Some points about Gov. Sanford
Jun. 27th, 2009 01:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaSome of this is for my own record-keeping, and some to respond to other points that have been made:
A. Sanford was affiliated with, though may not have actually been a resident of "C Street", a
B. Mark Kleiman posted an article entitled "Why it is a mistake to call Mark Sanford a hypocrite" which discusses Sanford purely in terms of a person who believes something is a moral failing and does it anyway (likening him to someone who believe that taxes on the rich are morally just but cheats on his taxes). This discussion is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores the most important part of right-wing public sanctimony: People like Sanford, and Louisiana senator David Vitter, and current inescapable-on-cable-talking-head-shows Newt Gingrich want to avoid for themselves the public shaming and removal from office that they try to enact upon their political enemies. And they're completely willing to overlook similar bad behavior among their own--Rudy Giuliani conducted himself far, far worse than Sanford has, by any reasonable standard, conducting a very public and unremorseful affair while mayor--and is never called to account on it by the national press or the right wing.
(In the case of Larry Craig, Craig wanted to actually send people to jail for harmless acts he himself regularly committed. That's worse than mere hypocrisy; it's pathological.)
C. On the other hand, Kleiman also made the excellent point that The State, the major newspaper of South Carolina, had the e-mails between Sanford and his lover six months ago. They were silent about them during Sanford's disappearance, when they might have provided valuable information about Sanford's whereabouts when he was apparently vanished; however, "now, when publication serves only the prurient interest, [they published] the full text." This is "fish wrap" behavior, in his terms, and I have to agree, though I'll point out something he doesn't.
Kleiman feels that The State acted properly to not publicize the letters six months ago. I disagree. I disagree not because I feel that the sexual misconduct of political figures should be publicized, but because it will be publicized, asymmetrically. By burying the letters until Sanford had publicly blown the gaffe, The State has participated in the single most important American news media trend of this century: things can only be talked about if Republicans talk about them. Get it all out there, I say, Democrat and Republican, and let's start being grown-ups about it.
[ETA:
A. Sanford was affiliated with, though may not have actually been a resident of "C Street", a
Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the “Fellowship” and the “Foundation” and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
B. Mark Kleiman posted an article entitled "Why it is a mistake to call Mark Sanford a hypocrite" which discusses Sanford purely in terms of a person who believes something is a moral failing and does it anyway (likening him to someone who believe that taxes on the rich are morally just but cheats on his taxes). This discussion is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores the most important part of right-wing public sanctimony: People like Sanford, and Louisiana senator David Vitter, and current inescapable-on-cable-talking-head-shows Newt Gingrich want to avoid for themselves the public shaming and removal from office that they try to enact upon their political enemies. And they're completely willing to overlook similar bad behavior among their own--Rudy Giuliani conducted himself far, far worse than Sanford has, by any reasonable standard, conducting a very public and unremorseful affair while mayor--and is never called to account on it by the national press or the right wing.
(In the case of Larry Craig, Craig wanted to actually send people to jail for harmless acts he himself regularly committed. That's worse than mere hypocrisy; it's pathological.)
C. On the other hand, Kleiman also made the excellent point that The State, the major newspaper of South Carolina, had the e-mails between Sanford and his lover six months ago. They were silent about them during Sanford's disappearance, when they might have provided valuable information about Sanford's whereabouts when he was apparently vanished; however, "now, when publication serves only the prurient interest, [they published] the full text." This is "fish wrap" behavior, in his terms, and I have to agree, though I'll point out something he doesn't.
Kleiman feels that The State acted properly to not publicize the letters six months ago. I disagree. I disagree not because I feel that the sexual misconduct of political figures should be publicized, but because it will be publicized, asymmetrically. By burying the letters until Sanford had publicly blown the gaffe, The State has participated in the single most important American news media trend of this century: things can only be talked about if Republicans talk about them. Get it all out there, I say, Democrat and Republican, and let's start being grown-ups about it.
[ETA:
