13 Oct The _____ Peace Prize
To heck with Alfred Nobel. What did he ever do to have a peacemaking award named after him, anyway? That guy invented dynamite, for crying out loud! Besides, Mr. Nobel was Swedish. This now is an America First world, as everyone knows.
For these perfectly logical reasons, I am writing to explain why America’s 45th and 47th president should have won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, and also to suggest that the award be renamed in his honor going forward. One of my favorite readers/commentors might call it the Orange Man Peace Prize. Others might suggest different names.
In this post I simply will lay out our guy’s case for not only winning the award, but acquiring the naming rights to it.
A Great Man of Peace (or a Piece of . . . Work?)
Here is what America’s present president has done in world diplomacy to earn his Nobel award:
Putting America first in so doing, “The President of Peace” (his self-proclaimed title) singlehandedly ended seven longstanding wars in seven months. Just ask him. That’s so many that he cannot remember all of the countries involved, thus we must give the man his due. He definitely knows how to close a deal.
As just one specific example, our Negotiator in Chief facilitated a creative strategy to end the war in Gaza: ruthlessly bludgeoning the opposition into submission. Ever since his inauguration, President T brilliantly followed the approach of President B and stood by while Israel killed or removed nearly everyone in the enclave, either through starvation, bombing their hospitals, forced migration, or just plain shooting them. He then turned a blind eye to Israel murdering Hamas leaders throughout the Middle East. Recall also that our fearless leader’s idea for Gaza when all the natives were eliminated was to turn the land into a fancy resort – a peace garden of sorts.
The culminating gambit of President T’s signature peace-making accomplishment was his threat to bring “complete obliteration” on Hamas if they did not accept his 20-point peace plan. Summing up his peace proposal, the owner of Truth Social tweeted: “If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.”
In a world that has seen the likes of the U.S. Civil War (some 700,000 killed), the hellish trench warfare of World War I, nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and approximately 70 to 85 million people killed in World War II, the grand-yet-understated peacemaking threat to Hamas seems to have done the trick. That diplomatic tweet alone is deserving of any award.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, peace was reached on the very first day of his presidency. Strike that. For present purposes, let’s just say peace would have been reached, but its absence was the fault of others.
Our president also has ended the war against drugs, if you don’t count the coldblooded extrajudicial annihilation of people who left Venezuela in northbound boats.
Peace at Home, As Well
What really sets our POTUS apart from other award candidates, however, is the skill, subtlety, and sheer breadth of his peace efforts, even in domestic affairs (a word I should avoid here). Consider that our president had the wise judgment to go against his initial promises and personal convictions (oops, again), by ultimately not allowing release of the Epstein files. You see, when he realized that exposure of such salacious stuff would cause national angst, political division, and especially disruption of the lives and reputations of the young women involved, he decided to sacrifice even his own reputation as a ladies’ man to bring peace at home. Peace, love, and charity; that’s what our nominee is all about.
I fully acknowledge Erika Kirk should be another candidate based on the beautiful testimony to peace she offered at her husband’s funeral last month: “I forgive him [the murderer] because it is what Jesus would do and what Charlie would do.” And I am equally aware that the president then uttered his own memorable words: “[Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”
But, really, should one little slip of the tongue like that deprive a man of a Nobel Peace Prize after an irrefutable life of peace? Moreover, we are called to put the best possible construction on the words of others, so we must consider our president’s unique type of harmony and serenity as perhaps “peace that passes all understanding.” His is the prototypic divine inner calm and tranquility so profound that it goes beyond human comprehension.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic posts, as this blog and the Extremely Non-Extreme podcast will explore and promote the ideas of principles and non-extremism in politics.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Trudy Johnson
Posted at 13:41h, 14 OctoberI couldn’t have said it better (of course not)! Perfect and Spot on!
Karen Schrempp
Posted at 15:25h, 14 OctoberDoesn’t Hamas want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Didn’t Hamas strike first on Oct 7th? Isn’t the fact the remaining hostages were released a good thing?
Quentin
Posted at 15:56h, 14 OctoberIt appears so, Karen. That doesn’t mean anyone deserves a peace prize for destroying Gaza, or for accepting the Hamas surrender.
Diane Truckenmiller
Posted at 15:55h, 14 OctoberLoved every word. (But you had better hope someone who doesn’t understand satire or sarcasm doesn’t see this.)
Quentin
Posted at 16:04h, 14 OctoberI asked my wife if anyone would not realize I’m being sarcastic. Will be interesting to see.
DKnight
Posted at 19:50h, 14 OctoberWith respect and deference, (because you are brighter and more accomplished than me), there is a gigantic fundamental misunderstanding of human nature contained in your cleverly written, sarcastic post. The Nobel prize people have become a joke when it comes to their Nobel Peace Prize. They gave their award foolishly in the past to clueless winners like Carter, Obama, Gore, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, United Nations Commissioners, etc., ad nauseum. None of these winners did jack for the cause of peace. Why? Because appeasement never–ever–ever–leads to a long lasting peace. During WWII, the Nobel clowns did not give their award to anyone. Huh? Churchill? Eisenhower? FDR? Even arrogant DeGaulle? Churchill did more for long lasting world peace and stability–as a war fighter–than perhaps anyone Nobel has ever picked. Churchill understood that the Nazis had to be defeated in order to have peace. As obvious as that sounds–some did not get that at the time–and still don’t. Peace is achieved and maintained through strength and deterrence–and ironically–through the proper use of force. One the great two fallacies of the leftists is appeasement (the other is collectivist government). Nobel committee folks talk about integrity–blah blah blah. Politically correct leftism, which is constantly espoused by the Nobel people, is corrosive and dishonest at its core. It is part of human nature to try to control and dominate other human beings. This is why giant governments often get taken over by dictators. We are still like the animals in the woods–we think we are higher beings–but not by much. Strength and the judicious use of power will maintain peace and freedom–there is no other way. Trump & Co leveraged the considerable power and strength of the USA in various directions to get the parties to this moment in the Middle East. It is easy or pretty or quick. But it is the power of our country, via our current chief executive, that brought together all those countries in Egypt yesterday. Liberals/leftists never could have done this–because they don’t comprehend what I am stating in this post. Sorry if I am tough on the Nobel folks. However, their ridiculous viewpoints must be called out. The way they operate does not contribute to establishing peace. The Nobel folks should be boycotted until they grow up.
Quentin
Posted at 22:14h, 14 OctoberIsrael certainly had a right both to defend itself and to take aggressive, prophylactic steps against future attacks. So did Britain and the U.S. in World War II. I also am a strong believer in peace through strength. (See my past posts to that effect.) Nevertheless, I don’t think Israel beating its opponent and all Gaza citizens into submission (and threatening yet worse), after which the U.S. steps in to take a photo with the one surviving opponent waving his white flag, is peace-prize-worthy. If, by the next award there is true peace–or even strong progress toward it–in the middle east, and the U.S. deserves credit for it, I am sure the Nobel committee will realize that. I’m not defending any of the past Nobel decisions or the awardee this year.
DKnight
Posted at 00:24h, 15 OctoberI had to turn off the news today–because Orange Man kept talking about himself. Yet, I am good with his successes–and he has some significant accomplishments already. I may have veered off track due to the Nobel prize deal. I don’t really care who wins the award–just don’t think it should garner any attention. That organization is a profound disappointment–at least when it comes to the peace prize. Plus, as I stated, politically correct nonsense is bad for all of us–more so than we realize.