Governor Sanford and the Failure of Moral Politics
It's satisfying to lambast a staunch social conservative for an extramarital affair on another continent. Governor Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton, has been a solid opponent of gay marriage and often invokes the "word of God" to support his conservative policies. I understand, those emails were hilarious and the press conference was pathetic and those of us without full rights in the United States certainly want Sanford's career to stay in the dumps.
But, all this hubub over an affair? As my parents would say, it's just inappropriate sex.
The real failure in this sad story is a political platform based on a personal moral code.
Laws are put in place, ideally, to protect the most vulnerable members of society from those stronger than them. It's why we have criminal law, tax law, family law, securities law, etc. A good law maker identifies a weak party and works to protect them, thus representing their constituents.
When law makers choose, instead, to identify a moral agenda, one that ignores the actual reality of people living in their district, and attempts to impose certain value systems based on that moral agenda, they target minorities and establish legal restrictions that fail to relate to problems voters face.
So, instead of working to find homes for children without parents, politicians like Governor Sanford oppose gay adoptions. Instead of ensuring that each taxpayer is given a credit for their dependents, Governor Sanford opposes the tax rights associated with gay marriage.
And like anyone who loses touch with reality, Sanford fell victim to his own fictions. His moral code bears no relation to the diverse country in which he lives. It turns out, his moral code bears little relation to his own life.
Moral politics ignore reality, they serve to ostracize and isolate vulnerable members of society and they are inevitably impossible to follow. Their separation from the messy human condition means that even the people imposing the morally based laws are sinners and transgressors.
We have a lot in common with Governor Sanford. We too have had to grapple with what we are taught is right and what we feel is honest and true. He's just learning the lesson a little later in life. Perhaps his tragedy will teach others the folly of moral political policies and encourage law making that addresses the diverse populations facing difficult and myriad problems in the U.S. today.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This man's personal weaknesses don't invalidate his positions. Supporting mother-and-father families is more important than the vast majority of political positions that a public official can become involved in, because this affects the whole society in a basic, long-enduring way.
Thank you Emma Ruby-Sachs
I always love your thoughtful and reasoned essays.
Sanford is part of a far right fringe religious group called "The Family", which has ties to some of the most brutal dictators on the planet.
Their doctrine essentially states that because people are elevated to positions of wealth and/or power, it's proof that God favors them over everyone else. And, like King David, there is nothing they can do wrong, because they have God's favor.
Who cares?? Why do gop make family issues a political philosophy??? I would be concerned that a gov goes AWOL - who was in charge?? with no repercussions - that is very irresponsible
Sanford's "morality" was that of a randy schnauzer making love to an ottoman.
~WoulfLady~
But don't you see that this is all the gays' fault? if they hadn't gone and destroyed the sanctity of marriage then all these Republicans wouldn't be having so much trouble staying loyal to their wives.
well, it makes as much as most of the other moralizing they do...
It's 2009 and superstition still exists. It boggles the mind.
"Laws are put into place, ideally, to protect the most vulnerable in our society from those stronger than them". Hello ! That is why there were adultery laws in the first place. To protect the children, in the days not so long ago before birth control, and to protect the spouse in the days before antibiotics made fun diseases like syphilis go hide in the closet. How can you not see that ? You are in total contradiction.
Public politics is simply family politics writ large. When we disassociate them society becomes bipolar.
The website below has many links on this general subject:
http://www
Thanks for the link. Busy putting up hay right now (a fun family activity !)
but will explore site later, it looks very interesting.
Oh, and son showed up to help this morning wearing a t-shirt that said
Got Walls ? (construction company tee). Nice timing !
http://www
This is a site I have enjoyed for a couple of years because it is a nicely done, well--documented, civil and intelligent counterpoint to the “Christian Nation” revisionist history.
Jonathan Rowe writes this about his blog:
“Yet another social commentary blog by a libertarian lawyer and college professor. This blog focuses on religion, sexuality, constitutional law, government policy, and the Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the past few years, I've done much historical research on the Founding and Religion.”
Check his site out. I think you will be pleased you did!
Thanks for the link. Still putting up hay and thunderstorms are building up. Naturally.
Living in Alaska we still have a much stronger Native presence than the rest of the
country and a different perspective on what 'manifest destiny' meant to those already
here . . .
Tell me it ain't so. I was convinced those in Washington knew better than the people on how to run our personal lives and spend our money. Don't disrupt my trust just when I'm handing over the wheel on health, energy, schools, etc.
Especially since we voted them into office right? It would be nice to say such things without repercussions but lets face it, at the end of the day, our politicians are no better than we, the voters that gave them the power they wield over us.
Sanford is just one of many Republican politicians among others (David Vitter, Robert Livingston, etc.) who try and impose their "Do as I say, not as I do" morality on others. How many of these lying hypocrits do we have to endure before they learn their lesson? At least Sanford's wife seems to have the right attitude. Instead of sucking up to the loser to save his career she is giving him the boot. Good for her!
Liberals have extremely well-defined morals, which start with a very strong faith in the idea that the only way people can live in a free, open and democratic society is for all people to be treated equally under the law.
Liberals also believe fervently in separation of church and state. I do believe I would fight to the death to defend this principle. Theocracies are oppressive, autocratic, fascistic and cruel. There has never been a good theocracy, and there never will be.
I cannot understand finding the concept of "equality under the law" to be reprehensible.
What I do find reprehensible are the teachings of Leviticus. And while fundamentalist Christians say they believe in the literal word of the Bible, and then consistently violate the Bible themselves, they still use it as a weapon to recruit others to discriminate and harm homosexuals.
If Leviticus is so holy, can someone please explain to me why no one has called for Sanford to be be stoned to death? I'm absolutely serious. Gay rights advocates and all those who support equality have been merciful toward Sanford, and, frankly, I don't know why.
If we were to ask Sanford today, now that he has found true love, if he has any more compassion for same-sex marriage, for gay rights, for gay love, does anyone think his views will have changed? And does anyone think that he won't still use Leviticus to justify his bigotry?
fanned.
Your morals are my morals.
And I couldn't careless who anyone sleeps with or marries.
And I wish Republicans felt the same.
Yes indeed, where do I sign up for the stoning? What's the phrase? "Let he with no sin cast the first stone", I have my stones ready.
I don't necessarily want to do any actual casting of stones, but I would really, really, really like for Mark Sanford to just quietly close his pie hole and resign from the office. The state of South Carolina will be just fine....we
Whatever. This is why I hate liberals: a lot of us don't bother to stand for anything, all so we can never be guilty of dropping our morals. We don't put our morals out there, that way no one will accuse us of not haivng any or going back on them.
That's really the worst aspect of our society. We take glee in seeing people who want to be a cut above the rest falter.
I take great pleasure in Sanford's fall from grace. He didn't falter he crashed to earth with a titanic thud.
This is why conservatives tick me off. They can't see through their own hypocrasy. Sanford stood for one thing only-his loins. He doesn't care about his state, his job, family, or children. Just his lust. Didn't you read this article, haven't you been keeping up with this story? Sanford thrust his morals out there, every fu@king endless day! What gays should do, what poor minorities should do, and that Jeebus is the answer to all- such rubbish! He let his state, and his career go down the toilet because he found his soulmate? That's being a cut above?
He humiliated his wife because he of his petty selfish desires, and we should forgive him for abandoning his position, lying to his staff and the public, but impeaching Clinton was the right thing to do? Your comment makes my temples throb!
Hypocrisy is simply condemning something you privately condone. Sanchez can actually believe he's wrong, even if his actions don't match that. He's had a transgression. You're no better than him if your response to his fall from grace is to put your foot on his throat.
right, and I'm sure you felt no glee in Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Morality" is completely abstract and has no place in our system of laws. The only "morality" this country needs is Jefferson's: unless something "breaks my leg or picks my pocket" it should be legal. Why do you hate freedom?
I'm a Democrat, and no, I didn't feel glee when Clinton was caught having an affair.
I don't hate freedom. But I don't trust people to just do the right thing if you let them, and eventually people will bring whatever they're into to you if you let them go unchecked.
If Mark Sanford had tried to be seen as a cut above the rest that might be an issue. But he didn't. He tried to inform OTHERS that THEY should be a cut above the rest, while he was out there being a love monkey!
And as for liberals not having morals, I disagree completely. I am a liberal. I am very moral. I have my own moral code that I simply don't try to force down anyone else's throat. Conservatives have a problem with that, because they want to control everyone else. That, BTW, is a violation of rule number one in my personal moral code...
So what? He tried to tell other people to do the right thing. That's not a bad thing, to want people to do the right thing even if you don't always do it.
I don't believe you're "very moral", and I think the glee liberals take when they catch a conservative or religious figure with their hand in the cookie jar just lets me know they're glad to be off the bottom rung. Everything is, because no one is "saintly" enough to tell people what's right and what's wrong.
The Republicans made this bed of morals, and they will have to lie in it. Too bad they want to lie in it with people other than their spouses.
I guess that was supposed to be clever. But yeah, social conservatives suck because they try to be moral and don't always succeed.
As a liberal, my morals are more concerned with giving all as fair a chance in life as possible, not minding their bedrooms. Jesus told Peter to feed his lambs, not Mrs. Grundy.
I hope that Sanford is the beginning of the end of the last chapter of the pseudo "Christian" Republican morality fairy-tale. All of the hypocrites claiming to be the bastion of "family values", i.e. Limbaugh, Gingrich, McCain, and others too numerous to mention, who were screaming the loudest about Clinton's escapades, and opposing civil rights for gay people, were all either junkies, philanderers, or scofflaws, caught with their pants down in various compromising positions with members of both sexes. Enough. The fact is that most men like sex, few are monogamous, and it's really between them and their families, unless they lie to the public by pretending to be above it all, while denying others their civil rights.
bobtr900 said it best. Hit the nail on the head.
The gop is, do as I say not as I do.
Until there are some morals included, the gop is clueless.
They are a laughing stock of government.
We can only hope they will resign or be voted out of power.
We do NOT need hypictitics running this country.
Look, I'm as ready to ship Sanford off to the nearest penal colony or mential hospital as anyone. It's embarrassing, and cruel the way he goes on publicly.
Yet, I don't think you can use this as a general assault on those who think you should have morality in public life. For instance, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. Does anyone think it's moral to lie to a grand jury, and that it's okay?
Also, despite Sanford's failures, arguing for basic morailty is not a claim that any of us is perfect. That's kinda the whole point of Christian (and actually other) moral thinking. Nor is that to excuse his behaviour.
I'll refrain from extended comments on the fact that this columnist does not understand what a law is for (and don't tell me you have a law degree -- I mean, if this is what they teach, well, it wouldn't be surprising. I'm a professor (not law) and it's amazing what passes for higher ed these days).
Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for lying to a grand jury. Bill Clinton was impeached because he had extra-marital sex. Yes, I will admit that he lied to the Grand Jury, when they were asking questions that they had no right to ask!
Yes.
Actually, the Starr Report, which I forced myself to read, concluded that there was "no colorable accusation of perjury." In short, Clinton successfully parsed words to slip past the question. It was a sleazy, lawyerly trick, but I was not perjury. Technically, oral sex does not fit the legal definition of "having sex." Considering that they shouldn't have been asking in the first place, my sympathies are more with Clinton that the Repubes!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
