What can explain the Nobel committee's decision -- one that's even got liberals shaking their heads in disbelief? At bottom, the decision is really about anti-Americanism -- and an excellent article in the Weekly Standard touched upon that very issue earlier this week. Jean Kaufman's article -- "Reagan and Obama: Is America a city on a hill or a country in decline?" -- had a number of compelling explanations for why Obama, and his worldview, made the legs of the Nobel committee members tingle. Obama, she wrote, sees America
...as a nation conceived in original sin, one that has gone on to commit offenses against the world for which it must now atone. And Obama views himself as the special instrument through which America can finally purify herself, join the world of other nations as an equal rather than a leader, and go forth and sin no more....Mitt Romney, speaking at a recent Foreign Policy Initiative conference, indicated "that Obama
shares the view of certain 'foreign-policy circles' that American is 'in decline' and that it is his job to manage America's decline. But that doesn't quite capture the flavor of Obama's mission. Obama is not merely observing a downward trend and trying to shepherd this nation through the process. He believes such a downward direction is the morally proper one for America and Americans, the only way we can be forgiven our manifold sins and emerge purified through humility and sacrifice. Obama also believes that he is the special instrument by which the nation can accomplish this transformation. That, more than any specific policy on any specific issue, is the goal of Obama's presidency: the shriving and humbling of America. That is what Obama means by "fundamental change."
This was originally published at the American Thinker blog.