Inside The Mind of Mark Sanford
SOUTH CAROLINA’S GOVERNOR: THE DEFINITIVE PSYCHOANALYSIS
FITSNews – January 14, 2008 – It goes without saying that every one of us – to some extent – is a walking contradiction. No one can be 100% consistent, 100% of the time, and it’s safe to say that immersing yourself in the political process dramatically lowers both percentages.
And so it is with Mark Sanford, South Carolina’s maverick (recalcitrant?), unconventional (oddball?), non-political (political animal?), easy-going (carefully-scripted?) second-term governor.
In fact, of all the questions we’re asked about South Carolina politics here at FITSNews, the one that pops up most often is: “What’s up with Mark Sanford?”
Well, here goes …
Short answer? We don’t have a clue.
Sure, our founding editor Sic Willie worked alongside the governor for four years, but he’ll be the first to tell you he hasn’t the foggiest of notions as to what goes on inside that gubernatorial noggin.
It’s a refrain echoed by dozens of Sanford confidants, former employees and friends, to say nothing of the numerous political enemies the governor has made over his six years in Columbia.
Let’s start with the obvious dichotomies …
- Mark Sanford is extraordinarily intelligent … yet he is frequently aloof and naïve.
- Mark Sanford is immensely popular … yet he has been largely unable to translate that popularity into forward motion for his agenda.
- Mark Sanford is uncompromising … yet he frequently compromises to a fault on big-ticket items.
- Mark Sanford isn’t concerned with being popular … yet he maintains a codependent streak a mile wide.
- Mark Sanford is a friendly, “aw, shucks” kind of a guy … yet he’s been known to run his office with an iron, micro-managerial fist.
- Mark Sanford is a bold, decisive leader … yet he’s frequently paralyzed by indecision.
- Mark Sanford isn’t a politician … yet he’s one of the most/least accomplished politicians in the state.
There are kernels of truth to every one of these yins and yangs, just as there are in the psyche of any over-analyzed individual.
It’s almost like watching one of those old Mounds-Almond Joy commercials, namely, “sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t.”
Which leads us to another dichotomy …
- Mark Sanford is a nut … yet he can be one of the most eminently-logical people you’ll ever meet.
On the issues – particularly his twin passions of reducing spending and streamlining government – Sanford is far less mercurial. In fact, were his legacy to be written today, it would likely say something about how he ”succeeded in peeling back the scab on a bloated and inefficient state government, exposing the waste, duplication and corruption of a flawed and outdated system rooted in the patterns and prejudices of a bygone era.”
Has he “changed the tone in Columbia?” Absolutely.
Yet in most cases those victories have been moral, not meaningful.
His income tax cuts and grandiose government restructuring plans have gone nowhere, his education reforms have been largely abandoned, his executive budgets might as well have been used as legislative doorstops, and his relations with the General Assembly are probably worse than any governor … in any state … maybe ever.
In fairness to Sanford, though, he isn’t really dealing with the “Republican” government everyone thinks he is. Far from it, in fact.
People like to view Sanford’s chronic “inability to get along” with his GOP peers within the context of a “he said, she said” inter-party spat, but as any thoughtful review of the S.C. General Assembly’s performance makes clear, South Carolina isn’t under Republican control. In fact, it’s further under the thumb of the Democrats than it’s ever been before.
Then there’s the simple “power arithmetic” of Sanford’s office, which was Constitutionally-neutered back in 1895 by post-Reconstruction Democrats fearful of an African-American ever occupying its marble and mahogany trappings.
But Sanford was elected with a clear mandate in 2002 … and then reelected with an even larger one in 2006. His approval ratings among the general public (and particularly GOP primary voters) remain positively stratospheric to this day.
So what gives?
Without putting too fine a point on it, our opinion is that Sanford’s “trigger finger” simply hasn’t been itchy enough. Or decisive enough.
In 2004, after it was clear that the “Republican Majority” he was dealing with in the legislature was slightly to the left of the Sendero Luminoso, Sanford missed a golden opportunity to begin forging a more conservative majority when he agreed to endorse dozens of “borderline” Republicans. On top of that, he by-and-large stayed out of races involving already-hardened enemies within the GOP.
In 2006, with his own reelection to worry about, Sanford was equally disengaged, and with a few exceptions he continued to be extremely reluctant to leverage his popularity in several 2007 special elections.
For his trouble, Sanford’s legislative antagonists have gone ahead and branded him with the tag of “running against the General Assembly” anyway, with their big government media apologists cheering them on.
Which brings us to 2008, the governor’s last chance to exert his influence on the makeup of a legislative branch that has stifled his reforms (and the taxpayers’ best interests) at every turn.
Will Sanford finally drop the proverbial hammer? Or will he continue to tip-toe around the obvious, forcing voters to buy a cereal box decoder ring in order to figure out who he supports and opposes in the upcoming elections?
Who knows … although it’s hard to imagine a better set of circumstances for Sanford to leverage his substantial political (and actual) capital.
Education in this state remains an unmitigated disaster, as does health care, in spite of the fact that state spending has been literally off the charts on both. Scandals plague his antagonists, making an ordinarily dull argument about the structure of government potentially much sexier.
That’s why for our part, we’re going to continue encouraging the governor to be as aggressive as possible, operating under the assumption that if you’re going to get hit with the tag of “running against the legislature” anyway, you might as well get something out of it – particularly in the districts where your money or your endorsement could make the difference between a real Republican and a status quo Republicrat occupying a seat.
In fact, if the governor were willing to “dial it up to 5″ in certain districts, there’s a good chance his executive budgets might be used for something other than winter kindling come 2009, not to mention the ink in his veto pen assuming some legitimate potency.
But when it comes to the “Mind of Mark,” sadly we’re as lost as the next political observer, despite certain folks’ claims that we still speak for his office.
As much as we might wish that were the case from time to time, the fact is that our governor – and your governor – largely remains a “riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma.”
Which, in a nutshell, is the definitive psychoanalysis of Mark Sanford.
Decoder rings, anybody?







Comments
By Harold on January 14th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Governor Mark Sanford is a study in unbridled narcissism. His inability to lead stems directly from the arrogance of his basic prerogative in life: I am…so you shall agree and obey.
I love the idea of Mark Sanford and I voted for him twice. But the reality is he has raised unlimited political capital but refused to spend it, leaving his popularity high, and his ability to govern low. In the end, all that matters is that Mark Sanford puts Mark Sanford first, and the people of SC second.
By Male Sapphist on January 14th, 2008 at 8:14 am
This is a guy that is the governor of a Republican state that is being led by principled republicans like Huge Leatherface Leatherman. No wonder our governor seems a bit schizophrenic… look at the asylum he has been put in charge of.
By Mattheus Mei on January 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I suppose this is in response to the Op-Ed on Obama?
By Harden Gervais on January 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Last time I checked, Sanford has accomplished exactly nothing. Only in South Carolina could failure mean success.
By re:Carroll A. Campbell III vs. Gov. Mark Sanford on January 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Carroll A. Campbell III, son of former Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. and an outspoken opponent to the idea of privatizing the state’s marine terminals…but it also noted he and the governor apparently did not see eye to eye over the idea of privatizing of South Carolina’s ports.
Campbell floated a proposal asking fellow board members, including Davis, to prevent the SPA from completely privatizing new terminals planned for North Charleston and in Jasper County.
Campbell reasoning was that if the SPA turned over its terminals to a private firm, nonunion SPA employees would be replaced by an all-union labor force, which in turn could raise operating costs, lead to work stoppages and make the port less competitive. But the state should never relinquish control of its marine terminals to private companies because they would become “100 percent unionized,” Campbell said.
“I believe the governor wants to privatize everything,” Campbell said.
Sawyer acknowledged that while Campbell’s stand on privatization was a factor in Sanford’s decision to remove him from the board…
By New SLED Director and Gov. Mark Sanford on January 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Director of SLED?
“…The governor decided late Thursday to pick Lloyd, who has no previous law enforcement experience…”
“…envisions a more hands-off approach than Stewart…”
Who does the Director of SLED report to?
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/jan/12/u_s_attorney_picked_as_new_sled_chief27390/
By Sanfeld: The Administration About Nothing on January 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Could it simply be that the Creped Crewsader lacks what Cartman would call “disciprine” of the mind and spirit? For an esoteric contrarian, it’s all about the journey and how good you look along the way.
His epic wonderlost in the wilds of South Carolina politics shall only be remembered for the distasteful skidmarks left on our community fabric.
By Tim on January 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Time magazine rated Sanford as the worst governor in America. They rated Huckabee as the best. Yet another reason why I think we’re not worthy of deserving this madman and genius in our highest office. And yet another reason why the analysis above is so sparklingly brilliant. SC is a microcosm of the national problem: Big Government Republicans.
I’ve heard all the rumors that Sanford was maneuvering to be Rudy’s or Romney’s VP nominee. What a pipedream. Beasley and Campbell had similar fantasies. I even know about Sanford’s staffers who went to work for Rudy.
But throughout the entire prez primary, Sanford has given only a few speeches, and in those speeches he has only mentioned one candidate for prez. He says they were very close friends in Congress, and that votes were often 433 to 2. They were the 2, and they sat in the back and talked smack together about all the other Congresshogs.
Anybody who really knows the Gov., knows that he ‘tends’ toward libertarian. So, my point? Sure, I know the redheaded stepchild running fo prez has problems in trying to relate, but why wouldn’t an old friend like Sanford pipe up and help him out on some of that image problem?
I know, I know. Everybody’s afraid the all-powerful, all-seeing, and ever-present GOP god in New York City.
By Carroll A. Campbell III vs. Gov. Mark Sanford on January 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Fmr. governor’s son Carroll Campbell, III sues Mark Sanford
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – A former governor’s son is suing the current governor after he was fired.
Carroll Campbell, III has filed an appeal asking the state to reinstate him as a member of the State Ports Authority.
Last week Governor Mark Sanford issued an executive order removing the former governor’s son from that authority.
Sanford claims Campbell’s consulting firm presents the “appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Tuesday afternoon Campbell told WIS News 10 he’s not sure what the governor is talking about.
The governor wouldn’t talk on camera about pending litigation.
His spokesperson emailed a statement, saying, “if it is illegal for a lobbyist to serve on this board, why is it okay for someone who runs a lobbying firm to serve? It’s not a violation of the letter of the law, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the law. The governor’s action is on solid legal ground, and we frankly don’t see any validity to the challenge.”
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7629457
By Senator Jake Knotts vs. Governornor Mark Sanford on January 17th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Binden Plantation, Sen. Jake Knotts, and Gov. Mark Sanford
Yemassee, SC sure is getting all excited over a bunch of pie in the sky promises.
Especially since the annexation of Binden Plantation is illegal.
On Wednesday, January 15, 2008,
…right after Sandford’s “State of the State” address at the Statehouse, SCETV interviewed Senator Jake Knotts and Knotts said in an interview that Governor Mark Sanford had interfered with the judiciary in Beaufort County. In reference to the matter he used the term “ex parte”. Knotts went on to say that Sanford was also named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit yesterday.
“Ex parte” is a Latin legal term meaning “from (by or for) one party”.
“Ex parte” is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.
BTW, I vote vote Sen. Jake Knotts for Governor, GO MR. KNOTTS!!!!!
By kathleen j. holmes on March 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
unfortunately, the most impoverished people in one of the two most impoverished states will not receive the much needed economic boost offered by the current administration. in unabashed partisan political posturing and grandstanding by our current governor, mark sanford, a most grievous disservice and injustice has been given to the most needy. how shameful!! how immoral!! all for his political future in the gop. i hope that republicans will rise against such heinous political behavior. no caring american should have to tolerate such indecency for an instant, especially our state’s poor.
Trackbacks