The dangerous idealism of the Nobel Prize

Alfred Nobel, the originator of the Nobel Prize, stated in his will that a portion of his estate should be awarded each year "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." At first glance, Nobel's hopes for a world with greater "fraternity between nations" and "reduction of standing armies" are reasonable and good. We all look forward to a time without war. Even William Tecumseh Sherman, who made a career out of fighting wars, said that "war is hell". I cannot imagine anyone objecting to greater fraternity or brotherhood, and there can be no war without armies.

If the world were full of good-willed people with concern for their fellow man, there would be no need for civil authorities of any kind. All armies could disband. Police departments could close without risk. There would not even be a need for laws. However, Nobel's lofty rhetoric cannot stand against reality. People are inherently selfish and quarrelsome. Without some kind of civil authority to restrain them, they will impose their will on other people. This truth applies at the international level, as well as the personal level. In the absence of "standing armies", an aspiring dictator can easily take power and impose his will on other nations.

The reality of evil in the world is what makes this kind of idealism so dangerous. The unilateral disarmament promoted by President Obama could severely limit the ability of our country to defend itself from terrorists and other enemies. I am fairly certain that terrorist organizations are not willing to voluntarily disarm. People who kill civilians indiscriminately probably will not listen to moral arguments about fraternity and peace. They understand only force. For this reason, our country and its allies must project an image of strength and a reluctant willingness to fight, if necessary. This is not the message that President Obama sends with his idealistic rhetoric.

Now I've heard it all....

Will someone please tell me one accomplishment -- just one -- that Barack Obama has done in nine months in office to merit getting the Nobel Peace Prize? So he gave a speech mentioning nuclear disarmament one time. Big deal. I could do that too. This is a disgrace, and it demonstrates what most of have known ever since Al Gore won this prize -- the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke and a political circus. All you have to do to win this prize is be a famous liberal and give a few good speeches about a fashionable cause like nuclear disarmament or global warming (excuse me, "climate change") and you're an automatic finalist.