This is the thread for discussion of Obama's Nobel lecture. What are the elements of realism and liberalism in Obama's lecture? How else might we interpret his speech?
Video here: http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1221
Transcript here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was the first time I had seen this speech. It was a beautiful piece of oration, but more importantly, it was an affirmation of idealism and optimism in today's world. Life is hard, the world is cruel and violent, but that does not mean that we should not live our lives according to the ideals of freedom and respect for human dignity. It may be difficult to uphold those ideals, but that does not mean that we shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteAs regards realism and liberalism, Obama seemed to remove himself from that conflict. He said, towards the beginning of his speech, that he did not think that thinking of the world in terms of "realism or idealism" was a good thing to do. The views he expressed showed this. His seems to believe that, a world in which human rights are respected, but that this world will not be obtained without a commitment of humanitarian aid and sometimes, arms. He seems to reject the liberal idea that a world of free and democratic nations will be obtained through simple interaction. He also seems to reject the realist idea that there is no alternative to the anarchy and struggle of international relations (and seems to assert that perhaps there is not that much anarchy after all).
First of all, I agree with Calum's praise of this speech as a rhetorical masterpiece, eloquent enough so that we may perhaps overlook his possibly insufficient qualifications for the award. I think that rather than transcending the discursive of a liberalism-realism dichotomy, Obama combines the perspectives into a hopeful realism, or pragmatic liberalism. He seems to be proposing a balanced approach; he employes the realism strategy of describing the world as it is, with evil and situations that necessitate force and failure of reason, but his policy prescription includes strong institutions and respect for human rights and a comprehensive peace that values concepts as well as concrete manifestations of power. He also emphasizes his belief in the reality of a decreasing nuclear stockpile, in contrast to the realist belief that this is unrealistic, illogical, and will produce instability. While he does acknowledge the legitimacy of some realist tenets, he tempers his endorsement of this framework with more idealistic beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI though Obama's speech was quite good; he was clear about what should be done and very inspiring about the prospect for peace. While discussing the various theories in class, it has been impossible to "pick a side" between realism and liberalism, but as Sarah and Calum said, Obama's view is a mix between the two. I believe it is very important to be realistic about the state of the world and the powerful forces shaping it. Our president could have spoken of grand ideals of a utopian world, but he has always been able to see the world as it truly is and act accordingly. He is realistic without being a true realist, for I believe that Obama does not make decisions solely based upon what is best for the United States. He believes strongly in international cooperation, as evidenced by his speech, but he knows that the road to world peace will be extremely difficult. He stated that it will take a coordinated and distinct effort, just as Kant believed.
ReplyDeleteLike Callum, this was also my first time listening to Obama's lecture. I do agree with Callum and Sarah; the lecture is a finely written piece of rhetoric, excellently delivered by our president. And although this may be a bit off track, I also agree with Sarah when she says that the eloquence of the speech somewhat distracts from Obama's possible under-qualifications. I am a true supporter of Obama, but I do find myself asking if he was truly qualified to receive such a prestigious award not even a year into his term.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Obama's lecture exuded liberalism, it also incorporated a great deal of realism viewpoints. Our president's recognition of the fact that war is necessary was refreshing. He recognized that sometimes war is just in human nature, a point that I certainly agree with. With all the violence in our world today, how could one not?
Obama's lecture certainly presented very realistic viewpoint. Like Amy said, he could have made a 37 minute lecture on the ideals of a Utopian society, but he did not. Instead, he focused on a realistic approach to world politics, one that incorporated the threats of war and the necessity of defense.
Overall, I found Obama's lecture to be informative and refreshing, and beautifully written and delivered. One of Obama's greatest qualities in my opinion is his uncanny ability to speak eloquently and powerfully, and that is exactly what he did during this lecture.
I agree with you Lora. Though Obama is an incredible orator, and is almost mesmerizing with his voice, an audience can interpret his style of speech as overly optimistic. His tone of voice is simply so composed, and alluring that I think oftentimes people disregard the content of his speech. More than being a global leader promoting peace, I thought Obama was a great representation of the United States in this speech. He encompassed America's core values, justifying, simplifying and clarifying his actions as the president of the United States and about war in general. Obama is a man of compromise, he tries to decrease the political bi-partisan divide and he also tries to lessen the divide between liberalism and realism. He recognizes and addresses the importance of both but demonstrates that he is willing to practice aspects of both to be successful. Obama talks about "just peace" in this speech, and talks about the different elements that it entails. He notes that civil and political rights are extremely important in achieving just peace, but also that economic and military security play an equally important role. This combination of idealism and realism make this speech significant. It is realistic, it has a conclusive plan, but it has enough hope and idealism that the world needs to even begin to imagine a completely peaceful world.
ReplyDeleteMost of those who have commented before me have praised President Obama for his good balance of realism and liberalism, and the quality of his speech and oratory. However, I think we as Americans get lost in his rhetoric and values and try to ignore his actions (or lack of). This speech immediately followed Obama's announcement that he would send more troops to Afghanistan, which seems a controversial move for a man about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not criticizing or condoning his decision to commit more troops, only putting this speech and Obama's actions into context. Many commenters have also said that Obama is using a good balance of both realism and liberalism in his speech to frame his view of the world. I disagree, I think this speech is predominantly liberal. Many commenters have said Obama uses realism to desribe the world as it is, but I don't think this is uniquely realist. Admitting that there are civils war and genocide in the world is not using realism as it pertains to IR, it's just being honest. Realism in IR isn't about what actually is in the world, but national self interest and power politics. For a realist Obama's speech can be viewed as a justification for the US to send more troops to Afghanistan. He argues that war can be just and is necessary for peace, this mix of realism's national self interest and liberal hope for peace. However, aside from his arguments pertaining to war, the rest of his speech is liberal. Underlying all the hard and cold facts about how the state of the world is, is a hope that we can work together to make things better. He also notes how the actions of the US brought peace and prosperity to places like Germany and Japan, and how our actions led to democracy in the Balkans. While President Obama notes that he does not want to "impose our will" on other nations, but promote the rights of all people. He gives praise to leaders and proponents of democracy like Aung Sang Suu Kyi and protesters in Iran. He outlines three goals for the world, to punish nations/regimes who do not follow international laws, to promote human rights for all people, and economic opportunity and security. While President Obama does not explicitly voice his desire for the spread of democracy, he embodies democratic ideals throughout most of his speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffany that the speech was more liberal than realist (not a perfect balance), but I think that Obama demonstrated that not all aspects of realism and liberalism are mutually exclusive. That is one thing I have always admired about Obama; he seems to really look at the big picture and reality of things rather than just adhering to one ideology. The speech seemed to me to be most closely aligned with the writings of Owen and Kant we have read (especially his quoting of President Kennedy, that a lasting peace should be "based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions"). This strongly reminded me of Kant's writings that spoke of the need for institutions and that a lasting peace was "guaranteed by no less an authority than the great artist Nature herself". After watching "Hot Politics", I found it very interesting that President Obama made mention of climate change in his speech. He said that there was "little scientific dispute" and that it was something his military leaders recognized as an issue of "common security." This seemed like a realist approach to the climate change issue, but he also took a liberal stance on it as he argued that it was something that needed to be addressed by the global community for the common good. As for Tiffany's comment about Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan around the same time as receving the Nobel Peace Prize, I think he addressed that in his speech right off the bat by acknowledging that him being awarded the prize was controversial. He then proceeded to detail what he considred reasons for "just" war. Overall, I found the speech very effective.
ReplyDeleteLike the Hot Politics discussion, you all have brought up some very interesting ideas. What would be helpful, I think, is to focus on what, specifically, is realist or liberal about his speech, and connect theses specifics to the readings.
ReplyDeleteMany of you have also commented on the rhetorical impact of this speech. Perhaps we can analyze this aspect further. What difference does it make if someone has a particularly persuasive speaking style?
Obama is known for his exceptional rhetoric (as all of you have mentioned). This was one of the driving factors that led to his election. As a matter of fact, much of the recent criticism he has faced has been from people complaining that his presidency isn’t living up to promises he made during his election. In regards to Professor Wilcox’s question, rhetoric can make a world of difference. A good speech (or in modern times, simply a good soundbite) will be quoted for centuries to come. As Plato once said rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those before me in saying that Obama's use of rhetoric is a signature aspect of his speeches. His ability to persuade those listening is one of the aspects of his character of which he was analyzed quite heavily during his campaign. A person with a persuasive speaking style will naturally be a more attractive speaker. I hate to reference an obvious connection, but when thinking of rhetorical speakers, Adolf Hitler comes to mind. His speeches drew the attention of many and were a great example of a negative use of successful rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI found that Obama's speech presented a tasteful balance of liberalism and realism. He addressed both the need for war and the desire of peace. He recognizes that in certain circumstances, as dictated by the states of our past, the "instruments of war" are needed to attain peace and solidarity. I thought that this was well represented by the fact that he received the Nobel Peace Prize soon after he deployed more troops to Afghanistan, a paradox that he addresses when he states that his award was controversial. I agree with those before me in that he easily could have addressed a perfect world throughout his entire speech, yet he chose to state both fact and theory pertaining to realist beliefs. As he addressed early on, Obama believes strongly in global cooperation, yet he knows this is difficult to attain. As a whole, I found the acceptance speech both effective and educational.