The Nobel Peace Prize was announced shortly after the October edition of The Texas Pilgrim went to press, and a response simply could not wait until the next edition.
The Nobel Prize has now reached a new level of irrelevance in selecting Barack Obama, someone who has accomplished absolutely nothing to advance world peace, except, as Hillary Clinton reminded us several times during her campaign last year, “give a speech”. Of course, to the left, good intentions are all that ever matter in terms of human accomplishment, but the notion that expectations and hope should be added to the criteria for such an award makes it a complete joke. And from the response so far, even from several liberals, that is exactly how it is being received in many quarters.
The liberal internationalists who vote for such awards obviously have their own criteria for success in world affairs and, as evidenced by recent awardees–Arafat, Carter, Gore, et al–they clearly have little to do with leadership for the policies that will truly advance peace, properly understood. A candidate can also score points with this crowd by discrediting the priority of American interests and particularly the concept of American exceptionalism, while favoring endless dialogue with our enemies (preferably under UN supervision), serial arms control treaties, and other progressive priorities.
I share the view of commentator Juan Williams who said that the best reason he can surmise for the decision of the Nobel committee is that Europeans want further repudiation of the Bush presidency and its foreign policy, a sentiment that might also be applied to the Carter and Gore selections which occurred during the Bush administration.
What a sham, and a shame for a formerly venerable institution.