In light of the following column by Bret Stephens over at WSJ: A Perfect Nobel Pick I may have to rethink my position on the Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Basically, he notes that the Obama joins a crowd of relatively obscure recipients whose only qualification is that they talk a lot about peace but actually don't do much about it. He terms them the Goodists.
Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good.
These people don't actually do anything that leads to peace - that role belongs to the leaders - Churchill, FDR, Patton, MacArthur, Reagan, etc - no these are the guys and girls who were getting their asses kicked in high school while trying to talk some bully out of kicking their butts. That's the Obama, so he fits right in. There are of course a few exceptions - there was Teddy Roosevelt - certainly not a shrinking violet. There were a lot of kooks, Gore, Carter, Rigoberta Menchú, and some downright evil people Yasser Arafat, but in general the prize has gone to the talkers over the doers. So, the most extraordinary thing about the Peace Prize is how un-extraordinary it is. Had anyone of the liberals that were running against the Obama won the White House and spewed the drivel he has they too would have won the award. The award is not about America and our values but all about the Obama - and lets be clear not the person but his words - he's considered to be good.
Yet another bull's-eye!
ReplyDelete