You’ll never know if this movie is still playing in the Mark Sanford Head Multiplex…
When Mark Sanford was last entrusted with high elected office in South Carolina, he…
- Carried on a clandestine adulterous affair with a South American “soul mate” when he was supposed to be serving as the governor of the state,
- Went AWOL from the state and his duties, telling aides that he was “hiking” in South America when he was really doing something very different in Argentina,
- Used official funds to pay for his personal affair,
- Lied about it,
- Humiliated his wife and family while embarrassing South Carolina and his party, and
- Was censored by the state legislature.
Now, displaying a level of gall only politicians and Hollywood actors can achieve, Sanford is back seeking office in South Carolina, running for the open seat in its 1st Congressional District. His strategy appears to be that old stand-by of the habitual miscreant, evoking the virtue of forgiveness and redemption, as well as suggesting that God wouldn’t rule out voting for him. In his first TV ad, Sanford says that he has learned about a “God of second chances.”
Mark Sanford doesn’t deserve a second chance—not at public office, anyway. Like so many before him, Sanford is attempting to blur the distinction between two ethical virtues—-forgiveness, and trust. If South Carolinians choose to forgive Mark Sanford, that is kind of them. If Sanford makes it clear that he regrets his actions as Governor and is truly remorseful, he can be eligible for forgiveness, though I am not aware that he has done so. Whether he has or not, however, such regret doesn’t make him more trustworthy. Individuals in positions of trust who betray that trust should not be trusted, even if they are fortunate enough to be forgiven. There is nothing in the Bible—I mention this because Sanford is cynically attempting to shame religious voters into giving him another chance by playing the God card—that suggests that those harmed by someone should trust them as well as forgive them. If Nicole Simpson’s family decides to forgive O.J. for killing her, that would be generous. (Weird, but generous.) If the family then announced its approval of O.J. dating Nicole’s surviving sister, however, that would be certifiably insane. Similarly, some of Bernie Madoff’s victims may forgive him out of the goodness of their hearts. If, however, those victims decide to to add trust to their forgiveness and let Bernie manage their investments, they need to have their heads examined for rocks, worms and vacuums. Regret, contrition, and apologies don’t make anyone as trustworthy as they were before they violated a trust. They may make that individual less despicable and more sympathetic, but trust can’t be restored with mere words. Let’s see how Mark Sanford does in some lesser roles of trust like, say, treasurer of a local Justin Beiber fan club. He can work his way back to consideration for significant trust in a decade or so, if he’s good.
I think the very existence of his current campaign shows that Sanford is anything but trustworthy. I think it demonstrates contempt for the South Carolina public, and tells them, if they are listening, that he thinks they are dumb, foolish, easy marks and patsies. His audacious campaign shows both a lack of respect for them, and a lack of acknowledgment and comprehension of how badly he betrayed their trust.
Anyone who votes for such a man has confused forgiveness with trust, and is just the kind of ethics dunce politicians like Mark Sanford prey upon.
________________________________
Facts: The Post and Currier
Ethics Alarms 
Oh good grief!
Why doesn’t he go back to hiking the Appalachian trail. Apparently he was good at that.
He sure was, if it got him all the way to Argentina.
Hay caramba!
Sendero de caminata Santo, Batman! Nos hemos desviados otra vez!
Well, they are aren’t they? Not all of course. But enough.
He has God on his side. Besides which – hasn’t every conservative bible-thumping evil-utionist-bashing God-Fearing Christian done something like that at one time or another, before being born again?
Darn, I’m getting cynical in my old age.
Cynical or bigoted?
His seeking forgiveness of the electorate has little to do with Christianity and everything to do with politics.
This is the same state that wanted Newt Gingrich – thrice married adulterer who also (according to wife #2) wanted to have an open marriage with his current wife – to be their Republican Presidential nominee. This is the same Gingrich who was pointing his well-used fingers at Bill Clinton for adultery. How does anyone reconcile this with anything that remotely looks like common sense?
Did he point his fingers at Clinton for adultery? Or was it lying under oath?
You’re splitting hairs man. Lying under oath, adultery etc….. Newt was doing exactly what he was pointing fingers at Bill Clinton for at the same time. Quit playing man.
No, man, in fact he wasn’t. Newt, who is a creep, wasn’t President, didn’t lie under oath, and didn’t recruit his cabinet, which he didn’t have, or his staff, to obstruct an investigation, nor did he lie out right to the press and public. Quit being ethically sloppy, man, and making excuses for the inexcusable.
Liberals too. Think of Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings, impeached as a Federal judge for corruption, and then happily elected to Congress after playing the race card–the liberal’s equivalent of the God card.
Not to be too cynical, but don’t we have to wait to see who else is in the election? I mean, what if John Edwards moves or William Jefferson gets out of prison or Jesse Jackson Jr. or Kwame Kilpatrick somehow get on the ballot?
“it’s not the worst thing.”
Yes, that’s cynical.
Sometimes, Jack, the only choices are different flavors of shit sandwiches.
Should the whole ‘as God is my witness’ thing fall through for Sanford he might consider approaching the problem from a different angle. Marion Barry ran under the slogan “He May Not Be Perfect, But He’s Perfect for D.C.” and not only won but continued in politics for many years after his crack smoking conviction and prison term. When life gives you lemons . . . granted he grew those lemon trees in his own backyard but hey ‘attitude is everything’, right?
If he did not use campaign or official funds to pay for any part of his affair, then his are “merely” personal failings, and while *I* would never vote for him, depending on his opposition I could understand someone else voting for him.
However, if he did use official funds to pay for any part of the affair, then they become PROFESSIONAL failings, and he should be stoned for even considering re-entering politics.
And I don’t mean pass him a bowl.
WHAT? Personal? He left his job and lied about it through his aides. Official conduct. He used $9000 of state funds to pay for his rendevous, too. First denied that, then paid it back. Official lies and misuse of his position.
At what point did I ever suggest he was fit for office? *I* certainly would never trust him with anything even REMOTELY important ever again (then again, he’s a politician, so maybe that is a redundant statement).
I don’t recall that it was proven that he used state funds – I certainly wouldn’t be shocked if he did, since God knows his ability to make good decisions is not high.
I don’t consider “lying through his aides” to be his fault, though I suppose I should consider the question “what the hell did he think they were going to do with that information?”, so I dunno. I’m a bit conflicted on the “official misstatement” charge.
But I said I could understand people voting for him if he didn’t use state funds, and couldn’t you? People voted for Clinton, and any number of other cheats. heck, I loath President Obama, but I understand why people voted for him…
What I should have added, I suppose, is that while I understand such a vote, I certainly wouldn’t agree with it, and I certainly would think less of people who did so.
No, I think leaders who cheat on their wives are less trustworthy than those who don’t, and cheating while in a position of leadership undermines the office. I understand it, because I understand that there are an astounding number of fools.
I’m pretty sure that’s what I just said, only with less words. 🙂
Just making sure!
Actually, you put your finger on it in your essay, Jack. It’s almost exactly what I’ve told people many times. As a Christian, you DO forgive those who ask it of you. But it does not, by itself, require you to trust them. Like you, I have never seen any true contrition or penance from Mark Sanford. He horrendously betrayed his constituents, his state and all those people whom he had deceived into thinking that he was an honorable man.
I’ve often made the point that there are three basic character flaws that, when perceived in a man, are guarantors of many others… likely to include the other two: Cruelty, perversion and treachery. If Sanford doesn’t qualify on the latter, then nobody has! His best action, if truly repentant, would be to abjure politics and dedicate himself to activities that discourage such behavior in others. Either that or just disappear.
The fact that he’s not tells me that he’s just as untrustworthy as any death row inmate who’s professed a conversion to Christ and used it as a means of escaping his sentence. The truly converted would do the exact opposite, as well. Mark Sanford- who should have gone to jail- is just using the Gospels as a means of deceit. He’s no better than any false convert and worse than most.
He could work on Habitat for Humanity houses, he could lead volunteers at the Salvation Army,or he could raise money for and build orphanages near war zones. Any of these things would convince me that maybe he has discovered the God of second chances. You judge a tree by its fruit and a man by his works. What works do we have from Mark Sanford?
Well… he “befriended” a poor girl from Argentina. Then things just sorta got out of hand!
OK, so maybe working with the public shouldn’t be on the list of job requirements…
I have to disagree on one point — namely regarding the ethics of voting for him.
This doesn’t address one, critical point: who else is running? One of the unfortunate truisms of modern politics is that voters often have to choose the lesser of two evils between unpalatable (often absurdly unpalatable) candidates.
And while I’ll cheerfully admit that Sanford sets a high bar here… one can always be certain that his opponent (or opponents) will be more than vile enough in the eyes of at least some voters to make him the *valid* lesser of two evils from their perspective.
I think Elizabeth Colbert-Busch will make an excellent Representative for the First Congressional District.
Nope. We corrupt ourselves by voting for the corrupt. If Sanford is the best candidate, let him win 2 to 1. It should be plain to all that he is unfit. I’m not voting for any more incompetents or liars, no matter who the alternative is.
So you’re planning not to vote at all? That comes with its own share of ethical problems…
And, I suppose, my point here is more that modern politics is often a case of what you’d refer to as Bizarro-world ethics… and people (voters included) are often put in positions where there simply isn’t a good, ethical choice for them to make.
In a choice between Jack the Ripper and Sanford, for example? Right. Neither deserve a vote, and my endorsement endorses bad character and irresponsible voting.
There’s certainly grounds for that. On the other hand, I was commenting on the designation of voters as “ethics dunces” for choosing otherwise.
Regarding the bullet point, “Was forced to resign for [sic] office,” Sanford didn’t resign as governor. He served out his term. He did resign his leadership post as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Yup, you’re right. I’ll fix it.