Skip to comments.Corrupt conservatives; Sanctimonious hypocrites on the right dishonor faith, family and freedom
Posted on 06/28/2009 12:41:59 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Is the conservative movement rotten to its core?
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's bizarre revelation that he had an extramarital affair with a longtime female friend in Argentina has dealt another blow to an already decrepit Republican Party. After losing control of Congress in 2006 and the White House in last year's election, the Republicans are not only in the minority; they also are adrift and leaderless. Mr. Sanford was highly touted as one who could advance new ideas, as a fresh face for Republican conservatives.
He carved out a distinct political identity by fusing a command of policy with Southern folksiness. Pro-tax-cuts, pro-life and a staunch critic of big government, Mr. Sanford is a solid conservative. He has been a champion of old-fashioned, austere values such as frugality, modesty and Christian morality. His Southern conservatism is rooted in God, country and family.
. . . . .
He has openly confronted America's decline, often making comparisons to the decadent Roman Empire. He rightly pointed out that, like ancient Rome, America is plagued by malaise and is in decay: Our borders have become porous; our politics are rife with factionalism; our economy is slowly being strangled by bureaucratic statism; our national identity is disintegrating; and our culture is ravaged by neo-pagan hedonism and moral permissiveness.
His greatest accomplishment as governor is that he has abolished the illegal $155 million budget deficit he inherited from his predecessor. Mr. Sanford is a rare breed: He takes constitutional requirements seriously. And he balanced the budget by slashing spending.
He emerged as a national leader against President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan.
. . . . .
Yet now he has squandered much of his legacy on an act of pure folly.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Interesting read. Scary, but...interesting.
If these things didn’t matter, why would hypocrisy matter either? It would be like hypocrisy in your taste for pie, arguing for chocolate while secretly preferring vanilla custard. The whole liberal laugh and point “argument” collapses upon itself.
For what it’s worth, Berlusconi in Italy seems to be doing a pretty good job of managing the government in spite of his massive womanizing. The most fundamental vows are those to God, not to man.
Oh, and any government this side of glory is going to be composed of, by very definition, sinners. If we specially despise Sanford, can it partly be because he is a mirror of us, in our thoughts if not our acts? The biblical story of Solomon is an extreme cautionary tale. He asked God for great wisdom to govern the people, but apparently forgot to ask God for wisdom to govern himself. The result, the smartest Old Testament government that Israel ever had, but also a consummate womanizer who even stooped to pagan idol sacrifices to please his paramours.
I still like Sanford. The Dems have their rascals and we have ours. Sanford is 100x better than a Democrat governor
I also understand the aging mindset that a man has 'arrived' when he has money, position, power, and 'some on the side', even though I do not buy into that personally.
I view such philandering in a culture which opposes such as a weakness which can be exploited to undermine the fidelity of the participant in other areas, especially in politics.
It has scuttled both Newt's and Sanford's shot at the White House, imho.
In Europe, I must note that the traditional view of marriage included (for many of position) mistresses, and such behaviour may not be considered a political detriment.
Yes, I agree it opens the man up to blackmail. This didn’t deter Bill Clinton, but he was a lame duck anyhow by the time the Monica stories got out. Maybe the blackmail angle is why there has been such strenuous effort by both Sanfords to air the story in the media. The idea being that if they air it all now, more details cannot be threatened to embarrass either of them in the future.
That’s right, if a man’s wife can’t trust him, how can a business associate?
Yeah but the Berlusconi guy is a European and they think differently than Americans. One weak fellow doesn’t mean that the ideals of Conservatism are bad.
It’s called “sin”. We are all humans fall short of God’s glory. It’s sad. I feel for his wife and children. I liked Sanford. I wanted him to be President.
His final lines wrap it up. It's a good article.
I would not call our politicians our "high priests", but I get his point. Our leaders are betraying us by their behavior.
Conservatives do advocate faith, family, independence, morality, etc. Yet, as Christians, we know that human nature is inherently sinful. We know these men will fall. Without abusing grace, the hope of Christianity is that even sin in Christians can be forgiven. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
As Christians the danger is twofold: one can promote the legal and to forget the reality of sinful flesh, or one can wax long on God's mercy to sinners and forget God's standards. On the one hand, we'll end up with a hypocritical, legalistic position. On the other hand, we'll end up with a hypocritical, licentious position. One loses in either case.
Christians recognize that the Holy Spirit empowers perseverence. They recognize that the point is not to take advantage of God's grace, but to hope in it as they set about in God's power to pursue the high calling of God, not as if they were already perfect, but humbly and with admission of God's help and forgiveness.
That is possible in the Church, but it is not possible with the political world. Leaders in the political world in an age of mass media must admit that their public image is a real thing that will either help them or hurt them. When they enter that arena, they are to be -- at least during the time of their tenure -- above reproach. That is what they agree to when they seek higher office.
Given human nature, it is best for any aspirant to be brutally honest about his/her past and strength for the future. If there is weakness, then they should not seek a first term in office or ensuing terms if human nature begins to rear its ugly head in the midst of someone's term.
Sanford can certainly be forgiven, but his political career is over. Had he been honest and wise, he would have stepped aside before his most recent campaign for office. He knew then that his human nature had begun causing difficulty.
In the long run it's probably best that we have conservative leaders who are not lifetime politicians, and who serve only for a period of time. I don't think the Founders envisioned the nation run by a class of professional politicians.
This guy completely nailed it. What a well written article.
I still like Sanford. The Dems have their rascals and we have ours. Sanford is 100x better than a Democrat governor.
Like all of us I was disgusted at the Senate for blowing off the fact that WJBC lied under oath and suborned perjury. And I just think that any impeachment of a president should be tried by a jury of the president's nearest peers - that is, by the governors of the states. Or else, the actual impeachment, rather than the trial, should be by the governors. The point being, that no self-respecting governor would have stood up and said of lying under oath and suborning perjury by a chief executive that "it's just about sex." Well, if sex is "only" sex, what is the big deal about rape? </sarcasm>
Not that that was what Clinton should have been impeached for; there were so many abuses by his administration as to most aptly be called "legion, for we are many." And, Waco aside, the largest early example was Filegate. Hundreds, arguably thousands, of counts of a felony. Committed in the very White House itself. And the president stonewalled the whole thing - never even taking responsibility for firing the perpetrator lest he thereby even admit that he hired him. If ever in the history of management there was a case of the applicability of absolute "it happened on his watch" responsibility, that was it.
It seems that I'm off topic, but not really. The issue you raise is the question of the proper tradeoff, if any, between judgement and mercy, between the deadliness of sin and the value of the sinner. We can all hear James Carville saying, "It's just about sex" regarding Clinton - and none of us can imagine hearing the same man giving Mark Sanford anything but condemnation. A miasma of self righteousness hangs heavy in the air. And self righteousness and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin.
Mark Sanford is, evidently, guilty of a sexual transgression. The question is whether that invalidates everything he has ever said about fidelity. To reflect on the fact that "all have sinned, and come short of the glroy of God" is to recognize that that argument is really a claim that promoting fidelity is a sin. And to operate on that premise is clearly no way to run a railroad.
I don’t always think that cheating on a spouse necessarily ends a political career. It is a personal failing that in many, many cases is forgiven by the one who was cheated on. In this case, however, the behavior was just plain bizarre. He went out of his way to embarrass himself and his wife.
The problem with adultery is it completely undermines the claim from a man, "You can trust me to do the right thing."
The answer in the mind of a voter is, "No, we can't trust you because your wife can't trust you and your duty to her is far, far greater than your duty to us as voters."
Corrupt conservatives; Sanctimonious hypocrites on the right dishonor faith, family and freedom
The difference is that with the republican people at least, they accept the fact that allhuman are sinners and we get rid of the hypocrites and move on. While on the ohter side,the democrats seem to promote w=fromwithin based on the largest number of sins committed.
Wouldn’t it be kind of interesting if we were to find out Sanford’s mistress was paid to seduce him?
with the mix of RINO and morons like Sanford, the PUBES will most likely botch 2010 and 2012. Fate might just have it that the once great USA has seen it’s last days and it’s destruction will be done by the Democrats as the pubes will never have gotten back on message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.