Talk Is Not Cheap

It Can Get You the Nobel Peace Prize

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Oct. 12, 2009

I have seen much war in my life, and I detest it profoundly. But there are worse things than war, and they all come with defeat.
− Ernest Hemingway

Unarmed men, and unarmed nations, can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
− John D. “Jeff” Cooper

When I heard that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I was reminded of the old saying that talk is cheap, meaning that only actions count. But if the Nobel Committee is correct, and comforting words of hope are worthy of the Prize, then surely it should be awarded to the ministers, priests and rabbis who speak and write these words with greater eloquence and greater sincerity than any politician.

In the real world, talk is cheap. How often have we heard people promise all sorts of things, personal or political? How often have these promises proved false? How often have people shown themselves to be liars and cheats? How often have politicians proved themselves to be worthless windbags?

But in the theoretical world, talk is not cheap. In fact, talk is superior to actions, and in many cases talk replaces actions. In the world of academia, in the world of law, and in the world of bureaucrats and administrators, only words matter.

I spent decades working in a public hospital. Never − not once − did I see the administrator or the medical director on a ward or in the clinic. They sat in their offices, reading reports submitted by their subordinates, and writing reports for their superiors. Who knows whether the reports bore any relation to reality?

Academics, except for those in the hard sciences, live in a world of words. Judges and other government officials look at the papers before them, then decide matters of life and death. They come to believe that reality resides not in the outside world, but in words.

This point is painfully illustrated by one of the reasons the committee gave for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama − his efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. What, precisely, were these efforts? Obama expressed his desire to eliminate the weapons. One might as well award me the Nobel Prize in Medicine because I expressed the desire to eliminate cancer.

But in fact, during the brief time Obama has been president, the tyrants of North Korea and Iran have continued to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Obama’s words were empty, even misleading. The reality was exactly the opposite.

Even worse, the award may affect Obama’s judgment. General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan. This request reportedly had already been scaled down from what is really needed. But as the newly anointed recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, how can Obama send the troops? To do so would require confidence in himself as commander-in-chief.

Self-confidence is not the same as narcissism. A person with self-confidence wants to do what is right. A narcissist wants to be loved.

Awarding the Prize to a narcissist who did not deserve it may impel him to try to please the committee, and thereby convince himself that he did deserve it. Withdraw from Iraq? Withdraw from Afghanistan? Leave our friends there to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Sit and talk while Iran develops nukes? Leave our ally Israel to the tender mercies of the Iranian regime? Project an image of weakness and indecision to the world? Anything to be loved by the Nobel Committee and the other anti-American leftists who make up the self-styled “world community.”

Granted, the committee awarded Obama the prize not so much for what he did, or even for what he said, but mainly for who he isn’t − George W. Bush. In a frank admission of the political nature of the Prize, the committee chairman in 2002 stated that the award to Jimmy Carter was a “kick in the leg” for President Bush. This is an expression for “slap in the face.”

If the committee members were eager to slap Bush in the face so soon after 9/11, imagine how glad they are to honor Obama, the first post-American president. He shares European values − talk rather than action, being taken care of rather than individual responsibility, state control rather than freedom, and appeasing tyrants rather than fighting them. What more could European paper-shufflers ask for?

Who are the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee? They are the president of parliament, a professor at the Nobel Institute, an advisor in public affairs, the deputy director for Cultural Heritage, an advisor to a political party, and a member of parliament.

There is not a single member who has any experience in achieving peace. Unless they are over the age of 75, they have no memory of the brutal Nazi occupation of Norway − and therefore no gratitude for the American and British troops who fought and died to overcome the Nazis and liberate Western Europe, including Norway.

So whom would I choose to decide the Nobel Peace Prize?

·         I would choose refugees from Tibet, which is suffering cultural and physical genocide under brutal Chinese occupation. Revealingly, the Dalai Lama, who was received by previous U.S. presidents, was snubbed by President Obama for fear of angering the Chinese regime.

·         I would choose citizens of Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria and the other former Soviet satellites that were liberated when the Soviet Union was pushed into imploding.

·         I would choose elderly citizens of Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France who remember the Nazi occupation − and what ended it. It wasn’t ended by a flock of pacifists lead by Gandhi. It was ended by the U.S. Army led by Eisenhower, and the British Army led by Montgomery.

·         I would choose elderly citizens of Germany, Italy and Japan who remember the brutal, fascist regimes − and what ended them. They weren’t ended by a convocation of professors and diplomats. They were ended by brave soldiers.

If the Nobel Committee had been composed of people like these, who had personal knowledge of what it takes to achieve peace − and the bitter price that is paid for failure to achieve it − the Nobel Peace Prize might have been awarded to people who actually deserved it.

It might have been awarded to President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who by their leadership and inspiration brought about the liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet domination, as well as the dramatic reduction in the threat of nuclear war.

And more recently, the Prize might have been awarded to the U.S. military and President George W. Bush, through whose efforts about 60 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan were liberated from homicidal dictatorships.

How long they will stay liberated remains in question. But the fight against tyranny abroad resembles the fight against crime at home − it is never-ending. That tyrants reappear is not a reason to abandon military operations, any more than that criminals reappear is a reason to disband the police department.

Yes, talk is cheap in the real world. But in the rarefied atmosphere of the theoretical world, talk is valuable indeed. In fact, it will get you a gold medal, a chunk of money and a trip to Oslo. Not earn, mind you, just get.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com