The Private Affair of Mark Sanford

By: Michael Kessler

June 24, 2009

"I've let down a lot of people, that's the bottom line," declared South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford on Wednesday. Thus ended the fun media game, "Where in the World is Mark Sanford?" He was in Argentina, with his lover, over Father's Day, without having any contact with his wife and four children.

There was a time--the Clinton years--when such an admission would incite a political witchhunt. Indeed, then-Congressman Sanford called vocally for Clinton to step down, "The issue of [Clinton] lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of democratic government, representative government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything." As for Clinton, Sanford thought "it would be much better for the country and for him personally" to resign.

Sanford's press conference on Wednesday did not end with such a resignation. He began with recollections of "hiking the Appalachian Trail"--a term that will surely become a new slogan to describe the activity of hypocritical politicians who moralize against others while letting themselves get carried away by their own desires. He ambled along for a while with many apologies, choked up at moments, and then--after minutes of suspense--revealed the "bottom line is this, I've been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with a dear, dear friend in Argentina."

There was an almost welcome frankness to his tone that made him surprisingly appealing as a paradigm of crisis management--apologize to those who matter, state bluntly what happened, and move on to the disaster awaiting him at his (broken) home. Most thankfully, there was no phony staging of the tearful but loyal wife by his side (she was at their vacation home on Sullivan's Island, forthrightly--and even gracefully--declaring over the past few days that she had no clue where he was).

I will leave aside the question of his incredible irresponsibility in leaving the state unattended for a period of time so he could privately conduct his liaison. This was, undoubtedly, stupid, irresponsible, and unprofessional. Any number of crises could have emerged that needed a clear chain of command, and he was AWOL. Professional shame--and grave political consequences--should be heaped in his direction. It may be that his dereliction of official duties is sufficient grounds for him to step down and leave politics.

However, that's about the extent of my willingness to throw sticks and stones. As unfortunate as this "affair" has emerged to be, it is Sanford's business, and his wife's, and the few friends to whom he offered apologies. Surely we can see that he let a lot of people down--morally, paternally, matrimonially--but judging the affair and its aftermath is not our business. Sanford and his wife have "been working through this thing for the last five months," and clearly they have a lot more to work out...on their own.

Some--particularly my fellow progressives--may be ready to engage in schadenfreude at the fall of another mighty hypocrite in the party of "family values." There has been a perverted pleasure in the blogosphere discussing the intimate details of emails between Sanford and his lover. Doesn't he deserve this ridicule since he's one of those Republican moralists trying to tell everyone else what to do, and then violating that code of ethics in his own life?

In Sanford's case, this may be an overly simplistic judgment. Sure he heaped disdain on fellow politicians caught in affairs. But that was years ago--not an excuse!--but by some appearances he has moderated. Sanford can be distinguished from someone like John Ensign, who trumpeted his moral righteousness on many crusades, yet just announced that he had carried on his own affair with a staff aide and family friend. And certainly Sanford's record is lockstep conservative on a range of social issues, a record that is distressing for some, particularly in his denial of equality in marriage.

However, there may be a redeeming quality in his very public calls for the government to get out of citizens' private lives, often to the consternation of his fellow Republicans. He has seemed impatient with social moralizing (e.g. not signing a bill that would allow religious license plates and seemingly unfazed about Michael Phelps taking bong hits in his state).

He recently got into a very public debate with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) after the recent South Carolina GOP convention. Graham mocked "Ron Paul libertarians" as unworthy leaders of the Republican party, saying "I'm not going to give this party over to people who can't win."

Afterwards, in a widely viewed interview, Sanford chastised Graham's derision for libertarianism: "There was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Sen. Graham spoke and said 'I'm not a libertarian,' whatever, whatever, as if that's an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment ... I've been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor."

Likewise, in an "Ideas" piece on Politico.com after the Republican trouncing in 2008, Sanford charged that defending liberty should be at the core of the Republican mission: "while I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials -- including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people's everyday lives." (See also his recent interview with the Acton Institute).

Note that order--the core of the Republican party should be about expanding liberty and getting out of people's everyday lives. There is no mention of imposing moral views onto individuals, in the manner recently espoused by Newt Gingrich, who thought the first challenge for conservatives was to fight a spiritual battle for the soul of the nation. The GOP tent, on Sanford's watch, seems to be for less, not more, intrusion into personal lives.

And finally, there is his assessment in today's news conference about the role of God's law in our lives. Sanford turned it entirely toward his inner life: "There are moral absolutes and God's law is there to protect you from yourself. There are consequences. This press conference is a consequence." God's law is for an individual to follow and for them to confront when they fail. There's no call for imposing his view of God's law on the rest of society.

The consequences of this affair will be far-reaching. As a governor charged with the care of his state, he failed miserably and should be publicly judged and held accountable. Where he has been an opponent of liberty for others based on his own moral visions, the charge of hypocrisy should be carefully applied. Yet as a husband, father, and friend, the consequences of his indiscretions are going to emerge--rightly so--in that space between his conscience, his wife, his children, and his God. We don't have a seat at that bench of judgment.

Opens in a new window