The Wrong Lessons From Sanford's Sex, Lies, and Character
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Erick Erickson at RedState has gotten a good bit of grief from the left for a Tuesday blog post absurdly defending Gov. Mark Sanford's then-mysterious road trip. He wrote a subsequent post walking his defense back, but still misses a couple of key points.
"Well, what I wrote yesterday was wrong," Erickson writes in his second post. "Sanford's lies spread through his office and out to the rest of us."
He's got the first part right. But here's what he originally wrote:
* Sanford did tell his staff and family where he was going.
* Because he was traveling without a security detail, it was in his best interests that no one knew he was gone.
* His political enemies — Republicans at that — ginned up the media story.
* When confronted by a pestering media, things went downhill.
* Again though, at all times there was no doubt that Sanford's staff and family knew where he was.
There is at this point no reason to believe that these talking points—specifically the ones about Sanford's staff and family knowing where he was going—originated with the governor. Unless Sanford's lie—that he was taking off to go hiking on the Appalachian Trail—has some magical quality that caused people hearing it to then make up new lies of their own, this is not a case of Sanford's lie spreading out to the rest of us. Instead of at his critics, Erickson should direct his irritation at his source(s), who apparently just made stuff up in order to get competing spin out on the absentee governor story.
Erickson goes on to argue that contemporary politicians have been elevated "to such a level that there is no accountability," because they have no peers that can "guide, admonish, and correct politicians privately." I don't buy the notion that current pols are more egomaniacal or elevated than before or that they lack support systems. We all have support systems, some people are unwilling or unable to use them.
What has been elevated unnaturally in recent years is the notion that there is a strong connection and correlation between private morality, specifically as regards one's love life, and public virtue. The fact of being faithful or not in one's marriage does not make you a better or worse political leader, despite what social conservatives have hammered for 30 years now.
Maybe an enduring lesson of Sanford and John Ensign is that they'll give it a rest. But probably not.
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine.
- Follow Robert Schlesinger on Twitter.
Tags: Mark Sanford
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (9) | Print
Reader Comments
Politics and the Bible
After reading what Mark Sanford said about the story of King David, I was so appalled that I couldn't help but respond. The Governor's lesson from the biblical story of King David's relationship with a married woman (Bathsheba) and his having had her husband murdered is that after David fell mightily he picked up the pieces and became a great king. Part of the problem is that the Old Testament is full of such horror stories, that is, immoral and even criminal acts by God's "Chosen People." (This is not an anti-Semitic allusion, merely a recognition that the Bible presents the point of view of one particular racial group.) Aside from the fact that the story of King David should not serve as a basis for behavior, it is almost inconceivable (but not really when we are speaking of a Bible-thumping hypocrite) that the Governor would see himself as another King David, whose sinfulness and crime were not important, only that he "picked up the pieces" and went on about the business of ruling (or governing). I don't think that I am the first to throw a stone on this occasion--yes I know, Judge not that ye be not judged--but public figures must be judged on their record and EVEN their private lives. I simply cannot see how it is possible that Mark Sanford can seriously interpret the Bible as a defense for his total lack of ethics and morality. Yet I feel certain that it won't be long before he will be offering himself as a man who has sinned "mightily" against his wife and children but has searched his soul and read his Bible (especially Corinthians 13), has found Jesus again, and has forgiven the Democrats for playing politics, and is therefore the very best representative for the people of South Carolina. If I were a voter in the Governor's state I would certainly not award him for being able to quote the Bible while committing adultery and betraying those who "chose" him for office.
mark sanford
I am surprised and shocked Governor "Snow White" succumbed to the "Devil". I'm sure the evil spirits got hold of the Gov. and made him stray.For the good of his wife and family I hoped he practiced safe sex for we sure don't want any more little Sanfords or STDs.
Reply: Morals don't matter
Jen,
I agree with you that his four day hiatus should be the issue of concern for his constituents.
As to your questions, it depends on what I'm hiring the person to do. If I'm hiring a barber then I'm concerned as to whether or not the person can cut hair, operate a cash register, licensed, ect. I wouldn't care if the person cheated on his/her spouse but would care if the person was a thief. If I'm hiring a sales manager, I'm not concerned if she has a porn fetish.
My point isn't that morals don't matter. It's that the American electorate weighs them disproportionately. In my opinion, it's because many of us still buy into the myth that they represent us. I don't think that's been the case for a very long time. Politicans, at best, represent out interests.
advertisement
