issues, his positions on them, and how he relates to them.

He seems to have two methods of doing that. The first is to build straw men representations of the progressive and conservative take on an issue, argue that the straw men offer us a "false choice," and then offers a third way that just happens to be his approach. The sheer number of logical fallacies this device consciously and purposely employs is kind of awesome, actually. The second way is to identify the tension in a position he has taken, simultaneously embrace both sides of that tension and pass it off as addressing that tension while hoping nobody takes notice that he either didn't actually address it or did everything in his power to obscure the way he did address it.

In the King section of this speech, he acknowledges the tension that he's a black American President accepting an award that an absolutely pacifistic civil rights leader accepted and he's conducting two wars. He makes it clear he disagrees agrees with King's position that violence always makes things worse. The adult, honest thing to do is to just acknowledge he disagrees , identify other ways in which he agrees with King and respects him, and present his own view of whether violence can ever be justified. That's not the choice he makes.

The choice he makes is to identify himself as a part of the King narrative, stress that he respects that approach and doesn't find anything "weak" or "passive" about it, and then assert that it's not realistic and uses WII and Al Qaeda as examples of enemies who would not respond to non-violence.

The first, most obvious, thing to object to in this is that he's claiming to respect a position he just identified as naive. That just seems weird.

What makes it seem doubly weird is that the architects of the American Civil Rights Movement also protested World War II. Bayard Rustin went to jail for refusing to enter the service in WWII. He's the guy who got King to adopt nonviolence and organized the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

What I'm basically objecting to is the doublethink he engages in here. It seems weird to say that there's nothing wrong with nonviolence except for the little problem that it doesn't work. It seems weird to wrap yourself in the legacy of King when you are acknowledging that you disagree completely that the "bombs in Vietnam explode at home." Rather than openly taking the side of the opponent of absolute pacifism, in other words, he tries to obfuscate that position by presenting the dilemma that his position and King's poses as a false one. It's kind of infuriating.

Also, going more directly to that point, how on earth is it responsible for an individual to be an absolute pacifist but not a large group of people? Is a society not comprised of individuals? Is there a threshold for the number of pacifists you can have before things are officially "irresponsible"?

I can make a personal choice to be a pacifist, but I shouldn't impose it on everybody and I would be if I say as a president say ... we won't defend ourselves because it's against my principles. In terms of survival, that position could actually be considered immoral, yet on a personal level it is much more acceptable because I may be sacrificing my own well being.

I have a couple questions: 1) Are you not, as an individual, imposing your pacifism on the whole of society by refusing to take arms? You're a member of the group. 2) What makes it immoral for a group of people to give their lives but not an individual? Even if the objection is being ordered to not defend yourself, I don't see how that is morally inferior to being ordered to go into harm's way and try to requite force for force to the best of your ability.

I side with the late period Jefferson and King that violence is never necessary. Quite a few nations exist that are militarily neutral and Gandhi and King are great examples that even a sadistically violent and unjust enemy can effectively confronted with nonviolence.

So, you think the Nazis would have responded positively and productively to non-violent resistance?

Adopting a pacifist stance works only if the other side is not completely opposed to your very existence. King was fighting for civil rights, not the right to breathe. There are levels of opposition, and when the opposition adopts the stance of "we will not stop until you are completely driven from the earth", then more proactive measures must be taken. Turning the other cheek in that instance will only get you stabbed in the side of the face.

A group or an individual can choose to be that way, now if you apply that to a society and force it on everybody it would be immoral to not defend your citizens because of your beliefs. I think that's pretty simple actually.

This is kind of similar to Christian Scientist parents. They believe God is going to heal their child, and they've made that decision. You could probably ask the child, and he/she might say that is also their belief, but is it moral to let them die over it?

You get home invaded by an attacker and decide to give up your life, some would see as foolish, others maybe as saintly. But if you run that scenario and then include your family, and decide that it's better to die than to defend them, the whole situation will be viewed quite differently.

BTW ... Costa Rica doesn't have an army ... that's a great idea (for them). So hopefully you don't think I'm saying every country should arm themselves up to the max.

Non-violent resistance almost did defeat them. The Wiemar Republic seriously considered just not letting them participate in the political process but found that approach too illiberal. It wasn't until they got access to power that they became dangerous. Even after the rise to power, any organization requires the active participation of the community to run. Nobody can get around that. Not even Nazis.

Nonviolence can work and has worked. The only reason war is viewed as the superior alternative is it is in the economic and political interests of those in power to foster that perception and people naturally find the concept of requiting evil with good to be unsatisfactory, which also lends itself to that perception.

But in the situation you described it would have required pacifist activity from within the organization, not from the opposition. The problem with an organization like Al Qaeda is that there is no visible internal opposition to bring it down. That's why a military response may be necessary.

Modern terrorism was invented with the very aim of undermining a military response (Al Qaeda is directly derived from the IRA, which came about because the resistance realized that traditional armed conflict was hopeless). The only solutions to terrorist problems are political and economic in nature, not military.

Do you believe in violence to defend yourself?

I find it interesting that Palin and Rove have both praised the speech.

Wait, what? Next you’ll tell me FOX NEWS is singing its praises.

Gingrich, too.

I would agree with you partially that non-violent resistance does work, but I really don't see how that kind of resistance could be applied to the Nazi situation Obama described in the speech.

Sure, you have a point in regards to the Weimar Republic's attempts at curbing National Socialist Party eruptions of support during that time, but what about the war from America's perspective?

I see America's entrance in World War II as completely reasonable and justified. I also see our response in the ETO to be completely reasonable. The point is that America and other nations could not simply wait for Nazi Germany to stomp on little European nations, gobble up their political, economic, and social structures, and find every last Jew, Gypsy, or any other "unwanted" soul to turn them into ash.

I think the point that I'm trying to make here is that:

If you were walking in an alleyway with a friend and some man jumps you with a knife and swings at you... what are you gonna do?

You're gonna defend yourself. A major human instinct is one of self-preservation. Most sane people don't wish to die.

If you were walking in an alleyway with a friend and some man jumps your friend with a knife and swings at him... what are you gonna do?

You're gonna defend yourself and your friend. You don't wish to see your friend die.


By that point of the scenario, there's no time or no reason for non-violent resistance. It would be utterly pointless to even try really.

Since it hasn't been posted here, Dennis Kucinich's thoughtful response to the speech:

I blogged about this earlier, and am going home to watch the speech on youtube tonight. I'm curious to see it for myself

No. I am an absolute pacifist. If you return force for force, you tacitly endorse the use of violence. Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, exposes the use of force as a means of injustice.

While requiting evil with good might lead to a shorter life, I argue that--given none of us are otherwise immortal--engaging in the avoidable practice of violence in order to merely delay the unavoidable fate of death is the practice of destroying that which need not ever be destroyed--your moral goodness--for the sake of preserving something that will inevitably be destroyed.

That's fair enough, but what would you say about stopping the injustice of other people?

It's one thing to say you would be completely pacific regarding an action towards yourself, but what about someone you love? What about a total stranger?

Pulling a little bit of Cicero here, but wouldn't it be a much larger injustice not to help someone if violent resistance is the only option (as it certainly can be in a myriad of situations)?

Regarding the last example, I would reject the premise that the choice in that situation is either responding violently or not helping the person. The idea that certain situations are unresolvable outside of violence seems weird to me.

When it comes to interpersonal conflict, it seems insane to say that the wise move is to engage the aggressor violently rather than engaging options like avoiding the aggressor, nonresistance, or seeking help. Returning the violence seems more likely to get the escalate the situation and make the outcome worse for all involved. The use of violence seems to provide a range of bad options, not good ones.

When it comes to conflict between groups, I seem to remember that the Brits really didn't have problems with mowing down agitators with tanks in stadiums and yet the Indian resistance was both non-violent and successful. With the American Civil Rights Movement, the enemies of equality lynched people, bombed schools, and turned clubs, firehoses, dogs, and guns on the demonstrators and yet that movement was nonviolent and successful.

On the point about emotion, emotions are irrational impulses and really have no place in your ethical considerations.

Thanks for posting that, Dave. It comes very close to my thoughts when the discussion inevitably turns to the idea of "just war".

I don't buy it. If a mad man is running at you full speed ready to attack you, your first instinct is to protect yourself at any lengths. And also, there's no worse option than death or severe injury. If there's no other option for me, I'm gonna protect myself to the death if I have to.

It's one thing to attack the man who is sitting down doing nothing to you. I think we can agree that would be morally wrong.

But, for you to tell me that you wouldn't fight back violently with equal force over someone violently attacking you almost violates human nature.

Oh, but emotions absolutely play a role into ethics! You said it yourself that we are part of a community. Isn't it our duty to protect those who are being wronged? Shouldn't that be out of love for our neighbor? Or at least a sense of gratitude and hope that one could save us if we were to be thrown into injustice?