| The Nobel peace prize has had a long tendency of handing out awards short-sightedly for promises rather than solutions, not just when giving it to American politicians: • In the 1920s, Britain and France got the Peace Prize for telling Germany that it's allowed to attack Poland, and Germany received it as well for graciously accepting these terms. • The International Peace Bureau and Inter-Parliamentary Union got multiple prizes for the great accomplishments of existing, despite having achieved nothing of note in the 120+ years of their existence. • Similarly, the League of Nations got several prizes in the first few years of existence (when everyone was too broke to afford another war anyway), despite being a toothless paper tiger that did nothing to prevent WW2. • Kellogg received the prize in 1930 for a treaty he organized in 1929, which failed as early as 1931. And that's just the questionable awards up until 1930. Its track record later isn't much better. I don't have any objections to this year's laureates (though I'm not too familiar with their works), but ultimately, the question is whether the prize is living up to its high expectations, and if not, what should be done to improve it. |
And that is supposed to be a bad thing? If they only give out trophies for feats accomplished years ago that prize would be worthless decoration. The whole point is that the prize offers acknowledgment and support. It is not magic, as you point out, but it does not have to be.