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.