What a sad state of affairs. The Nobel Committee has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for…well it’s not quite clear. They say they are trying “to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.” I am not sure what that means. Past Nobel laureates include: Theodore Roosevelt, George Marshall (creator of the Marshall Plan), Martin Luther King Jr., Henry Kissinger, Norman Borlaug (inventor of dwarf wheat, a type of wheat that can grow in extremely arid climates), and Mother Teresa.

There was once a time when a person’s actions were what defined him or her in receiving this prize. Now it appears that all one needs are good intentions. The president intends good, but has not really done anything to deserve such an award. It cheapens the award and renders it pointless.

The above listed people were champions of peace AND actually did something to ensure it, whether it was through religious ministry, non-violent protest, diplomacy, or ending famine. The were true leaders. They took upon themselves the mantle of leadership and didn’t do what was always popular. They took tremendous risk in putting themselves out there. Some even died for the causes of peace for which they were fighting.

We should not hand out awards to anyone who “talks a good game,” especially the Nobel Prize. Alfred Nobel wanted this prize to be something special. He expressly said so in his will when he established the prize:

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my expressed wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

He expressly stated that the prize should be conferred upon “those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” This means by one’s actions, not one’s intentions. I would say that if the President were to single-handedly bring an end to hostilities in Afghanistan and actually open meaningful and actual diplomatic relations with Iran, he would be deserving, but just talking about it doesn’t make him deserving. In fact, I am willing to bet that the insurgents in Afghanistan, who don’t have televisions, radios or newspapers, could care less and Iran continues to threaten Israel and the United States, so this award will have none of its intended effect.

Ironically, one of the greatest champions of peace, Mohandas Ghandi, was never awarded the prize, though he was nominated 5 times.

In this time of national reflection, it is important to understand the difference between true leaders and party leaders. I am not one to speak ill of the dead and will limit my comments on Senator Kennedy’s legacy to those brought forth by the media.

In death, we all want to be remembered for our great achievements. Yet we must also remember the flaws. This is especially true when we speak of leaders. When President Nixon died he was heralded as a champion of free trade, peace and diplomacy, but only after his public disgraces were aired for days. I use Nixon as an example of a leader who in death was still reviled, yet for all of his flaws, did great things as President. Nixon ended the Vietnam War, took America off of the gold standard which had held trade and economic freedom back for decades and opened diplomatic relations with China. Oh yeah, he also was a paranoid man who kept lists and ordered illegal activities in order to get re-elected. Interesting that when put in that order it mirrors the revisionist history that has been given the last few days.

Senator Edward Kennedy came from a life of priviledge, but was heralded for his championing of causes that would impact the so called “lower-class.” May I say that only one who comes from priviledge can be so arrogant to rub in the faces of those less fortunate that he comes from priviledge and will not let his own money go.

The Kennedy legacy has always bothered me to a large degree because of the numerous passes the American Public has given the family. We are so in love with the “Camelot” mentality that we forget the indescretions of all of the men in this family. Perhaps it is fitting that the sons pay for the sins of the father. The fortune made from illegal activities, at which no one blinks an eye. The indescretions of the three younger brothers and their full court press to cover it up.

Were they leaders? In the broadest sense of the word, yes. They were well respected among colleagues and were able to show some vision for the future, but they were also devisive.

Senator Edward Kennedy is considered to be the lynch pin of the current partisan battle over the nomination process for the federal bench. In the past few days, I have heard how Senator Kennedy would reach across party lines to work for the good of America. Yet, this seemed to be done when it served his own purposes. As evidence I give you an excerpt from Senator Kennedy’s Floor speech on the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

This speech sparked off 20 years of partisan tactics, which held up a large number of judicial appointments, some of which still have not been filled. I ask you, does this seem like the bastion of bi-partisanship?

True leaders should be more concerned with the impact the legislation they propose, the decisions they make on appointments and the public image they create has on America as a whole. Senator Kennedy is an example of how one can think only of party and not of America except when it serves the party’s purposes.

Let us talk party for a moment. The following is a quote from one of the greatest leaders in the past 2 centuries:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” -George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

The man who was our first president, was not offered that position initally. He was asked to be king. The visionary leader knew that by replacing one monarchy with another, our burgeoning nation would soon fall into civil war and eventually be destroyed. He understood too, that a republic could only work if there were no parties, for parties could create despots. Remember, that at the time, Washington could have run for President as many times as he wanted, there were no limitations on the number of terms a President could serve. Had he chosen to, he would have been President until he died, therefore making him a de facto monarch. What leader, knowing that he could be the ruler of his country, voluntarily gives up the power the people have granted him? A leader that knows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our current leaders should look to the leaders of the past as their examples of how to act.

Finally, may I say that I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his service to this country. The senator endured many hardships in his life. He dealt with the demons of his father and brothers as well as his own demons. He became the patriarch of the most recognizable political family in the country at a very young age. He wore that mantle to the best of his ability, but was a flawed man.

We should never forget the facts when we idolize the dead. If this were a funeral for Joseph McCarthy, Robert Byrd or Dan Rostenkowski, would we revise history for them? Did we say that McCarthy was the truest of patriots, even though he conducted draconian hearings to root out Communism? Would we say that Robert Byrd was a champion for Civil Rights even though he at one time held the position of Grand Master of the Ku Klux Klan? Would we say that Rostenkowski was a champion for accountability even though he bilked the American taxpayers for millions in the House Post Office Scandal? More than likely not. So why do we ignore the facts when we venerate Senator Kennedy?

We must demand more from our leaders.

I truly believe that any good leader should be well versed in the philosophy and history of those that came before him. Any good leader, therefore, should have read the following texts and writings in order to understand the American paradigm of leadership:

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith- Long considered to be the “capitalist handbook,” The Wealth of Nations was the basis for our economic principles and the source material for many of the founding ideas of our system of governance.

The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes- Hobbes’ insight into Natural Law and the sacrifices of liberties in order to maintain societal order stood as a rich source to the founding fathers on the philosophy of republican ideals.

A Letter on Tolerance by John Locke- The primer for any society that underlines the inherant principles of religious tolerance and its effect on a society.

The Federalist Papers- A collection of writings by our founding fathers outlining the tenants of what would become the most important American document- The Constitution of the United States

The Republic by Plato- One of the fathers of philosophy, Plato outlines representative democracy, its merits and faults.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli- Written while he was imprisoned by the Medicis, Machiavelli gives insight into how leaders justify their decisions.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville- Tocqueville’s observations of post-revolutionary America give insight to the American condition.

In addition to the above, contrasting writings should also be read, including:

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels- The defining document of communism, its principles and tenants.

The Little Red Book by Mao Tse-tung- China’s first communist dictator outlines the his own brand of communism.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche- The father of facism and the man credited with ending all future political philosophy by bringing forth the notion that “God is dead” and therefore ending any other arguements based upon theology. Nietzshce influenced the most infamous dictator in modern history, Adolph Hitler, with his notion of the “ubermensch” or superman. Hitler perverted these ideas in Mein Kampf and used them to exterminate over 10 million people in pursuit of his master race.

Other suggested readings:

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand- Rand is known as the mother of relativism. Both novels underscore her relativist viewpoints.

The writings of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan- These specific leaders were either fundamental founding fathers or shapers of the modern age, their writings and speeches should be studied to understand the American condition.

This, of course, is not a comprehensive list, but it is a good start for anyone looking to understand American leadership.

I do not understand where the leaders are. We have people in charge, but no one with vision, character, strength of will and follow through. We have mindless suits that are only concerned about the next election cycle. Our free thinkers are gone. Rome is about to fall again.