Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is entirely consistent with the underlying ideology of modern intellectuals.
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
To understand this ideology and how it applies in this context, consider the meaning of the term "unilateralism". This term is defined as follows:
the doctrine that nations should conduct their foreign affairs individualistically without the advice or involvement of other nations
Notice that this term is used pejoratively as if any country who acts "without the advice" of other nations is necessarily wrong. Obama's willingness to "stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism" is why he was awarded the prize. Recall that the charge of "unilateralism" was exactly the accusation leveled at Bush when he decided to act without the consent of the United Nations. Whether Bush's polices were valid is another question. I certainly do not endorse everything he did. However, my point is that these intellectuals did not necessarily disagree with Bush's policies as much as they disagreed with his methodology, i.e., that he acted unilaterally or asserted American interests without their consent and endorsement.
The doctrine that a nation must subjugate itself to the will of other nations follows directly from modern pragmatism - a point I also addressed in my post, Obama Takes The Tiger Out of Paper Tiger. Since these intellectuals replace objectivity with moral relativism, which in this context means multiculturalism, they do not regard any country as being morally superior to any other. In their view, a free country is not necessarily better than a dictatorship. This is why a nation like Cuba holds a membership on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. When one abandons reason, he must to turn to a group and seek consensus and compromise. To prostrate yourself before a motley council of amoral bureaucrats is the hallmark of virtue to the modern intellectual.
And what exactly would a pragmatist seek to achieve in foreign policy, i.e., what would be the standard by which he would determine what "works"? Since "peace" is their ostensible goal, this means that any action in the short run that seems to be a step towards non-fighting would be regarded as good. Therefore, "easing tensions with the Muslim world" or appeasement of our enemies is regarded as worthy of praise and even a Nobel Prize. In the long run, will appeasement of those who overtly seek our destruction result in "peace"? To them, who knows? They must be pragmatic which means making everyone feel good right now.
In a prior post related to Obama's position on Israel, I wrote
...as a pragmatist, Obama must act. What should he do? Should he recognize the objective distinction between Israel and her enemies and relate the interests of Israel to the objective interests of the United States which you think might include freedom and individual rights? Of course not. There is no objective truth. No "culture" is better than any other. He is "not concerned with ideology but with facts." He seeks "peace" - without ever understanding what peace actually means.
Objectively, "peace" is a state or condition that exists in the absence of war but it can not mean simply the momentary cessation of hostilities. If this were the case, every time soldiers stopped shooting it would be considered a state of "peace". "Peace" also implies "harmonious relations" or "freedom from dispute" which implies a long term political resolution based on two governments recognizing the right of the other to exist and respecting each others territorial boundaries. This does not mean you necessarily agree with everything the other country does, but it does imply a certain fundamental relationship between the two parties.
Based on this fact, how can there be "peace" between Israel and Hamas if Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state and the imposition of Islamic law? The pragmatist can not think in such terms. "Peace" to the pragmatist means absence of fighting right now. Therefore, the goal must be to get the parties to stop fighting - at any cost. Logically, since Israel is stronger militarily, Obama must ask Israel to sacrifice itself to its enemies in order to achieve "peace". After all, if Israel were to continue to destroy its enemies it will result in death and that must stop right now. Won't stopping the fight now allow Hamas to regain its strength and lead to further attacks on Israel in the future leading to even more death in the long run not only of Palestinians but of our Israeli allies? Of course, but Obama must be pragmatic.
The same principle underlying this argument could be applied to Obama's call for nuclear disarmament and for his decision to abandon a European missile defense program.
As Iran continues to build a nuclear bomb, as Chavez seeks Russian help to realize his own nuclear ambitions, as troop morale hits an all time low, what is clear is that Obama's weakness and pragmatic appeasement is making the world more dangerous not less. Obama has given a tacit green light to every enemy of the United States by implying that we will not defend our values either morally or practically. Moral agnosticism is why he was given this prize. Although, he is willing to bomb the moon.