Who Sanford Should Have Granted Access To …
“I’m sick of watching this stuff,” our founding editor’s wife said last night as the seemingly interminable saga surrounding S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford once again led the nightly newscasts.
“When are we going to be done with this?” she asked.
“But stuff keeps happening to keep it going” Sic Willie replied.
“No, stuff keeps happening because you keep inventing reasons to keep it going,” she said.
Touche … of course truth be told it’s not just “still going” here in South Carolina. The Energizer Bunnyness of the Sanford sex scandal is nationwide. Take today’s article by LA Times columnist (and new FITS fave) Meghan Daum, for example.
From her piece entitled, “Do men see Mark Sanford in the mirror?” …
I’m tempted to assume that the staying power of the Sanford story is simply a function of its prurience. Sex scandals, after all, are much better for ratings than serious — read “boring” — events. It’s also true that Sanford’s lies take this saga beyond the realm of mere sexual impropriety and make it a genuine matter of political concern. (Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who confessed to an affair last week, has endured considerably less news coverage, perhaps because he at least had the good sense to keep his cellphone on during his dalliances.)
So what’s left to say about the Sanford saga? Call me crazy, but amid all this finger-wagging, am I detecting just a little bit of — gasp — empathy? Is there something about Sanford’s puppyish comportment, not to mention the fact that, unlike many adulterous politicos, he seems to be truly in love with his mistress (or at least truly convinced that he is) that’s making him less a pariah and more a symbol of the male midlife crisis? For all his duplicity and entitlement, are some Americans — particularly men — feeling as much pity as outrage? Consider this small sample:
“This is a story of loneliness,” New York Times columnist David Brooks said on “Meet The Press” Sunday. “[These guys] get to middle age, and they realize there’s some emotional vacuum in their lives.”
It “was about something much deeper than politics,” wrote Gary Kamiya in Salon. “It was awful, but it was real. And painful as it is, in the repressed American sexual landscape, reality is better than artifice.”
And then there was my dad, who told me the day of the Sanford news conference something to the effect that “you have no idea how easy it is for men to completely lose their minds because of infatuation with women.”
No one’s excusing Sanford’s behavior. But as we slog through another week of the Jackson postmortem-paloooza and wonder at the fact that we’re also still hearing about the South Carolina governor’s love for certain tan lines, maybe it’s worth asking ourselves why. Is it because we’re uncategorically appalled? Or is it because maybe, just maybe, there’s a tiny bit of Mark Sanford in, if not all men, quite a few of them? And that’s more than you can say of Michael Jackson.
You’ve got to read the whole column, people, because it really is that good.
We’re also wondering if Sanford already has Daum in the rolodex for his next “media therapy” session.
Comments
By liz on July 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 am
I wish people would focus on his real failings… you know the ones we talk about all the time….
He discriminates, hates his constituents, makes people miserable, who cares how many BJ’s he got as Governor, or how much he likes tan lines.
Sanford makes me want to vomit considering he played a part in ruining my life too.
By Aquinas on July 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 am
There’s some very insightful stuff here, but not what I think the author intended. Taking it to an even deeper level, I would argue that Mark Sanford is seeking God (aren’t we all); only he has been “looking for love in all the wrong places.” God is love, and we are innately “wired’ for God. We all have a deep hole in our heart, longing for that ultimate union with our Creator. Unfortunately, because of Original Sin, we fall into the trap of grasping for a counterfeit (pornography, adultery, money, power, fame, etc.), stumbling along, trying to figure out if maybe the real thing – God – is just around the corner.
Here’s how one theologian put it (Please keep in mind that the kind of union/sexual love the author is referring to here is a lifelong, faithful, marital one):
“Far from being evil, the Bible actually employs sexual love as its main analogy of divine love. The Bible begins with the union of man and woman and it ends with the union of Christ and his bride, the Church. And smack-dab in the middle of the Bible – literally the Bible’s centerpiece – is that divine ode to erotic love, the Song of Songs.
The Song of Songs is the authentic soundtrack of Christianity. As great mystics like John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila have told us, it is the song that God has been singing to us throughout the ages as an invitation to ecstatic, blissful ‘nuptial union’ with him.”
So, yes, sex is good, but only when it is expressed the way it was designed by the Creator: free, full, faithful, forever, and fruitful. If our sexual expression is missing any one of those elements, it’s not the type of union we are wired for, and will only leave us looking for more.
By PandaChris on July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Of course, we are all sick of this Sanford crap…..its just that what is important is being overlooked (his misuse of tax dollars) while HE keeps the story going regarding his “true love story”.
However, I will make note that Mrs. Folks is very attractive and that Will has definitely married above himself…good job there, Will.