I'm still trying to get my head around the paradox of Conservative disdain for the Nobel Peace Prize, coupled with what sure looks like sour grapes that there are few Conservative winners.

One historical constant among RightWingers are the expressions of disdain for the concept of peace and all who value it. "Peaceniks", "defeatists", "cowards", "traitors", are only a few of the epithets that come so easily to the lips of RightWingers when discussing peace. "Peace is for [female sex organs]!" is an alliterative core tenet of Wingerism.

Why in the hell would any self-respecting Conservative want to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Wouldn't it be a badge of shame?

One bit of snarkiness I encountered recently was the complaint that the "dictator" Mikhail Gorbachev won the Prize, but Reagan didn't. Again, it doesn't make much sense. Republicans give Reagan sole credit for "winning" the Cold War (ignoring his eight predecessors who created the preconditions for Reagan to be in the right place at the right time), which makes Reagan's efforts toward peace more the peace of the victor in war than the peace that avoids war in the first place.

Besides, you think maybe the invasions of Grenada and Panama, trading arms for drugs for money for hostages, the destabilizing "Star Wars" missile defense, and a whole panoply of sabre-rattling might just call Reagan's credentials as a peacemaker into question? Gosh, ya think?

The Nobel Peace Prize rewards those who work for peace by preventing war and conflict. It would be a tragic perversion of the very concept of a Peace Prize to award it to the victors in war.