By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Jørgen Watne Frydnes, addressed Donald Trump’s attempts to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, prompting responses from the White House and Trump supporters. Frydnes stated that the committee bases its decisions solely on Alfred Nobel’s will, despite the many campaigns for the award. Trump had previously boasted about his peacemaking efforts and expressed his disappointment with the committee’s decision, as well as comparing his lack of a prize to former President Obama’s early win.
Read the original article here
Nobel Head Shades Trump for Peace Prize Derangement Syndrome, and it’s hard not to chuckle at the whole spectacle. The mere thought of Donald Trump, a man known for his bombastic rhetoric and often divisive actions, even *wanting* a Nobel Peace Prize, is frankly, a little absurd. The fact that he actively campaigned for it, pushing for it with the same intensity he reserves for, well, pretty much anything he desires, just adds another layer of irony to the situation. The whole thing feels like a case study in what happens when someone craves validation and the world just doesn’t want to give it to them.
The White House’s desperate attempts to spin things, with pronouncements about Trump’s “heart of a humanitarian” and his ability to “move mountains,” are, to put it mildly, unconvincing. It’s like watching a bad infomercial, only instead of a miracle gadget, they’re trying to sell us on the idea that someone who has consistently stoked division and employed aggressive tactics deserves recognition for peace. One can’t help but wonder how many people are impacted by policies and actions of the subject and those around him, policies that perhaps led to the loss of homes, jobs, or even access to essential resources.
The Nobel Committee’s choice of María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader, seems like a deliberate rebuke of Trump’s self-promotion. And the comments made, defending the decision, couldn’t be more clear, and the whole thing is a solid reminder of just how far off base the previous administration’s approach was. The contrast between Machado’s humble acceptance speech, acknowledging that she is “just one person,” and Trump’s potential reaction – probably something about being “robbed” and how the award was “rigged” – is pretty telling. One is about service, the other is about ego.
It’s also interesting to note the various reactions to the whole thing. Some of the reactions are almost a confirmation of the situation. The accusations are, at times, an attempt at defense. The notion of Trump deserving a peace prize feels as absurd as giving the Darwin Awards to a group of people who are actively making choices that go against the advancement of peace. But the focus on Trump’s lack of qualifications just feels right.
The fact that some people, including supporters of the former president, seem to think that Trump *should* have been considered for the prize, or that he was somehow “snubbed,” is a testament to how warped the narrative has become. People can’t seem to focus on the winner and what she’s accomplished; instead, the focus is pulled towards an individual wholly unqualified for the honor. There are more than enough issues to consider in just one person’s actions and policies.
Let’s be real, the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize goes way beyond simply not starting new wars, which Trump did. The real question is, does his actions even *deserve* a peace prize? It’s also fair to say that awarding it to Obama early in his presidency felt like a stretch to some. But giving it to the subject matter is, well, laughable. And, perhaps, indicative of the sort of choices that would have to be made if there really was a peace prize for the orange bozo.
It’s also worth noting that the Committee has made some questionable choices in the past, and it’s certainly not immune to political machinations. But even with its flaws, the prize still holds a certain prestige, and the fact that Trump desperately wants it, and that his supporters still see it as a possibility, is both comical and sad. Trump embodies the opposite of what the prize stands for.
The whole saga underscores a larger problem: the erosion of standards, the blurring of lines between reality and performance, and the cult of personality that has become so prevalent in modern politics. And if you had the ability to give the man a special prize, it would be one that acknowledged his shortcomings.
In conclusion, the “Nobel Head Shades Trump for Peace Prize Derangement Syndrome” is, in many ways, a perfect encapsulation of our current political moment. A man whose actions consistently contradict the very principles of peace and humanitarianism is obsessed with an award he doesn’t deserve, and the world watches on, both bemused and appalled. Maybe we should just stick with the Darwin Awards for this one.