Reflections on Mark Sanford
As is now being widely reported, Gov. Mark Sanford has returned from a mysterious absence to announce he has been unfaithful to his wife. I have been an ardent and outspoken advocate of Gov. Sandord for nearly two and a half years (see here, here and here), so these most recent developments are particularly disappointing to me.
By a stroke of irony, just before learning of Sanford’s troubles I noticed that today is the 500th anniversary of the coronation of Henry VIII of England. Yet another reminder that political sex scandals are neither new nor rare. Sanford now joins the pantheon of modern political sex scandals with the likes of Bill Clinton, Bob Livingston, Gary Condit, Rudy Giuliani, Don Sherwood, Mark Foley, Gavin Newsom, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards. The list goes on and on.
Politically speaking some survive and some don’t. It may be possible for Sanford to ressurect some sort of public life in the future, but even if he could, a presidential campaign seems unlikely. More important than Sanford’s own personal future though is that of the ideology he espoused. As Nick Gillespie put it, “To the extent that this all destroys Sanford’s awesome credibility on the need to cut spending and government intervention, it’s a real loss for the limited-government side.”
Libertarian-minded conservatives appreciate Sanford for many of the same reasons his mistress Maria in Argentina probably did – he’s eloquent, intelligent, attractive, thoughtful, and had no fear doing things his own way. In short, he was a wonderful spokesman for limited government. Sadly there appears to be no successor for this role in the GOP on the national stage. Of all the potential GOP presidential candidates in 2012, Sanford was far away the most viable option.
His likely departure from meaningful public life is disappointing, but let us not forget the very hurtful and personal ramifications to a real live family. Sanford chose to have an affair not only with his wife, but also with their children who had no say in the matter. They deserved none of this. Thus, Michelle Malkin may be justified in her harsh assessment that Sanford is a “bastard”.
But I also feel compelled to note that unlike so many other politicians in the aforementioned pantheon, Sanford stood up and provided candid honesty about sin and responsibility. His wife Jenny’s response included this: “I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.” Her entire statement is worth reading in full, and it is her words which are likely to remain seared in my memory long after this scandal has passed. I do not know much about Jenny Sanford, but if her statement on this matter is any indication of her character, Mark Sanford remains a blessed man.
17 Responses to “Reflections on Mark Sanford”
[...] Sanford. Two views, here and here. [...]
[...] Sanford. Two views, here and here. [...]
Sure it might upset the ghouls at CNN and that part of of the general public raised on Oprah and Jerry Springer, but just once it’d be nice to see a pol caught cheating on his spouse blow off the obligatory damp-eyed press conference on the basis that it’s his and his family’s private business and nobody else’s.
I was waiting for your response Josh, remembering you were a fan of him.
At least this came out now, and not in the middle of the campaign three years from now. If Edwards had been the Democratic nominee and the news that he was cheating on his cancer-stricken wife came out in the middle of the campaign, I’m pretty sure the Democratic Party would be in far worse shape than even the Republicans are now.
Jerry Doodle said, “just once it’d be nice to see a pol caught cheating on his spouse blow off the obligatory damp-eyed press conference on the basis that it’s his and his family’s private business and nobody else’s.”
Jerry, I almost always agree with you, but no, he left South Carolina without providing for the occasion of an emergency, and in the past used at least one taxpayer-paid trip to facilitate his personal…ahh, business. And, since he was apparently on the short list for VP and a possible presidential candidate, it is everyone’s business…he could have been equally negligent on a far more crucial level (well I guess that bubble might be harder to escape, but I suppose theoretically it’s possible). A bullet was dodged with Edwards, how many more do we want to have to duck through luck? It’s not too much to ask of people who want us to trust them to actually be trustworthy, is it?
He sanctimoniously condemned and judged others and then he went on to reap what he also sowed and I have no sympathy whatsoever. Also, I don’t believe his teary-eyed indulgence of a public confession was a full disclosure of his actions. His regret was being caught, not being unfaithful. He “apologized” but he didn’t say he was sorry. There’s a difference. And there’s most probably more. I don’t need to know any more, however. He’s the toast he deserves to be. I do feel for his wife and boys. If only he had regarded their welfare and dignity. And, regarding his wife’s statement, as good as it may sound, I doubt it will hold. She’ll learn the more.
And, Chuck, no the Dems would not be in “far worse shape”. There really isn’t such a thing.
And, Josh, my sympathies to you. It’s disillusioning when heroes fall. But, you’ll get over it.
And, Josh, my sympathies to you. It’s disillusioning when heroes fall. But, you’ll get over it.
Thank you for the sympathies, but it’s rather presumptive of you to suggest that he’s a hero of mine. I respected him for his policy positions and his effective way of advocating them. But, at least for me, the term “hero” carries an entirely different definition and wouldn’t apply in this situation. I certainly didn’t think of him as a hero. Rather, I thought of him as an effective and attractive politician. Indeed, I have trouble thinking of any politician that I’d consider a “hero”.
“but it’s rather presumptive of you to suggest that he’s a hero of mine.”
I guess I misread the meaning of headlines “Savior” and “Shining Star” as well as the words embedded in the copy of links one and two. But you’re right, the tone changed in the third link. Were you on to something?
I think it’s pretty clear in the context of those posts that I was referring to him as the “Savior” and “Shining Star” of the Republican Party. Thus, it is in the political and policy context, not in some sort of character or moral context, as I would typically use to define “hero”. These phrases – “Savior” and “Shining Star” – are also used by numerous other conservative publications and were used in the same context I was using them. They were not using them interchangeably with “hero,” and neither was I.
Oh. Okay.
I’m finally getting around to commenting on this, and I have a couple thoughts…
Mary says that Sanford was “caught” in his infidelity. However, from what I’ve read it appears that there was no public knowledge of the affair until Sanford announced it. So, either he couldn’t ignore his own conscience any longer, or perhaps his wife figured it out. Either way, he did what I’d consider to be the honorable thing–he travelled to Argentina to break it off with his mistress, and then publicly admitted what he’d done.
This certainly hurts Sanford’s political standing–particularly with social conservatives–but I wouldn’t call his political career over. I wouldn’t even rule out a presidential candidacy. After all, John McCain and John Kerry were both divorced–granted, not the best examples since they both lost their campaigns, but the point being that marital troubles do not make it impossible for a person to launch a viable campaign for president in this day and age.
Sanford’s response was certainly better than that of former U.S. Senator John Edwards. I was tempted to support Edwards in 2004, but went for Howard Dean, instead. With Edwards not only cheating on his wife but making the “excuse” that her cancer was in remission, he secured his role as a heel. Further, his explanation of why he built such a large home (28,000 square feet) was ludicrous, considering that the Edwards, while giving subsantially to charities over a ten year period, still fell a good bit short of a Biblical tithe.
Expectations may hurt Sanford more than comparative morality. That is, Newt Gingrich who wants to be taken seriously for the 2012 GOP bomination, has a long history of both infidelity and crass behavior toward women he seeks to divorce. So Sanford, who may very well be on the whole, adhering to greater ethics than Gingrich, he will probably suffer more for it because many of Gingriches ideas are so greatly admired, news of divorce and affairs seem to be his par expectation.
As for Rudy, I never quite got how he expected to get religious conservatives on board when he announced his divorce filing decision on TV, without first telling his wife.
And taking a page from the anti-Clinton playbook, (perjury versus mere lies), Sanford could have a hard time convincing enough of his maturity level in as much as he left the state without a clear communication of who was in charge in his absence.
In Oklahoma, when the Governor and Lt. Governor are of different parties, the guv often travels far less, because the number two person becomes acting governor, with the right of independent action and powers pretty much that of the governor. This seems illogical in the days of cell phones, fairly rapid travel such, but long established precedents rooted in the state constitution die hard. From 2003 to 2007, Oklahoma had such a split, and Lt. Governor Mary Fallin (no criticism intended) made for a very assertive leader in times of the governor’s absence. She now serves in Congress and is seeking the 2010 Oklahoma GOP nomination for governor.
It would seem to me that while Sanford’s affair was a great moral failing, for the office he serves, leaving the state with key leaders seemingly in the dark would make for some easy ads against his work ethic. However, if Sanford were to serve his state well and be a good example in intervening years, a credible candidacy for presidency in 2016, if the slot is open, is not yet out of the question for him.
“Either way, he did what I’d consider to be the honorable thing–he travelled to Argentina to break it off with his mistress.”
Sure, after he had already broken it off in February, accompanied by his spiritual adviser.
“Sanford’s response was certainly better than that of former U.S. Senator John Edwards.”
Which response, Wednesday’s, Friday’s, today’s, tomorrow’s? Can’t this guy shut up? He talks about his “tragic” “forbidden” love. His four boys really need to hear about that. All of us really need to hear about that. Next we will start hearing about how his wife, who funded his political career AND ran his campaigns with babies in her arms, was just not up to some other parts of her job. Can’t he give it a rest? This guy is completely self-absorbed and completely un-self-aware. Yes, by all means, let’s still give him a chance to run for president. Any Sanford fans out there still chomping at the bit to run to his defense?
Mary,
You seem to be following Sanford in the media very closely. I’m getting the distinct impression that either you have been a critic of Sanford since before his infidelity became public knowledge, or you are eager to maximize the political damage to a man who has shown the potential to be an effective player in the GOP.
I’m not interested in arguing with you over Sanford, but I am curious where you are getting the claim that “he had already broken it off in February, accompanied by his spiritual advisor.”
I believe he revealed that his spiritual adviser accompanied him to a winter meeting in his very recent AP interview that was widely disseminated on multiple sites. Because he does keep on talking, you know. And, yes, my knowledge of him predates this incident from his name being included in 2008 on McCain’s short VP list, and his widely reported comments on and refusal of stimulus package funds for his state and the pros and cons of that – also widely reported, and both of those events pre-dated by conversations with acquaintances I have from SC with whom I sometimes discuss current political and other events. But, no, I wasn’t a critic of him before this incident and his being Republican has nothing to do with my reaction (John Edwards is fully his equal, but he has at least mercifully shut up about it, and never that I am aware of, anyhow, compared himself to Biblical heroes – I think this is what really set me off). And, I am not following this “very closely” – on the contrary, it’s hard to avoid. Only when people reveal themselves as complete hypocrites would I bother to be this critical.
Do I have enough credentials to have a valid opinion on this? And, just to be clear, I replied originally to Josh’s post, I didn’t start commenting on this all by myself.
OK, after about 5 minutes of searching I found the AP article you were talking about (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063001581_2.html). It is always good to include a link, because although I browse Google News frequently, I hadn’t seen anything on Sanford since Friday. Therefore, I didn’t understand your question “Can’t this guy shut up?” Based on pg 1 of the above WaPo story, Sanford granted three hours of interviews over two days. Does that amount to not shutting up about it? I guess that’s a matter of opinion.
Anyway, the AP interview says that he made a “failed attempt at a farewell meeting…this past winter” after his wife found out about the affair, and that last month’s trip was made “after his wife expressly told him not to.” That does make things a lot worse than I’d previously thought.
Eric,
I’m sorry about the absence of links. I usually think things over before I write about them, and because of that I don’t always have the links at hand. I’ll try to be better on that. But it will have to be on some other topic. I am pretty sure I want to finish thinking about this one. How about you?