Bret Stephens shares some food for thought over at the Wall Street Journal about why "far from being an aberrant choice, President Obama was the ideal one, Scandinavianally speaking" for the the Nobel Peace Prize. It's an interesting read about what the columnist states is a "much misunderstood prize." Stephens explains the prize's historical legacy whereby it's contextualized in a manner where the surprising selection of President Obama isn't actually so surprising.
"...most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of the sorts of people the late Oriana Fallaci liked to call "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."
Not sure if I agree, but it's a nice counter-point to the Twitter echo-chamber about this story.
[Via]