There is significant pressure on South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to resign office and slink away. He's not helping the national Republican brand, nor the South Carolina Republican Party. My view is he shouldn't resign. Why?
Let's start with the puzzled, even cryptic, views of the people who should have the most say in the matter: South Carolinians. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, when asked if Sanford is more ethical, less ethical or ethically about the same as other politicians, those responding "more" and "less" cancel each other out at 18 percent each. Of the remaining 64 percent, 55 percent say Sanford is about the same as other politicians. So, overall, no better but no worse--typical pol, that is.
And yet 46 percent in the same poll say he should resign. Even if that 46 percent contains all of the 18 percent who view Sanford as less ethical than other pols, there's still a big chunk of South Carolinians who want him to resign even though he's just like all the rest of 'em. But that means the only difference between Sanford and the rest of those ethically-challenged pols is that he got caught.
In my Baltimore Sun column today, I consider this latest stumble by a conservative Republican to be a real opportunity to commence a new era in public attitudes toward the private behaviors of their elected officials. After a quick catalog of politicians on both sides of the aisle tripped up by sex scandals, I argue that:...the real potential upside of the spate of such incidents that have befallen Republicans is that it may finally persuade conservatives - especially those who proclaim to believe in redemption - to help forge a Chinese wall for politicians, separating their personal and public conduct.
When that happens, only the prurient and the puritanical will continue to insist upon the relevance of private behavior to public performance...
I oppose most of what Mr. Sanford stands for politically. His showy rejection of federal stimulus money targeted for his state was a crass publicity stunt designed to garner national attention for Mr. Sanford at the expense of his constituents, many of whom are struggling economically.
Slick posturing of this sort, rather than his painful and at times painfully honest public confession last week, are reason enough to hope his presidential ambitions end at the ballot box in 2012, either during the Republican primary or in the general election.
Should Mr. Sanford's ambitions founder on the shoals of a personal scandal, however, yet another opportunity will be lost to establish the long-overdue separation between private comportment and public service. So here's hoping he doesn't resign or, if he does, it is a matter of personal choice rather than him bowing to political pressure.
Is Sanford a cad for bolting his family on Father's Day weekend? Of course, but that is a private, moral failing, rather than a failure of public duty. Did he act irresponsibly in his public role as governor by not making sure he was easy to reach and readily available to return to the state if some emergency occurred? Certainly, and if that behavior is judged as a fatal by citizens of his state, fine, because at least they are judging him on his (mis)management of public business by leaving the state in the lurch. (Frankly, I wish he had handled his travel plans and public communications situation differently so this argument against him could be removed, but it is what it is.)
But if he resigns because of the political optics, yet another opportunity will be lost to build that Chinese wall.
6.30.2009
Should Sanford Resign?
@ 11:42 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments
He needs to stay and keep reciting Bible verses as justification to his sins. I think it's great.
Strictly for the comedic value of his inane pronouncements.
"(Frankly, I wish he had handled his travel plans and public communications situation differently so this argument against him could be removed, but it is what it is.)"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here - this is, or should be, the big issue, and not the infidelity, which as you say is a private issue. But this parenthetical seems to imply that you think he should stay in office for whatever reasons you have (which I'm still not clear on) and wish you could ignore the inconvenient fact that this is not the perfect test situation for your desire for a "Chinese wall" between private and public behavior. This is about public behavior too - and you should acknowledge that, not wish it swept under the rug. If you want to make a case for considering public acts differently from private acts, indeed, you should be writing about his dereliction of duty and not about his moral failings. This isn't your test case - and indeed, some of the evidence about his trade mission to Argentina indicates it may be even less of a test case than you wish it were - so don't try to imagine away everything else and make it one.
Sanford did not "[bolt] his family on Father's Day weekend." According to his wife's statement,
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us.
He couldn't contact his family anyway. His wife certainly didn't want him running to Argentina during that time away, but even if he had stayed in South Carolina he would not have been with his family.
No he shouldn't resign, but he also shouldn't keep confessing to the press. Apparently he gave a "lengthy and emotional" interview to the AP today when he admitted to seeing her on more occasions than previously known.
Shut. Up. We don't need to hear about every time you've had sex.
If he keeps up his current media plan, he won't last.
I think he should resign, but not for moral reasons. A pol cheating on his wife is a forgivable offense in my eyes, but what isn't forgivable is an obvious lack of rational decision making. His taking off to Argentina for 5 days without telling anyone simply could not have ended any other way than it did. It was an extremely unsound and bizarre decision that betrays some fundamental issues with Sanford's judgment.
I don't see the polls as inconsistent. The public can see all politicians as scum, and at the same time feel that propriety demands that politicians who break the rules resign when they get caught. One can expect all politicians to be lying douchebags, and still not want to socially legitimize lying douchebaggery by allowing politicians who publicly engage in it to remain in office.
I suspect a large number of those who want him to resign are really traditional political opponents plus those who think he has done a bad job vis-a-vis the stimulus money. Remember, he has as many Republicans angry at him now (as a result of the stimulus funds fiasco) as Democrats.
I sometimes think that what was a great opportunity was lost when the initial stories about Monica Lewinsky first came out. Had Bill Clinton come out with some sort of statement to the effect that he regretted his behavior, apologized to Ms Lewinsky then commented that the matter was now between him, his priest and his wife and I think most people would have accepted that (sure there would be yelling from the usual suspects but you'll always have that). Instead this has become a witch hunt issue for both sides of the aisle while that could have started a trend toward more acceptance of 'private is private'.
People love displaying their discontent and symbolically acting against those politicians. I bet if SC had a recall provision the citizens would be clamoring for it. Just check out what happened to Gray Davis, and California's proposition 1F intended to punish legislators during deficit years, passed by 74% of the state.
Yes, it would be terrific if Americans would separate public vs. private lives, you bet, and the sooner the better. Today or tomorrow would be terrific. But the facts are that Sanford 1) Left the State--and country--without telling anyone, the Lt. Governor, his wife--anyone. That's inexcusable and it's not personal time, that was public; 2) He went down to Argentina to be with this mistress of his on the State dollar. That's not personal either. That's theft.
Two strikes.
He should be out.
Mo Rage
www.moravings.blogspot.com
To SarahLawrenceScott-- I'm a divorced Father and have to tell you, divorce or no divorce, separation or no separation, you couldn't have kept me from my child (children) on Father's Day and my wife--and most wives, if the Father is a good one (not a loon) would recognize that "Dad" should spend time with the kids on that day, of all days, particularly in America, especially if they go to church. I say this last part because Father's Day is so ubiquitous in the US that day.
All this said, if the citizens of South Carolina want this db, who's to say otherwise? Let them have him, of course.
I think this partly misses the point. Sandford's scandal isn't solely an ethical one. The guy essentially left the state without a governor for a week. That's a competence, responsibility, and judgment issue, not an ethical one.
Additionally, I think there is less contradiction than you think. You forget that normally people think that their elected officials are better than everyone else's. Congress is corrupt, but their Senator has high approval ratings.
So when your own pol falls to the level of "just like everyone else", it is a bad sign.
Why should this wall be built? Isn't character a qualification for public office?
Sanford's transgressions warrant even more scrutiny than normal because of his hypocritical prior comments on the punishment public officials who are adulterers should suffer (e.g., Livingston), his dereliction of duty to South Carolina, and his misappropriation of funds to travel to Argentina under the guise of state business.
Politicians who campaign on morals should always be subject to this kind of scrutiny. When in a relationship, fidelity and honesty are important qualities. While there is a distinction between breaching trust in a marital relationship and in a relationship with the voting public, that breach is similar enough that it should be open to public scrutiny.
However, I would argue that personal acts that do not involve such breaches of trust (e.g., the sexual orientation of a public official) are nobody's business. There is a distinction. It should be made. While it may be more difficult than the "Chinese wall" you suggest, difficulty is not reason enough alone to shield politicians with blanket protection over the entirety of their private acts.
Why couldn't Ensign's affair also be used as an opportunity to change public attitudes about sex scandals?
I'm not sure that these polls tell us much since, I have to believe, that many of those who feel he should resign are doing so on the basis that he reneged his duties, not on the basis of his infidelity. If I were a SC resident, I would expect him to resign for the former reason, and wouldn't think he should have to resign because he had an affair. This poll just shows that people like me exist in SC, too.
However, I also don't think that the "morality" of a candidate can be totally ignored. If a pol can't hold up a promise to his wife, that doesn't speak much for his ability to represent the people based on his campaign promises. If the people who voted for him now want to recall him based on his infidelity, I don't see how that's necessarily a blanket judgment of ethics, but a judgment made by the people who voted him in office that he's not who he says he is. This is no different than a company firing an employee because he lied on his resume.
Politicians, like businessmen and women, have to face the reality that they will work with other people, and that his or her credibility is important. Certain people may find it ethically abhorrent for Richard Branson to go parasailing with a naked woman on his back, but it really has minimal effect on his business dealings, because it doesn't relate to business. However, if you lose the trust of the public and of people you have to interact with as an executive, then you cannot be effective anymore. I don't think it's quite as simple as it is being made out to be. There's a big difference between hiring a pathological liar and hiring a sex addict in both business and in government. I'm sure a lot of people in the poll recognize that.
maybe a quibble but the use of the term "chinese wall" grates on my nerves. Ethical wall is a clumsy substitute but less irritating.
to the matter at hand: this is not the case to determine if public officials are allowed to have private lives, as Sanford failed to discharge his duties faithfully in his little junket. He did not tell his staff or successor his plans or he swore them to secrecy (not sure which is worse) and failed the people of his state. I really don't care where or how often some philanderer dips his wick but it's the sneaking around and lying that would get most us fired that they need to be held accountable for.
But so long as we have retrograde morality legislation, we shouldn't feel like it's somehow the prurient shortcoming of the public to want to see hypocrisy outed. The private sphere should only be respected if we've never seen the polished nuclear family onstage on inauguration day.
Similarly, it's not indicative of the public's failure to pay attention to important issues when there is Outrage (as in the documentary) over closeted gay pols undermining gay rights legislation.
I know this is a sticky issue, and I don't want to sound too childish, but the morality police started it, and giving them a pass doesn't get us to a saner dialogue but to an authorized hipocrisy guarded by a whitewashed picket fence (not a chinese wall).
Gov. Sanford’s marriage bites the dust because of GAY MARRIAGE! ;)
Seriously, Sanford as a sitting governor left the country without his assigned security detail. He exposed himself to kidnapping, terrorism, blackmail, whatever. And as governor he is privy to Homeland Security secrets (e.g., SC has multiple nuclear reactors). Oh yeah, real good judgement! The little head was obviously doing the thinking for the big head.
But OTOH, Gov. Sanford now has mad foreign affairs skillz -- Presidency, here he comes!
The Chinese Wall argument doesn't work in practice as well as it works on paper. Very few politicians seems to have perfect little private affairs. Most of them end up involving abandoning their public duties, misusing public funds, or other bad acts that are wrong even if no sex is involved.
So the real effect of pushing for a Chinese Wall is often to create a situation like the John Edwards case, where the media is trying so hard to put up the Chinese Wall that it is willfully blind to other misconduct. (E.g., Edwards' stunning hypocrisy in using the strength of his marriage as a political strength, while cheating on this wife the whole time.)
Sanford should go, not because of the sex, but because he showed terrible judgment and questionable character by going AWOL for a week, without telling anyone how to reach him.
The idea of a wall between public and private lives is a fallacy - if you can cheat on your wife then you can cheat on your taxes or your contributions etc etc.
As a Christian I believe in forgiveness and restoration but a resignation and a time of repentance is needed in situations like this.
I'll ask it again.....Did Sanford fly to Argentina first-class? If he did the hits home more than anything else, and would force resignation.
Did you consider that some of those polled may have interpreted the question as a comparison between Sanford and other politicians involved in scandals (rather than other pols in general)? That was my first thought when I saw the question and chart.
I'd also love to have private behavior not be part of the political equation. But that's not going to happen as long as a major plank of one party's platform is, essentially, a promise to impose the private morality of social conservatives on everybody else.
Until that day, any pol who runs on morality should resign over private morality.
I would happily let Sanford twist in the proverbial wind of his own proverbs, however now id the perfect time to appoint Elliot Spitzer as Special Prosecutor to investigate all the national and international crimes that came like tsunamis during the Bush Years.
In Spitzer's case it did not affect how he did the job, only that he like Sanford padded the expense account and if all the pols guilty of that in the slightest resigned the government would stop.
(and before the Randists jump in ) if all those with expense accounts that never padded them (govt and otherwise)were in one room it could still be a very small room.
The Obama Malocchio
http://tinyurl.com/ncpp5k
Why does he only give it to conservatives while bro hugging Dictators an bowing to despot Kings?
Slow news day . . . . and most of y'all bore me!
petekent01 (on twitter)
...except South Carolinians have been calling for his resignation for years.
He's been consistently rated one of the worst governor's in the country, and has drastically hurt the state of South Carolina.
If it's a public-interest story that brings him down, fine, because the REST of the reasons for his resignation have been around for quite some time.
I don't agree with erecting a "Chinese Wall" between politicians' public and private lives. The Governor of SC is supposed to be one of the best and brightest of that state. Not only did his conduct damage his family; it reflected poorly on the people of the state that elected him.
Is it too much to expect for our leaders to be moral, ethical people? Sleazes like Sanford, Nixon and Clinton make people believe all politicians are lying scum. This isn't fair to the ones on both sides who are honest and ethical people (like Obama and Palin seem to be).
South Carolina is not going to go blue regardless of what happens to Sanford, so whether he stays or goes will have minimal impact on politics in the state. However in terms of national damage and disgrace to the GOP, I say keep the dork in office.
Scott…
Umm—how you figure Palin as ethical? The finagling to get her ex-brother in law fired? Her willingness to say anything on the campaign trail (“Obama pals around with terrorists”)? Her self-righteousness about opposing the “Bridge to Nowhere” coupled with her dead silence when it was pointed out she kept the money for the bridge anyway? The spending spree she engaged in with GOP campaign funds to buy clothes for herself and family, including silk undies for her hubby?
If all these pass your smell test, you have a very odd conception of ethics.
MINNESOTA SUPREMES RULE FOR FRANKEN 5-0
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA090697-6030.pdf
(Pragmatus,we worried needlessly.)
PK-
Good monkey. Very good, monkey.
Love,
Matt Drudge
Am I the only one who finds the notion of a "public" "private" wall dumb. For one thing, its mind-numbingly banal - the kind of falsely profound thing that college freshman like to say. Of course there is some private - public divide. That is the essence of classic liberalism. But the idea that public disappoval for adultery, prostitution, cadish behavior, immoderate greed, and so forth should be entirely eradicated is distressing. Public shame is a key feature in upholding the moral fabric of society. If there are no public costs to immoral behavior, than the social fabric will be seriously weakened. Personally, I am very much one of those who feel than Sanford is not much worse than you average DC pol, but that he should resign. Why? Not for the good of our politics, but for the moral health of our society. Jerks like Sanford should pay a price. Political leadership is a privilege, and it should be reserved for those who deserve our respect.
More broadly, do we really think there is no link between our aggregate "private" behaviors and the health of our society. Is it really, for instance, not a matter of public concern that millions of our teachers, police, judges, scout leaders, and fellow citizens routinely access and view extreme pornography on the internet? Can we possibly be that naive about the effects of such private behavior? Do not divorce rates of 40-50% carry heavy social costs?
Sanford is a hypocrite. But his hypocrisy can be either used to undermine his career, or to undermine the morality that he supposedly espoused. It's a zero sum game, and I prefer to throw him under the bus than to signal yet again that marital fidelity is for rubes.
"Is it really, for instance, not a matter of public concern that millions of our teachers, police, judges, scout leaders, and fellow citizens routinely access and view extreme pornography on the internet?"
Not at all.
Instead of posting the long articles about "public" and "private" behaviors, and "ethical" and "moral" issues, people should just write out "the usual cliches", because we know how it goes.
I don't exactly see where the hard and fast rule between "public" and "private" is. What other sins are "private" and shouldn't be an issue? If dishonesty to a marital partner is private, is dishonesty to a business partner, or dishonesty to the IRS also private? What if a politician had been academically dishonest in college? If sexual conduct is a private matter, is sexual harassment a private matter? If a politician has, in his personal life, done or said things against minorities, the disabled, or any other group, is that just a matter of "private behavior" that doesn't effect the politicians ability to govern?
And of course, there is differences between sexual harassment and infidelity. Anyone with enough time can explain to me why a history of sexual harassment is a public matter and infidelity is not. But I think that trying to draw a clear and easy distinction between "public" and "private" is a silly thing to do.
I agree with almost everything you are saying. I would go back to the old school rule that personal failings are left alone so long as they aren't hypocritical. If you're a closeted homosexual and you are vocally opposed to GLBT rights or if you ran on a platform of family values and you run around behind your spouse's back, then I think you should be exposed and held accountable. Otherwise, what business is it of ours?
There doesn't have to be any contradiction between a cynical belief on the part of the polled sample that Sanford is no more unethical than the typical (sleazy) politician, and the belief that what he did in this case demonstrates that he is also too crazy/erratic/distracted by personal life/thinking with his little brain/unreliable/irresponsible or however one might want to characterize what he did in relation to his job as Governor, to be allowed to continue to be Governor. So what is the point of this article? Why should he not resign for having gone crazy/irresponsible just because what he went crazy over was a personal affair that should not by itself be grounds for his resigation?
Whether Mark Sanford resigns depends a lot more on Republican Party politics here in SC than on national public opinion polls. Mark doesn't like the Republican leadership in the Legislature, and they don't like him, and that's been going on for years. Mark also doesn't like the Lieutenant Governor, Andre "Party Boy" Bauer, who'd like to run for Governor in 2010 and to whom incumbency would be as great advantage.
Basically, Mark didn't have a lot of Republican friends in South Carolina before he confessed, so the political situation is unchanged. He might as well continue to live in public housing unless the Legislature can impeach and convict him, and I'm not confident they cam.
I live in Charleston, SC. From the posting, I'm guessing the author's closest contact with the state is watching Stephen Colbert.
When Bush was in office many of my more short-sighted fellow liberals called for the president to be impeached, which would have left us with (shudder) President Cheney. That's called unintended consequences. And there are some similarly huge unintended consequences of Sanford resigning that make me think it is nearly impossible, even if he wanted to.
The situation here in SC, or at least here in the Low Country, has nothing to do with marital morality, or even dereliction of duty. We're used to politicians having sordid private lives most South Carolinians find morally suspect. (I'm looking at you, LG.) Here in the Palmetto State, and in most GOP strongholds around the country, I suspect, we came to terms with a pol's private behavior not matching his public preaching years ago. (cf the Donatist controversy in the Catholic church, which boils down to the moral authority lies in the office, not the officer) As for being incompetent, well, Sanford's shipped sailed on that one years ago.
As for the polls, down here calling someone "honest", "disagreeable" or "forthright" is a serious insult. So disregard the polls completely. If a pollster calls up and asks, "Should that immoral man resign?" (Which is how the question is heard, no amount of rephrasing will change it.) South Carolinians know that the right answer is, "Yes" and dutifully give that answer.
After 350 years of hurricanes, slavery, malaria, pirates, Sherman, rickets, duelling, yellow fever, intense poverty, racial anxiety, boll weevils, moral upheavals and the Late Unpleasantness of the 1860's... well, South Carolinians may have become a bit... wistful on matters of morality and history, but have become an intensely practical people when it comes to politics. We know Sanford is incompetent, he always has been. Not out of avarice or power hunger, but sheer eccentricity. You see, the SC GOP (the only party that really counts here) is deeply divided between several factions. By having a total flake as governor, all the factions were able to maintain a careful balance of power, while still seeming fairly unified. One faction was allowed to place a powerless eccentric in the Gov's office, while the second most powerful faction got to elect the Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. (They run seperately here, rather than on the same ticket, for just such an occasion.) The more often the Gov was mysteriously absent, the more easily all factions could share power among themselves and, most importantly here in what is arguably America's most Southern state, keep things civil and polite. (Is this sounding at all similar to the dynamics of the national GOP?)
Sanford will not be allowed to resign, because if he does, then Bauer becomes governor. That breaks the deal and makes him an incumbent, and very difficult to defeat in next year's primary. Bauer has a private life that most SC folks would find much more immoral than Sanford's, so most of the GOP feels that though he will be nominated (thus upsetting the careful balance of power in the GOP), he will not win in the fall. Now, Bauer has made some noises about refusing the job of Gov to placate the other factions if Sanford resigns. This would allow the GOP to handpick a new puppet for their little power sharing deal, but it's very possible that Bauer will swear he won't accept the governorship, but then reluctantly relent when it's pointed out that it is his legal duty to do so.
This whole situation has been threatening to upset the delicate balance of power within the SC GOP. My hunch is the party elite would rather maintain the status quo of their carefully crafted, albeit highly flawed, gentlemen's agreement rather than allow matters to become... unpleasant. That, after all, is the South Carolina way.
He shouldn't resign because of ethics. He should resign because of bad management. He put the priority of Argentina above the priorities of the public and his family, leaving everyone in confusion for a considerable amount of time. There are many right ways to get your ducks in a row and take a week long vacation, and he choose the absolutely wrong way. That makes him a liability and he should resign.
I think about all the Gov can do at this point is get down on his knees with his spiritual adviser by his side and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that his cheatin', lyin' self be spared from the fiery flames of eternal hellfire damnation. The same goes for his "soulmate", that shameless South American hussy!
If people want him to resign not for the affair but rather the more unusual disappearance (which is really more an issue of incompetence than ethics), these numbers aren't that surprising.
I think it's relevant because he's a hypocrite. Why should a politician be able to chest pound regarding the sanctity of marriage on one hand, and talk about how gay marriage is terrible, and then have no respect for his marriage on the other?
I will happily not care about the affairs of politicians in most cases, but when they use moral superiority to try and take away the rights of some, their moral failings are relevant.
No "Chinese walls" for hypocrites.
From my perspective, the issue is quite simple. Rightly or wrongly, he has lost a substantial number of people who are willing to support him, place confidence in him, and trust him. A leader needs as many people believing in him or her as possible.
As for resignation, http://www.tinyurl.com/n3vlg3
And dude... "Ethical Wall." "Chinese Wall" is NOT the preferred nomenclature.
Post a Comment