Why Mark Sanford Has To Go
posted at 4:31 pm on July 1, 2009 by Doctor Zero
regular view
Pressure is mounting on Mark Sanford to resign his governorship. Today we’ve heard Jim DeMint suggest he’s been talking to Sanford behind the scenes, urging him to “make the right decision about what needs to be done.” Presumably, DeMint doesn’t think releasing another volume of Sanford’s torrid love letters to his mistress is “what needs to be done.” Sanford needs to go, and soon. He’s waited more than long enough already.
Why should Sanford’s misadventures in Argentina spell the end of his political career? After all, he could easily dig up thousands of sound bites from media commentators of the late 90s, insisting Clinton’s extramarital affairs did not disqualify him from holding office. Sanford could burn those sound bites onto discs and play them like a scratch DJ at his next press conference. By all accounts, he’s been a popular and successful governor, and retains a remarkable level of public support in South Carolina, even as the bizarre details of his adultery have trickled out. Why is it so important for him to resign?
Well, for starters, he’s nuts. It’s hard to watch his increasingly surreal press conferences without concluding his mental guitar is missing a few strings. To put it charitably, his behavior has demonstrated appallingly poor judgment, and sound judgment is one of the primary qualifications for a leader. He placed his obsession with his mistress ahead of his marriage, and the welfare of his children. How can anyone in South Carolina know where the demands of his office, and the needs of his constituents, rank on his scale of priorities?
There are also matters of national political significance to consider. Sanford achieved prominence as a possible Republican presidential candidate for 2012, and he didn’t exactly hide from the spotlight. Many thoughtful people supported him, because they admired his positions on the issues. If he continues to cling to his office, and remains a bleeding wound in the side of the Republican party, he insults his supporters and betrays everything they stand for. The elections of 2010 and 2012 will be crucial battles, with towering stakes for America. A major part of the Republicans’ battle plan must involve highlighting the astonishing corruption of the Democrats. It is essential that voters understand the people demanding their wealth and liberty are ethically compromised. Making this point will be far more difficult if the Democrats can point at Sanford, and ask how a party that tolerates an adulterer noted for erratic behavior has the stature to challenge their conduct.
Sanford’s betrayal of his marriage, and his ongoing humiliation of his wife, are awful for another reason, beyond the poor decision-making skills they illustrate. Politicians in the United States are asserting increasing amounts of power over the population, on the grounds they are intellectually and morally better suited to manage the wealth of the nation than private industry. The vow of marriage is one of the few mechanisms available for impressing the virtue of humility on our ruling class. Marriage is a transcendent vow, not a business contract to be discarded when inconvenient, or cleverly bypassed when one side wants a profitable loophole. The words of a marriage vow promise fidelity to the end of life, and beyond… not just until we bump into someone we fancy more. There is nothing ambiguous about these words. Mark Sanford can probably recite them from memory. If he can’t, I’ll bet Jenny Sanford can.
If a politician cannot keep a transcendent vow made to his wife, and by extension his children, how can he presume to assert the moral authority to manage a modern state? How can the voters believe that he will honor his commitment to them, if he flaunts the promises he made at his wedding, with his hand resting on the very same holy book? Americans have become far too willing to surrender their prosperity and freedom to political leaders, but at least they can demand the pretense of honor and fidelity in return. Only a fool would hand over his money to a thief, a compulsive gambler, or a drug addict. If the Republican Party wants to inspire Americans to stop being fools for the statist Democrats who have been busy hammering their trust into iron girders to support the Total State, they cannot also ask us to be fools for one of their number, who has proven himself as unworthy of trust as any other traitor.
If Mark Sanford ever believed any of the things he said, back when he was taken seriously as a national candidate, he will step aside, instead of remaining as an obstacle to the triumph of those ideas. He says he’s going to try to “fall back in love with his wife.” If he’s still in love with America, he’ll pack his bags, get off our TV screens, and romance his wife in private.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I don’t think he’s nuts, I do believe he’s having a mental breakdown right before our eyes. But for him to say, in public, that he was “going to try and fall back in love with his wife again” has to be one of the most hurtful things I’ve ever heard.
To say that in front of the whole world is unforgiveable and he needs to go. And to make it worse, I was hoping he’d make a run in 2012 for Prez. I’m sooo disappointed in this dude.
So, will he put himself in the hospital for some help, or maybe blame it on the good old standby “I’m an alcoholic” excuse to buy some more time?
Knucklehead on July 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM
The marriage will always exist; there is no method to void it on conditions amounting to him being a first-class 360 degree jerk. Not all comments will support “Marriage is a transcendent vow” and those that don’t will be amazed that anyone would suggest that the right thing to do is to defend the marriage. He needs to atone and return home and repair himself so he can resume the vow. Easy to say – very difficult to do, but a vow is nothing less that a commitment for a lifetime.
There is no way I think he can serve as Governor; he must resign in shame. Being Governor is a contract with his electorate. He cheated and stole the faith of his constituents. He is not a trustworthy person to enter into a contract with.
ericdijon on July 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Good Lord, don’t consign Jenny to this. Even Christ was willing to give a pass for adultery. “Fall back in love with her,” indeed — this clown has no idea what love is. Certainly not finding a new way to torture one’s wife every day . . .
loneloc on July 1, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Oh please, spare me on the commitment and atonement crapola. Yes, it was a commitment in the eyes of God, but what kind of message is going back to the family send to his 4 son’s?
I stayed in a bad marriage, and it damaged my own son’s. When Governor Sanford made that so called called commitment and then brought 4 children into the world, he also made a commitment to raise them properly and in a healthly environment.
It is not healthy for his wife or his family to endure such torture. He needs to resign and his wife needs to think of her children and do the right thing and kick him to the curb for the pain he’s put them thru.
Knucklehead on July 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
The world would go around a whole lot faster if everyone just minded their own business.
Cheshire Cat on July 2, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Is he mad, or desperately in love?
‘Tis all the same.
PercyB on July 2, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Sanford is an adulterer and a liar.
That’s all the reason needed.
Dark-Star on July 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM
sanford got caught.
sanford is a republican.
sanford has one option – resign.
absolutely *NOTHING* sanford says or does means shit.
for the rest of his *LIFE* (and, very likely, the lives of his children) some asshole from the main sewer media will bring up “the mistress”.
sanford’s done.
Mew
acat on July 2, 2009 at 1:47 PM
sanford got caught.
sanford is a republican.
sanford has one option – resign.
absolutely *NOTHING* sanford says or does means anything.
for the rest of his *LIFE* (and, very likely, the lives of his children) some rectum (erm, reporter) from the main sewer media will bring up “the mistress”.
sanford’s done.
Mew
acat on July 2, 2009 at 1:47 PM
acat on July 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I agree that this clown has no idea what love is, but I’m not sure I’m familiar with the “pass” you attribute Christ giving to an adulterer. I’m familiar with a test the scribes and Pharisees presented to Jesus. We may both be thinking of the same event. The way I understand it, instead of obeying the law to stone the adulterous woman, Christ suggested that those without any sin would throw stones at the woman. With that suggestion, everyone left having thrown no stones. Jesus was left alone with the woman. He asks her where her condemners are to which she replies “there are none.” He says “nor do I condemn you” and tells her to go and sin no more. No “pass” just reconciliation.
If Sanford can, from this point forward, go and sin no more, then that is an action of returning to his marriage. I don’t suggest that all is now great in the household, but now the household will benefit from the attention given towards preserving the marriage. The torturous nature of the repair ebbs as the marriage grows strong, every day…
ericdijon on July 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I, and many others, have grown to know that marriage is a sacrament before God, and the experience of God’s creating and saving presence. (I’m presuming that nothing preempts Sanford’s marriage from being a valid marriage.) Reconciliation, another sacrament, is an intensely intimate experience of God’s saving presence. (I’m assuming that Sanford is honest about returning to his marriage, or understands the truth that no future wedding for him will become a valid marriage.) I, and many others, believe that a marriage is not something that breaks, like a civil union with a contract that outlines whys and wherefores and provides escape mechanisms. When you invite God into your marriage, God takes the offer seriously.
Since you stipulated that I “spare [you] on the commitment and atonement crapola” I’m forced to respond with both hands tied behind my back. God’s work is Creation. A marriage created before God is, unless there are false circumstances, a creation that cannot be undone. The children are a creation of God’s that are the product of the marriage. The children are not separate from the marriage and you (“I stayed in a bad marriage, and it damaged my own son’s”) testify that the children are umbilically a part to the marriage. Kind of evokes the image of grapes withering on the vine…
My belief is that preserving the marriage is the responsibility of everyone that is a part of it. In addition to the offspring being part of the marriage, if you invite friends to your ceremony – are they not bound to keeping the marriage alive? I don’t think of you as a bad person, in fact you’re probable a very good one, but I reject that you stayed in a bad marriage and I say that you and your spouse neglected your marriage and your sons witnessed the neglect for the marriage. If Sanford makes the time to focus on his marriage and his faith in God then his children will learn the importance of protecting a marriage before God.
ericdijon on July 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM