No Tears For Mark Sanford

I am on principle a defender of romantic love, and all the absurdity and pain it can bring. There is something noble about it, something that must be praised and cherished, even when it doesn’t make sense. But the more I watch Mark Sanford, the more I think he is conflating love with self-absorption, as if the two went together hand-in-hand, when it is, as a rule, exactly the opposite that is true.

Every time he talks about the pain in his heart, that organ, as seen through newsprint and cable news, seems somehow to shrink. Each new round of confessed aches and longing, every Biblical allusion, all the vagaries of his non-coital betrayals, of his dance floor marriage therapy, his electronic soul mate, his South American crying, the Hamptons tryst–all of it makes him look smaller and less significant. I don’t care about his private pain. And I get a distinct sense that he really wants me to care, that he wants us all to care, as if his pain might somehow be mythologized by the publicity, turned into something timeless and true, something worthy of forgiveness. That’s not how it works. He is not so special.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Accommodation

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Not Farewell, But Fare Forward

    Five years ago, I opened up my e-mail to find a message from Priscilla Painton, then-executive editor at TIME. “No, this is not a solicitation to buy a subscription,” she began, before telling me that the magazine was looking for a new politics editor and asking whether I was interested. I don’t entirely remember what my initial reaction was, but I believe it involved a happy dance around the apartment.

  • Paul-no not that one

    It’s not you he speaking to-this is salvage his political future with his party time.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Michael,
    tell me. Why do journos feel compelled to attended these pressers and report on this kind of stuff? I think Sanford is milking the initial reaction to his confession for all it’s worth. Remember, initially his confession and apology got excellent reviews from journos. They (you, Klein among’em) gave him all kinds of praise and sympathy Why do they continue to report on this stuff religiously, as if it had some kind of importance. I don’t get it.
    .

  • pafro

    Every other cheap trick a GOP politician tries on you guys works, I’m surprised you aren’t buying it. I bet Kurtz takes the bait.

  • jcapan

    Well, Ondaatje wrote that “the heart is an organ of fire.” And the heart, love, moral failing, hubris, this is all excellent material for novelists to consider, but as I just wrote on JNS’ Edwards’ sex thread:
    ~
    “Just to go on the record: I care no more about Edwards’ sex life than Sanford’s. The fact that a “congressional correspondent” for Time mag, a product of Tufts and Col SOJ, felt compelled to post on this…. When time folds (not if) I’m sure the E Network or Nat. Enq. will pick up some of you.”
    ~
    Insert your own title, schools and the comment stands up pretty well.
    ~
    I found a piece on you at your alma mater’s site the other day. In it you mention a “white-collar fantasy” in relation to the West Wing. “The premise of West Wing is that you can work incredibly hard at something that matters, and that it’s not just about making money, and that it can be fulfilling. I’ve always wanted a job like that, and I guess I’ve got it now.”
    ~
    So, I ask of you, MS, does this matter? If he’s not so special as you say, why the onslaught of words from you and yours over the last couple weeks? Isn’t it an inherent contradiction of the lack of substance/meaning to be found in someone’s sex life, at least as it intersects with your own vocation, covering politics? If what he’s been saying makes him look smaller and less significant, what does your reporting reflect about you? Honestly, square all this for us.

  • http://ktheintz.wordpress.com/ kth

    Well said, Michael. I feel like the claims of the heart are sometimes given short shrift, both by traditional values types and by a hook-up culture that seems not to believe in love. But Sanford lost me with the bit about David and Bathsheba. He can go away now, please.

  • shepherdwong

    “He is not so special.”
    .
    Don’t be so hasty. Full-blown Narcissism is actually fairly uncommon (though not as much as some might think). But it is probably highly concentrated where you work, so you can be forgiven for seeing it as pretty normal.

  • choska

    Honestly, what kind of man brings his “spiritual advisor” with him to break it off with his mistress. He needs someone to hold his hand and go to dinner with him and his girlfriend so he can break it off with her? Good grief, Charlie Brown.
    .
    He either loves his wife or he loves the wonderful and exotic Maria. He needs to pick one and get on with it.
    .
    Maybe the real problem is that he really only loves himself.
    .
    In any case it seems pretty clear that he isn’t fit to run a lemonade stand right now, much less being the head of a State or the head of a Family.

  • evietoo

    shepherdwong — I logged in just to say, Well done. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    “…all of it makes him look smaller and less significant.”
    .
    Hardy seems possible.
    .
    Imagine if political reporters focused on the implications of political decisions by politicians on their constituents with equal focus. I rather thought Sanford’s considerable efforts to deny his state desperately needed stimulus funds in order to advance his standing with “right thinking” people in preparation for a future presidential run told us all we needed to know about him.
    .
    And presaged this titillating event that led MS to say “the more I watch Mark Sanford, the more I think he is conflating love with self-absorption.”
    .
    Well, duh!

  • choska

    BTW, let’s be clear. Sanford, like all Republicans, is small and insignificant. His actions regarding the stimulus revealed a person lacking in either the intellectual depth to understand macro-economics, or basic compassion for the people of his state. Probably both.
    .
    His actions with his personal life reveal a person with absolutely no emotional or intellectual grounding. When someone is as self-absorbed as Sanford, so capable of using others to fulfill his emotional needs or to achieve a goal, then we usually refer to them as sociopaths.
    .
    One need not be capable of killing others to be a sociopath. The real definition of a sociopath is being capable of using others.

  • gysgt213

    Sanford is not done confessing. There is much more to come (no pun intended.)
    .
    “I am on principle a defender of romantic love.”
    .
    Seriously Michael? Sanford is in romantic love alright he is in love with every lady he wants to screw. I’m not sure why you guys in gals in the media even attempted to pass on this BS about him being just a romantic and that somehow makes what he did okay without knowing the full story. And this part of the story is pure BS. With more to come.

  • gysgt213

    Let me be more clear Michael. Sanford is a proven whore and if he was a woman you people would not be buying a word coming out her mouth and you wouldn’t have even thought up the romantic love line.

  • destor23

    Okay, he’s not that special, I agree.

    And yet on this day and over the time of the Sanford scandal there have been thousands of truly tragic, or truly touching or truly meaningful stories of romantic love, betrayal, want, desire and lust, and yet the media only chooses to report on his story.

    So… either he actually is special or you guys should force him into the lot of most people who have a sad romance story — let ‘em tell it to a bartender.

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    I don’t care about his private pain.
    .
    Then why give this person a nanosecond of your time?
    .
    I get a distinct sense that he really wants me to care, that he wants us all to care, as if his pain might somehow be…something worthy of forgiveness.
    .
    So don’t. Don’t care. Don’t make us feel the need to discuss whether we care or not, by writing about this person –a person who is not in any real sense affecting the course of the nation, or who makes a difference in the lives of tens of millions of Americans living outside of his medium-small state.
    .
    Why are you writing about this, Michael Scherer? What compels you?
    .
    Why lower yourself as a writer; why expend your prose on the truly banal in politics?
    .
    Why aren’t you better than this?

  • FlownOver

    I am on principle a defender of the right to run down Main Street at high noon in one’s tightie whities, but we legitimately expect rather more restraint from our elected leaders. Those leaders who preach “family values” as a means to gain and retain personal power bring even higher constraints upon themselves. I’d say those constraints should preclude this sort of self-analysis without end (and MSM coverage of it) but if the fool wants to keep rolling out evidence of his Inner Spaceman, let it roll.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Sanford is a proven whore”
    .
    Weird- my sister stopped by to toast Franken and she used that exact word to describe Sanford.

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/ Shakespeare in GA

    Better title: No More Words For Mark Sanford.

  • gysgt213

    “Weird- my sister stopped by to toast Franken and she used that exact word to describe Sanford.”
    .
    Wise woman.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly neo)

    My apologies for this intrusion.
    ~
    JC
    I just posed a question for you in “How Diplomacy Works.” When you have time would you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks.

  • juniusredivivus

    I can see a book coming out of this:

    The Loneliness of the Long-distance Governor.

    Or perhaps:

    Somebody Writes to the Governor…

    (if you want a more Latin American theme….. (h/t Garcia Marquez))

  • bobcn1

    ‘I am on principle a defender of romantic love…’
    .
    Sanford’s latest admission is that he was cheating on his mistress at the same time that he was cheating on his wife. He says he ‘crossed the line’ with other women. He’s beginning to sound less like someone obsessed with romantic love and more like someone who just wanted to get laid when the chance presented itself.
    .
    Given the judgmental statements he made about Clinton, maybe he should be reading the biblical passages about hypocrites rather than those about David.
    .
    I’m curious whether he is going to get away with reimbursing the state for the travel expenses he took to pursue his philandering. Normally, giving back the money doesn’t get a bank robber off the hook. Why should a governor’s misappropriation of tax money be any different?

  • wagonjak3

    Pretty good turn of phrase, and something I agree with..thanks Michael!

  • sacredh

    Sanford’s pain elicits a very low Boo-Hoo score. He may have a pain in his heart, but he is proving that he is mostly a pain in the ass. He disgraced his family. He disgraced his state. He cheated on the tax-payers dime. He’s damaged the remnants of the republican party (OK, that’s in his favor). What does he expect from us? A Hallmark card? His handlers need to sit his cheating ass down and tell him that every new revelation is just doing more damage.
    .
    Whatever details remain should be vomitted up all at once. Putting out this stuff piecemeal isn’t going to accomplishment anything positive unless he plans on writing a tell-all book and going on Oprah to plug it. He needs to stop playing this soap opera out in the media and try to make amends with his sons. I admit that there is a certain satisfaction in seeing a pompous self righteous fool getting reamed out in public, but why isn’t he trying to salvage what little he can?

  • juniusredivivus

    I may be getting old and grouchy, but given that Sanford has now basically confessed to rubbing up against women at dance halls in order to get some thrills, I can’t see where romantic love comes into it. Lechery, yes.Adultery, yes. Self-gratification, yes. Romantic love is rarely so generously distributed across the landscape. I feel sorry for Maria Chapur and jenny Sanford. The one person I find no goodwill towards is the sleazy old fraud who used both of them, as well as several other innocent women. As a wise woman once sang: what’s love got to do with it?

  • Friar Tuck

    Why are you writing about this, Michael Scherer? What compels you?
    .
    MS desperately wants us to care about his artistical sensitivity and his journalistic chops, I suspect.

  • ohiolib

    I can almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost. Not only did he have an affair while preaching “values”, he walked out on his state after inplying he was hiking. At least he’s owning up to his mistakes.

  • James, Los Angeles

    I don’t understand why they are treating Sanford so respectfully, obediently reporting what the guy said and quietly cluck-clucking about how it is getting a bit much. But oh so respectfully. Two posts down you have a “More Edwards Dirty Laundry,” which I don’t want to hear about that either but there is nothing respectful about how that affair was reported. What is the difference there?

  • juniusredivivus

    Friar Tuck, I thought Scherer had an almost Kantian approach to beautiful prose. Did I confuse execution with intent?

  • Cliff

    Last week called, it wants its news back.

  • shepherdwong

    J, LA: on point two I don’t see why IOKIYAR doesn’t cover it (if only it weren’t so).
    .
    On point one, I can’t help but go to the media tell here (sue me). Not once, out of numerous explanations for why Sanford should resign – he was AWOL, he didn’t tell anyone where he was going, he lied to his staff, he broke security, he was unfaithful to his wife, etc., has anyone suggested he should step down because he’s a proven, serial, public liar. I’m not sure at what point that became an unrecognizable failing for our establishment press or when it stopped being a disqualifier for Republican politicians but it’s a very neat trick to get a complete pass on it.

  • shepherdwong

    Thank you evietoo, much appreciated.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Well, shepherd, I’ll agree that IOKIYAR is the simple answer. But seriously, I am interested in going deeper than that. I’d really like to explore the dynamics of why beltway journos are so respectful to repubs, and why they get such favorable coverage. For example, WHPC was compliant and respectful as whipped puppies during bush, but with a Dem in office, all of a sudden they decide it’s their job to “keep them accountable.” During Bush, they all said that WASN’T their job, their job was to write news. They said that accountability was the voters’ job. Now, with a Dem, they contend that accountability is their sacred duty. Well, why wasn’t it their sacred duty during Bush/Cheney, such that right upstairs from where they hung out all day, war crimes were being planned, authorized, and executed.
    .
    And I’m talking about the straight reporters, not the undercover operatives. I’d say the majority of national reporters, with some very notable exceptions, aren’t really biased to the right. They are biased towards laziness and superficiality, yes, and towards paying their mortgage every month. That entails filing a story that is acceptable to their boss on deadline. And for most of them, that’s twice a day.
    .
    So what is the difference there between the fawning, submissive behavior towards Perino and Bush, and the contentious, combative, disrespectful behavior towards Gibbs and Obama? The difference is stark and undeniable. Is it the Fox guys in the briefing room that are driving this? But what of the overcoverage of Republicans in Congress, and the sympathetic coverage of people like Sanford?
    .
    I’ve asked, but none of them are honest enough to discuss it.

  • shepherdwong

    “Well, shepherd, I’ll agree that IOKIYAR is the simple answer. But seriously, I am interested in going deeper than that. I’d really like to explore the dynamics of why beltway journos are so respectful to repubs, and why they get such favorable coverage.”
    .
    I don’t mean to be flippant, James. Coping behavior perhaps.
    .
    Besides, what about the bigger questions about current common industry conventions – anonymous insider stenography, unqualified he-said-she-said “analysis”, credulity earned solely by political status, etc.? Where the f*ck did they come from? How did they become mainstream practice?
    .
    I understand the economics. The current model is cheap compared to hiring lots of real talent to digest, analyze and synthesize what’s true and important but the current paradigm also serves elite interests so elegantly, you have to wonder about the genesis of the new definition of “journalism”. The rest I chalk up to general antipathy toward that which can be defined as left-of-center and everything that has come to stand for.

  • perspectiver

    Dear Mr Sanford:

    Your are not just a garden variety adulterer, which can be forgiven, but you are also putting your children through an ordeal that is right down criminal. And you don’t even mention them anymore! choosing instead to play the Simone de Beauvoir card which does not fit you at all and indulge yourself in public philosophizing of the mysteries of pure love. Unfortunately, everyday you do this you also humiliate your children and Mr Sanford: where in the world will they be able to attend school where they will not be the object of ridicule and humiliation!

    It is true that love is a form of insanity we can all be the victims of, and that it can make us do the unthinkable but Mr. Sanford: your selfishness in plain view of millions of people around the world in view of the damage you are causing your children is simply evil. Please, for their sake: Stop!

  • bitterpill8

    perspectiver: you make a good point. Children can be very cruel. I feel for the Sandford boys. Being the sons of the Governor they are always objects of interest. But since the revelations: it must be tough on them. This man should shut up and go away.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Well, shepherd, you make some good points. But the current model isn’t really all that cheap. These WH reporters make a 6 figure income. Print journos make in the 100k to 150k per annum, and the tv guys at least triple that.
    .
    People blame the advent of cable tv, and maybe that is part of it, but that doesn’t explain the print journos. Maybe cable tv can be blamed for the general decline of quality political journalism, but I don’t think that explains the difference in the way Repubs are reported versus Dems. Sure, most of these journos suck, by why don’t they suck equally across political parties?
    .

  • James, Los Angeles

    Here’s an example. Back a month or so ago, the WHPC registered a formal complaint against the Obama administration for their frequent use of “background briefings.” Gawker – Why the Press Revolt Against Anonymous Briefings Is a Farce – Sonia sotomayor But you know, nobody held more background briefings than the bushies. There was never a protest about that, certainly not a “formal” protest. In fact, the practice was defended by those very journos.
    .
    Take these adultery scandals. Edward’s OMG!! “More Dirty Laundry” but for Sanford you have several romantic, Shakespearean musings. I don’t want to hear much about either personally, but why the difference?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    James,
    We’d do well to remember the ‘car-wreck across the median’ phenomenon. We can all pretend to be high minded and rational, but when there’s a chance to see blood, everybody slows down. Blame cable TeeVee but don’t pretend that they aren’t responding tp specific and well researched market forces.

  • http://deepbraindiary.com/2009/07/01/sarah-palin-says-she-could-beat-obama/ DEEP BRAIN DIARY» Sarah Palin Says She Could Beat Obama!

    [...] Mark Scherer in the Time Swampland Blog has some advice for Gov. Mark Sanford.  “STFU!” [...]

  • James, Los Angeles

    Paul.
    I don’t see where I blamed cable teevee for what I am asking. I’m sorry you think I am pretending to be high minded and rational, but I would really like to understand this tendency for Washington DC to be, as Josh puts it, “wired for Republicans.” It is indisputably true, and I am just exploring some thoughts about it, beyond the IOKIYAR and the “all political hacks” ideas. I know for a fact that most of these journos are not Republicans hacks. That makes it even more difficult to understand.

  • http://magnumcpa.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/refreshingly-insane/ Refreshingly insane « The Neurotic Ninja

    [...] The Sanford debauchary gets better and better. [...]

  • shepherdwong

    “But you know, nobody held more background briefings than the bushies. There was never a protest about that, certainly not a “formal” protest. In fact, the practice was defended by those very journos.”
    .
    OK, James. In a case like that, I’m going to go with the other important difference between how Dems and Republicans lead. George Bush, like most Repubulicans, was an authoritarian leader. By all appearances, authoritarian following is pretty strong among journos. And that’s a very good example, now that you bring it up.

  • bethnva

    I really appreciate Scherer’s defense of real love, but I also am fascinated with Sanford’s expressions of awe at how powerful these emotions are. Yes, he’s dwelling way too long on this well, and he may be conflating love of others with love of his own passion. But this man is expressing something in public that I’ve really never seen before–certainly not by a politician. But this is something truly different (and I think highly appropriate for a political blog post).

    As a wife, I’m astounded at Sanford’s horrible lack of judgment — I told my husband how much expressions of having another woman as a soul mate would devastate our marriage. But as a woman, as a human who loves, I’m fascinated. His Argentinian lover must be swooning even more at some level.

  • sacredh

    The only person you can EVER call a soulmate in public is the person you’re married to. Sanford saying that in public about another woman is about as low class as you can go. It’s bad enough when you cheat on your wife and devastate your sons, but to go out in public in front of the press and say how deeply you’re in love with another woman is cesspool material. Jenny needs to publicly destroy him. If Maria still wants what’s left, she can have him.

  • 53_3

    Hell, the GOP is having their own second thoughts about Sanford’s “defiance”, though I can’t figure out why they are so worried about being “embarrassed”.
    .
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/02/bennett-sanford-needs-to-stop-embarrassing-himself/
    .
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/02/am.mcmaster.sanford.cnn

blog comments powered by Disqus