Mark Sanford

I can see why Republicans want to get rid of Mark Sanford: he's an embarrassment. But I can't see why Democrats would have any objection to what he did. After all, it was just about sex. (And love, and marriage, and faithfulness, and some other things, but nothing about government.)

I can see, however, why Sanford would not resign. A better question would be, why would he? If he resigns, he admits that he screwed up in a big way, and his political career is over. If he doesn't, maybe his career is over, but maybe it isn't. Already his story has been pushed off the front page by Sarah Palin's resignation, and who knows what else will happen between now and 2010 or 2012. People have a way of forgetting things. I don't mean anyone will forget his affair entirely, but its importance will surely diminish over time. By 2012, Republicans might be begging Sanford to run for president. They might not, I admit; I'm just saying it is a possibility. If he finishes out his term honourably, he could go out reasonably popular; and if there are major problems, such as the recession continuing for several years, people may start to regard his governorship as a golden age and his affair a trivial matter compared with urgent matters of state. In either case, what does he gain by stepping down? He has already done all the damage to his marriage that he possibly could, and his political career is going nowhere if he resigns.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more