Blogs and Stories
Mark Sanford Is a Romantic Hero
Davis Turner / Getty Images
Don’t stick the philandering South Carolina governor in the same lot with John Ensign, David Vitter, and other GOP scandal victims. When he flew to Argentina, Sanford was after something like real love. And what’s so wrong with that?
The rituals of political disgrace—the prostitute or office aide, the press conference and prepared statement—are by now so familiar that we have come to take them for granted. But does South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford really deserve to be yoked to David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and John Ensign? If we consider his affair on its own merits, and not simply as the latest chapter of Republican disgrace, could it be that he behaved… admirably?
Like Craig & Co., Sanford was a culture warrior who ran afoul of his own pronouncements. Abandoning his sons on Father’s Day was selfish and leaving his state ungoverned for a week was reckless. But are not selfishness and recklessness the signs by which great love is often recognized? Sanford was not some suited lecher, seeking a cheap lay on the side. Lest we become blind with schadenfreude, it’s worth pointing out that Sanford did something with his life and career that we are not much accustomed to and which, at least in art, we admire: He laid them on the line for love.
Compare Mark Sanford’s passionate emails to Mark Foley’s “did you spank it this weekend yourself.”
Coinciding with Sanford’s disclosure was the publication of Cristina Nehring’s book A Vindication of Love, in which she argues that “It is the trivialization of love that is the tragedy of our time. It is the methodical demystification, recreationalization, automization, commercialization, medicalization, and domestication of Eros that is making today’s world a so much flatter place.”
Nowhere has the banishment of love and passion been more complete than it has in politics. An ordinary, domestic marriage is practically prerequisite to accomplishment: It was suspicious when, after being a bachelor for 30 years, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist married in 2008, just as the Republican presidential candidates started considering running mates. The American public seems to demand that its public figures’ personal lives be hidebound in normalcy. The primary purpose of a political marriage is to project stability, not passion, which can actually be detrimental, as Al Gore learned when he laid one on Tipper in 2000.
What’s fascinating about Sanford is that he was not simply seeking a few thrills so that he could better preserve the illusion of a stable marriage. He was genuinely pressing against the limits of the life that he had chosen. His emails to his Argentinean lover, Maria, are filled with conflictions—he writes of their “hopelessly impossible situation of love,” and tells her that “unfortunately all the feelings you describe are mutual.”
Compare Sanford’s words to Mark Foley’s “did you spank it this weekend yourself,” or Sanford’s Buenos Aires escape to Larry Craig’s misdeeds in airport bathrooms. Most political affairs are not “hopelessly impossible.” They are crassly convenient, seeking the easiest routes—typically, underlings and prostitutes—to sexual relief. Sanford is different. The distance between him and his lover shows that this was not about sex or convenience. Sanford has been coming to terms with a shock that his conservative and Christian beliefs could not have predicted and ought to have precluded. At his press conference, he was visibly anguished, rambling endlessly as he tried to wrap words around his emotions. By having an affair, Sanford was not hypocritically flouting his public values, but trying to reconcile them with his private desires: Writing to Maria, he turns to the famous “Love is patient, love is kind” passage in Corinthians for counsel. In another email, he writes, “I have lived by a code of honor and at a variety of levels know I have crossed lines I would have never imagined.”
It is precisely by the crossing of lines that great love is recognized in art. But in life, Nehring writes, “love is—or ought to be—an organized adult activity with safety rails on the left and right, rubber ceilings, no-skid floors, and a clear, clean destination: marriage.” Mark Sanford collapsed the distinction, and, in doing so, reintroduced emotional complexity to the political sphere, which typically thrives on simplifications. Even if we cannot applaud his actions, we can at least understand them. By failing as a husband, a father, and a politician, Sanford became a romantic hero.
Ben Crair is an assistant editor at The Daily Beast.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Doctors in the Death Chamber?
Ben Crair is an associate editor at The Daily Beast.
How Polanski Could Help the Right
Ben Crair is an associate editor at The Daily Beast.
Sex Advice from Cyrano
Ben Crair is an associate editor at The Daily Beast.
Give me a break. As anyone who has ever worked with infidelity in a professional capacity knows, he wasn't in love--he was in lust. Poetry notwithstanding.
You are exactly right! If Mrs Sanford, a billionaire heiress, cuts him off and if the legislature forces his resignation, both he and Mrs. Argentina will take a realistic look at one another and won't like what they see. I've seen it over and over again. As far as the poetry, cheap erotica is something rednecks can do without a face or body to attach it to. It emits from their penis, not from undying love.
As you say - Sanford was born with two heads and he made a choice to think with the little bitty one. In our natural state, all men are programmed to behave like that - and worse....much worse. But if we're to live in societies, we have to channel these behaviors more wisely. People who suffer from the personality disorder that has shredded Sanford's life, and that of his boys, don't feel in their hearts that the rules apply to them. They feel entitled. Rules are for those who are not superior. Betrayal comes naturally. This does great damage to others.
Ben Crair is not informed. This article of his is destructive. He would do himself a big favor by studying up on personality disorders, and using that knowledge to inform readers about how to be on the alert for people who may not consciously wish harm others - but do so regularly. It's in their nature. And it's immutable.
It's almost a morality play against morality.
One hopes that one day people will get over the fact that sex exists and start enjoying it without trying to control how other consenting adults have it.
As for Sanford, it's romantic if he admits he had a change of heart, but if he tries to go back to the "family values" box, it's not romantic, it's hypocrisy.
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE CROCK! The guy snuck out of town like a THIEF IN THE NIGHT. He betrayed (for the UMPTEENTH time) his entire family and the state he swore to serve. Instead of turning over the reins of State government to his Lt. Gov .. he preferred sneaking off being totally DERELICT in his duty. THIS is what cannot be forgiven. THIS is why he should be IMPEACHED.
Wrong DavidBarron.
You don't 'go back to' the family values box. You did already. Therefore you are already a hypocrite.
Moral obsessed politicians (and their spiritual leaders (gag!) are hypocrites' cuz we now know (with 99.9999999% certainty) they are diddling around.
Laid his life and career on the line for love?
Wow.
I didn't know love required one to behave dishonorably and downright stupidly.
Sanford could have just as easily, and quietly, filed for divorce, resigned his office and moved to Argentina to be with his 'love'. That would have been a grand romantic gesture.
Instead he snuck around, cheated on his marriage, and used public funds and a publically owned computer/website to pursue his 'great love'.
romantic gesture?
Horsefeathers.
That would have meant giving up Jenny's billions!
Don't stick the philandering South Carolina governor in the same lot with John Ensign, David Vitter, and other GOP scandal victims. When he flew to Argentina, Sanford was after something like real love. And what's so wrong with that?
"The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it's got to be taken very, very seriously." [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
"We ought to ask questions...rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe." [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]
"I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone." [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
"The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything." [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
He lied and he broke a "oath to his wive" that's the problem he made a standard that he himself has to live by. (lol)
Thanks, for the quotes and further evidence of this man's double dog do as I say, not as I do finger pointing lifestyle.
Love it when a hypocrites own hypocrisy blows up on ones own hypocritical doorstep! At least even dogs don't shit on their own doorstep. Not only is he a hypocrite, he is stupid. And don't give him any brownie points for romance or love. He set his own groundwork. He lives with the consequences so generously dosed out by him to others before him!
C-
Oh please, real love? If the "family values" hypocrite wanted love, he would have resigned and moved to Buenos Aires to be with his Juliet. What we have in Sanford is an entitled, inherited-wealth, southern cracker hypocrite who believes he can do whatever he wants and get away with it. Sanford is shocked by the fuss, it's called hubris.
Single ladies: if you ever meet a man with the name Ben Crair... run. Fast.
What's wrong with it? The simple part of stringing his wife along for the ride. Oh, and the endangering her sexual health and even life with his irresponsible behavior. If you don't love your wife anymore and find a new lady, that's fine. But allow her the respect and dignity she deserves and bow out gracefully.
I completely agree with you. I feel that if this had been a woman instead of a man there would thousands of calls for her to resign. She would be called a whore and much worse. But because this is a man, he just "made a mistake." To say that his actions were romantic is truly disturbing.
This user is no longer registered.
Only a man could have written this ridiculous article. The lady in Argentina is Sanford's mistress. He may have feelings for her, but they aren't the kind of feelings that would cause him to initiate a divorce, resign his governorship, and move down South to be with her. And I'm not even sure his lady friend wants him to do that. After all, they've known each other for eight years.
They both are each other's escape, a release from the pressures of daily life. For the governor, being able to fly away to an exotic location to visit a stunning foreign woman every so often represents a chance to escape the responsibilities and stress of his job and of his family - because everyone knows that the joys of a family also come with a hell of a lot of stress and responsibility.
For the lady in question, I assume it's just nice to be appreciated. He probably brings along some nice, expensive gifts for her (and maybe additional monetary compensation), and if you have a few kids of your own and no other man, this is really nice to have. And I'm guessing that in Argentina, as in Europe, being a mistress is no big deal. After all, didn't one of the former French Presidents have an official mistress? She even came to his funeral, and stood right up in front next to his wife.
So true, so true. Only a dog would think ditching your kids and failing as a father is something romantic.
Sanford is self-centered and thinks only about himself. He couldn't love anyone because he is too busy being in love with himself.
She has a husband, she has yet to divorce. I suspect that stripped of his wife's money, his position and his power, Mrs. Argentina will quickly lose interest in this homely man.
I think the problem here is that all of this is equally possible: basically, this man is clearly in the throngs of some Grand Passion (only time and his own actions will tell if it's actually 'love') and within that context, should not--deserves not--to be included with prior philandering, cheating, lying husband-politicos. I think it's quite obvious that his situation and Ensing's or Vitter's (as GOP liars) is not the same. His situation is also not the same as some of our Democrat's follies--Clinton's, for example. It would take a very cynical and emotionally dead person to not believe this guy (Sanford) actually believes in his own feelings, however crazy and irresponsible and selfish his actions.
On the other hand, you can't escape the fact that he DID behave crazily (to his own career/life), irresponsibly (to his state/job/staff) and selfishly (to his wife/sons). True maturity and morality should have prevented such actions. Apparently, his wife--who appears quite sane, if possibly chilly on an emotional level--has known of the affair for some time and a) told him to stop it (he did not) and b) asked him NOT to run off and see the Arg woman (he did not). In my view, at this point Sanford crossed an almost inexcusable line. One thing is to be so blind by love/passion that you cross a line you can't ever have imagined crossing. Another thing is to be in full discovery and be SHOWN your crazy actions and STILL keep on crossing...and crossing...this line! This, to me, shows you need professional help and are at present incapable of continuing with your life as is--with your job and your role of husband/parent. Full stop.
Also, Jenny Sanford has said repeatedly that their relationship, 20 years ago, was not 'love at first sight' but rather 'friendship'--that theirs was one of these baby boomer so-called 'companionate' marriages. It's been said that she's rich, tough, and the 'brains' behind their lives. Well, I'm a woman. And I'm from Argentina. And I've been married for 10 years (to an American) with 2 young kids and you know what? In Argentina we just don't believe in 'companionate' marriages! We don't buy the whole let's build a life together based on mutual interests and mutual goals and hope our religious/political beliefs will carry us through. It would never occur to any of us to even marry someone because we develop a strong 'friendship'!! In Argentina, in fact, --a country that absurdly enough invented The Day of the Friend and celebrates it ritualistically-- friendship is as fundamental, if not more, than religion: and THAT IS WHAT FRIENDS ARE FOR: companionship. Not marriage, not love, not passion. That's why we invented the Tango. In Argentina, 'sparks' between a man and a woman--at all ages--are wild and fierce and provocative and we EXPECT that.
As to the person who mentioned that perhaps in Argentina a mistress isn't taken as seriously as it is here, this all depends. Sure, as in Italy and France, we've no moral or religious problems with infidelity--especially not in regards to politicians. Infidelity is seen as a moral and emotional problem: an individual's morality and emotionality. Most people I know would be distressed by a friend or relative involved with a married man or a married man having an affair: but because of the pain and injustice of the situation, nothing else.
This user is no longer registered.
Oh: and a bit of extra information.
Chapur is an old, well-established family in Buenos Aires. With plenty of money. This woman's husband is also from an old, established family--with plenty of money. I know people who know her: money is not her concern.
This user is no longer registered.
maybe she's into the power? he's such a desperate douche, what can she see in him?
I agree, actually: a lot of women (everywhere) are into power. Otherwise, I can't see what she sees in him, can you?
Well, he went for the money the first time, so if the mistress has money, she best kick this homely old man to the curb because I doubt that he will walk away with any from the current Mrs. Sanford. She hasn't struck me to be in an overly generous mood.
Oh please! He's a hypocrite of the highest order. He stood up and called down those who failed his FAMILY VALUES ideology and demanded they pay the piper. All the while he was cheating on his wife and FAMILY. How do his kids feel now? He risked his marriage and humiliated his family. The fact that he stood on a soapbox and called down upon others who cheated makes him deserving of all the scorn thrown his way.
It's easy to chat about "love". But something built on betrayal has less of a chance of surviving than the years they've spent with their respective spouses. Add in the grind of daily life, the fact that both know the other to be dishonest, the stress of failed careers, blemished reputations, pain in the faces of those who trusted them--I give the long-distance delusion they're under a few short months...
Real love is feeling attraction and being able to say, clearly and strongly, this would hurt too many people, this is the wrong time, what I want personally is not appropriate for the situation I'm in.
No man who truly loved a woman would risk exposing her as a liar, cheater, family-breaker. No woman who truly loved a man would tolerate him being 'less'; she would demand he keep his integrity.
This isn't love. It's lust, selfishness, narcissism and hypocrisy.
I couldn't agree more! The hypnotic intrique of the illicit affair doesn't wear well over time. Research indicates that the altered state of consciousness most people identify as "in love" has a limited life span. Six months is average and three years is considered a maximum and occurs only when the lover's have sustained separation. Familiarity alone curbs passion. The feelings either develop into something more enduring or the lover's become disillusioned and part.
Before running off to Argentina, Sanford's ego had taken a severe beating from the legislature who overturned 10 vetos and he had just been defeated in court by a 12 year old. I would suggest that Mrs Argentina is just a diversion from his personal reality which was looking rather bleak.
He did it for love....Oh please! Sanford is a coward. If he really loved this woman (or his wife) he would have separated from his wife to be with this woman. Instead, he lied, cheated and used taxpayer money to do so, acting like an adolescent school boy. Real "love" does not mean destroying the lives of innocents (like his children).
Sanford needs to grow up, resign and try to fix the lives he has shattered, beginning with his own.
Word!
If this was a high school yearbook and we were all 17 or 18, i'd agree with ben. However, we are all adults here and what he did was immature and childlike. Most men have done the same thing at one time or another. And many women have done it also.
I have been surprised that your's is the first comment that has embraced 21st century reality. Women haven't yet caught up to men in the infidelity stats but they are closing fast. They go undetected more often because of societal expectations. People are slower to suspect them.
Mr Crair if it was true love he would be there, in Argentina, right now. What an idiotic notion.
OH PULEEZE! IF Sanford was a "real" man (romantic or NOT) he would NOT have lied his A __ OFF about "hiking" and would have INSTEAD turned the SC reins of govt OVER TO his Lt. Gov -- and clearly STATED "where" he was going.
INSTEAD: HE SNUCK OFF like the dog he is! Lied to EVERYONE and broke (yet another) pledge to his long-suffering wife NOT TO SEE HIS MISTRESS again!
THIS IS NOT ROMANCE! It is vile and disgusting BACK ALLEY sex. He covers his complicity and heinous LACK OF MORALS and BREACH OF FIDUCIARY responsibilities by "prettily oiled words" of purported passion. Words that will HAUNT and torture his four sons and their mother INTO ETERNITY.
I hope Sanford ROTS in perdition. People of SC: IMPEACH this self-righteous, hypocritical NARCISSIST who thought more of his Brazilian pampa than his own state or party.
Mrs Sanford: for your own considerable class and import ... to set a good example for your boys: THROW THE BUM out! He obviously has no REDEEMING qualities and thinks ONLY OF HIMSELF --and his juvenile ramblings.
I guess I'm going to have to support the writer here, since everyone else has blinders on.
I agree 100% with what was written in this article.
Let me add this:
It is, or should be, a cause for pity when a grown man lacks the maturity to avoid personal disgrace and humiliation for his family, especially for his children, who will taunted about this for years to come.
But pity does not preclude accountability, and Mr Sanford, yoiu have a lot to be held accountable for.
And it isn't grand romance.
It's two-bit hypocrisy and mid-life crisis.
He is hardly a romantic-- The guy is too selfish to know the first thing about love.
Love is about selflessness, not about being selfish. Spoken like a man.
He simply ditched his kids for a thang... has not a thing to do about love.
The only person Sanford loves is himself.
Failing his kids, i.e failing as a father qualifies as a romantic?
Especially as a woman, I suspect I am in the minority here, but I am cheering for Mark and Maria! Mark Sanford seems to be as much a prisoner of his Christianity and ambition as "Father Ralph" was of his Catholicism/Christianity and ambition. I think Mark loves Maria. Eight years he has been friends with her. If his story is true, than I give them both credit for only acting on their feelings in the last year. Up until then they lusted in their hearts. I think "The Thorn Birds" is a powerful analogy. There are at least 2 sides to every story. Maybe Jenny was going to deny Sanford his ability to see his kids on Father's Day, which may then have actually made him more irrational and willing to escape back to Argentina. To me, Jenny is manipulative, controlling, brittle, suffocating, and equally as sanctimonious as Mark has been, with her Catholic/Christian/Quiverfull blend, showing off her "devotion books" to the media. Jenny wanted all those kids, perhaps in the hope she would have a girl onto whom she could project herself. Something in this marriage has been deeply troubled for a long time. Both Mark and Jenny need work. I think Sanford's views on some issues may be morphing. I think he could have an inner Democrat or Independent earning to break free. Mark may still try to choose ambition over heart -- just like "Father Ralph" did -- and he will regret it. Mark should extend his knowledge of "The Thorn Birds" beyond the TV mini-series. He should read the book. It's much more substantial. And might help him out.
mdargo, I suspect you don't really know a thing about Mrs. Sanford. "Controlling, brittle and suffocating"? Her christian values (his choice, I'm sure) husband is having an ongoing affair that she is well aware of and you use these words to describe her? Can at least allow that she may be crushed and humiliated? And that stories like this making him out to be a tragic hero might be like rubbing salt into the wound - all in the interest of some how salvaging his political career?
I think what we should really be concerned about here is the direction that Ben Crair (and others) seem to be taking us. He's giving us directions on how to cheat on your spouse and still somehow be though admirable, a hero - and were supposed to accept this swill.
I think Jenny leaked the emails.
I think Ben Crair and the rest of the media are very gullible. Who besides Ms. Belen Chapur could have tipped off the press that Sanford would be on that particular flight? Its not credible that they were staking out every flight and he had changed his return.
IMO, this is a shakedown plot on Mrs. Sanford, who is supposed to be wealthy. Belen Chapur needs financial security. Theres probably already someone "negotiating" for her and her silence or else . . . or else she'll keep on leaking "emails" to the media. Very curious that the emails had her name and address so that she could be found. Very preposterous that they were sent to the newspaper by someone who "hacked into" her email account.
Good luck, Mrs. Sanford. Either your husband is a complete moron who can't figure out his a** from his elbow or he's in on it.
"If we consider his affair on its own merits, and not simply as the latest chapter of Republican disgrace, could it be that he behaved... admirably?"
Ha! The bull crap meter is off the charts! I can't fathom what might be admirable about any of this. He betrayed his wife and family for a dear old friend that he hooked up with every few months for sex? Sounds a lot like lust. Love is hard work, not just a hard penis. If he loved her he wouldn't have set her up for disgrace and ridicule.
If he really wants to work on the hero bit he might want to admit that the real threat to the nuclear family is not gay marriage but the married man (or woman) that some how convinces himself that theirs is a tragic love story instead of plain old infidelity.
Oh the Conservative, Christian, Republican, sanctimonious-about-marriage men! What would we do without them? Aren't we glad they are saving us from gay marriages?
Recipe for cheating on your spouse yet still be thought of as a romantic hero!
1. Don't choose a prostitue because that would be icky! He or she shoud be good looking. Exotic is also helpful.
2. For the love of God make sure your lover is of the opposite sex and not a minor!
3 Use flowery words in your emails like "hopelessly impossible situation of love". Warning - don't be crass. "did you spank yourself this weekend " is not acceptable. However, do include a spark of erotica so your lover won't confuse you with a looser. Talk about two of her or his matching body parts that look really good in the fading light.
4. When caught, be anguished. Ramble on a bit. It's ok if the public at large wonders if you're a buffoon. There's a lot at stake here!
Follow these rules and voila! You are now a hero instead of a cheating bastard.
* Special note for politicians. Your marriages are more about stability than passion. You're expected to cheat!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.