Amid what never happened Saturday night, a piece of Friday news provoked the worst of American politics. It wasn’t the release of a controversial policy or a scandalous affair. The President of the United States of America was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Rush Limbaugh, ever the patriot, abandoned his country (again) and sided with the Taliban and Iran in his disapproval. Glenn Beck argued it should have been given to the “tea partiers,” of which he remains the biggest champion and promoter. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton implored Obama to reject the award. Bill Kristol argued he’s done just as much for peace as Obama. News flash: Editing a conserva-rag doesn’t merit the Nobel Peace Prize. Most of the naysayers argue Obama won for reasons ranging from “not being Bush” to “giving great speeches” to even “being a black president.” The truth is Obama could have won for a plethora of reasons. Not being Bush, while not the reason, could be feasible.Obama’s predecessor was ultimately responsible for, among many things, politicizing the Justice Department, outing a CIA operative, “enhanced interrogation techniques” as a euphemism for torture, allowing our veterans to suffer in lackluster military hospitals, stifling science with a ban on stem cell research, hindering the efficient management of emergency services after Hurricane Katrina and, most of all, provoking and selling a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. That said, “not being Bush” is neither good enough nor the reason Obama won. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of the Americans who voted for him. If decided by slogans, we were given two choices as a country last November: “Change” or “Country First.” That we as a nation were able to recognize and allow other countries’ opinions into our decision making was nothing short of remarkable. We were faced with a decision about how we saw the world and ourselves, and we decided eight years of Texas-style nationalism would not help us solve increasingly global problems. Obama never sang a joke song about wanting to bomb Iran. Obama didn’t predict we’d be in Iraq for 100 years. That was McCain. Instead, we voted for the candidate who best exemplified leadership on a global scale, not just for the problems facing America. We saw in Obama the candidate who had the vision for a world where other countries aren’t barriers to progress, but the keys to breaking down barriers. Instead, the Republicans called Obama’s travels abroad an “apology tour,” as it should have been. Our image in the world during the last eight years has been complacent above all else. Instead of reacting more fiercely and challenging the Bush Administration to better define the objectives of a war in Iraq, we sat back, comfortable with the powers that be perpetuating lies about being “greeted as liberators” and not wanting “the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” They were all lies, and our demeanor as a country reflected a desire to change through our election of Obama. In all, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Obama for his vision of strengthened diplomacy and a renewed commitment to nuclear disarmament. But the five Norwegians on the panel saw in Obama a nationwide reaction after eight years of failed leadership. As President Obama represents all of us, the Nobel Peace Prize is similarly awarded to and thereby represents all of us. Pat yourself on the back, America. You’ve committed yourselves to peace, Republicans be damned. Eric Freeman Jr. is a 22-year-old political science senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_efreeman.– – – -Contact Eric Freeman Jr. at [email protected]