Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Sanford and Sin

June 25th, 2009 · 6 Comments

Now that the sheer bizarreness of it all is wearing off, I’m starting to register how sad the Mark Sanford saga is. For his wife and chidren, obviously—but also for Sanford himself: The e-mails between Sanford and the Other Woman published yesterday don’t suggest some sleazy lothario so much as a man who,  to his own seeming surprise, found himself genuinely in love with another person. Also, looking at Reihan Salam’s career obit and Michael Brendan Dougherty’s profile from a few months back, Sanford sounds like precisely the sort of Republican I’d want to see defining the party going forward—and one of very, very few such people who seemed like he might actually be a viable GOP standard bearer. A small-government, free-market conservative who actually appeared to mean it—and one of only three governors to score an “A” on Cato’s fiscal report card—Sanford showed more courage in opposing preventative war than many Democrats. He had the predictable unappealing Southern convservative views on a variety of cultural issues—his old vote to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. is especially unconscionable—but he also wasn’t much of a culture warrior, somewhat to the chagrin of his base:

“It doesn’t mean that I don’t have strong opinions on abortion,” Sanford maintained, “You look at my votes, I think I had 100% scorecard in all those different things during my time in Congress and in the governorship. But it doesn’t wake me up in the morning. That is the position that I hold as a conservative, but I would stand up and say ‘look, what really gets me fired up is these fiscal issues. And people have come to understand that as they’ve gotten to know me. And in South Carolina, initially, it caused some great alarm; that wasn’t what got me up in the morning, which was, I think, telling the truth.”

So too bad. The GOP remains in thrall to the Palins, I suppose.

I’ve also found myself rethinking my instinctive reaction to the scandal.  My default view was that it’s a problem if he was using state funds to make pretextual trips to Argentina to visit his girlfriend, and it’s obviously a problem that he went incommunicado and bugged out on his responsibilities for a week,  but that his personal or marital failings were otherwise of fairly scant relevance to his fitness for office. But David Corn asks some apt questions:

Whoever had those emails had been in a position for six months to pressure–or blackmail–Sanford. An enquiring newspaper person might want to know more about that. Had Sanford even been aware that someone possessed these emails? If so, did he take any actions based on that realization?

There’s acutally a weird circularity here. Because a lot of people think a politicans failings as a husband are relevant, the disclosure of an affair threatens to torpedo someone’s national political career—which potentially gives anyone who’s got that information serious leverage over an office holder. I’m not sure how far we want to take this, but it’s easy enough to make the argument that a public official who leaves himself open to blackmail that way is irresponsible.

Tags: Horse Race Politics · Journalism & the Media


       

 

6 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Mike // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    I usually find your perspectives very clear-headed, but this is a disappointment. I would have hoped you could see the folly of a rigid devotion to small government.

    Look, I agree with the “live and let live” libertarian philosophy, but when your constituents are suffering*, a Governor has an obligation to help them. Sanford has done the opposite–he has gone out of his way to prevent aid from reaching the people of SC. I don’t see how anybody can defend that, let alone admire it.

    *SC is clearly suffering. It has the nation’s 3rd-worst unemployment–the number is now at 12.1%. At minimum you would expect Sanford to support expanded unemployment benefits for these jobless masses, but apparently even this is too good for them.

  • 2 Eric // Jun 26, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    2 points for the title

  • 3 Mike // Jun 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    Also, I have to point out that Sanford was perfectly willing to spend taxpayer money on himself–i.e., his “hiking” trip to Argentina was funded by tax dollars. This hypocrisy really undermines his credibility as a small-government hero.

  • 4 Marie // Jun 27, 2009 at 11:21 am

    Reading the emails, I’m actually kind of envious of him.

  • 5 rc // Jun 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    And that’s why being homosexual was a guaranteed way to not get a security clearance. If you were gay, you were blackmailable, but you were only blackmailable because you’d be fired for being blackmailable.

  • 6 Bloggingheads.tv, Conor Clarke and Conor Friedersdorf « Story Balloon // Jul 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    […] Julian Sanchez on Sanford […]

Leave a Comment