Game-changers

For a numbers of days I couldn't go anywhere without folks asking what I thought of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Like pretty well everyone else, I was shocked at the announcement - not in a bad way, just in a "I didn't see that one coming," kind of way. Judging from the media coverage, opinion seems pretty split on the merits of the decision.Almost from the beginning, the practice of the Nobel decision committee has been to honor recipients following years of significant effort to better humankind. Obama's award was different and I have to believe it was because of that one word - hope. The world is a troubling place right now - not because of too much conflict or wars but because of the potential for them. With no Cold War to focus our thoughts and attention, we've become aware of dozens of hotspots around the world that are far too abundant to understand. North Korea, troubled places in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma - all these, and many more, appear to be brewing as opposed to dissipating. And with the recent financial crisis that has been global in scale, there is a sense that beyond any country's borders are "where the wild things are."The Nobel committee has watched in frustration as past award winners often never reached their dream of peace. Nevertheless, the committee was prudent in past decisions to award those who at least advocated for peace through acts of tremendous heroism and humanity. In other words, in a world where so little was actually leading to peace, it was more important to honor those who at least attempted it.It was insightful to hear how many times the word "hope" popped up from the Nobel committee regarding the decision to honor Obama. The Bible describes faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In effect, this is what the American president has done. Gone are the days when people didn't know who he was. Those nasty proclamations by his opponents that he never really was "from here," or that he was Muslim or somehow un-American, have largely fallen by the wayside. As he began to emerge from obscurity, it soon became apparent that he was a game-changer, someone who might actually take politics and do something "real" with it.By recognizing Obama so early in his tenure, the Nobel folks honored emotion over deeds. This troubles many, but the more I've thought of it, there is a kind of logic to it. Even before coming to power, Obama pledged to find new avenues for peace. He invited the Muslim world to the table as honorable partners, as opposed to threats to American security. He's even under criticism and scrutiny for trying to do too much, too soon. Who was the last person who attempted such an expansive agenda for world peace? We look at the Nobel decision through a Western lens, forgetting that the world fell in love with Obama almost instantly. He represented something welcoming, someone who accepted other nations as legitimate players in a world drama. His effect was felt far more keenly in Damascus, Nairobi, Singapore and Caracas than it was here in Canada or the United States.And so the Nobel committee gave him "street cred" - an advance of moral capital that could possibly assist him in finding a peace this generation has never witnessed. The committee put their faith in hope, and in so doing they became active players in an unfolding drama, in real time.Politics is desperately in need of game-changers - leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent, for principle over power, peace over pragmatism. Stephen Harper can never be that person because he's an incrementalist, attempting not to change the channel but to just bore us with all the noise in hopes we won't catch on to the subtle changes he's introducing. To accomplish his agenda, he requires stealth.  Michael Ignatieff is the only leader close enough to forming government who has the potential to inspire us once again. But for that to happen he mustn't be so much defined by politics as transcending it. That choice is now his.