After five days of mysterious disappearance, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford returned from Buenos Aires, Argentina admitting to marital infidelity with an Argentine woman. Ten days earlier, his wife had kicked him out of their home. For Mr. Sanford, this appears to be a one time moral hiccup. This scenario is not uncommon among politicians. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has recently been accused of having an extra-marital affair with an 18 year old. When asked about Prime Minister Berlusconi’s allegations, citizens of Italy generally responded, “He’s an Italian man.” Italians were more upset with suspicions that Mr. Berlusconi might have used government assets in his dalliance. Jefferson, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, and numerous other public officials have continued to serve successfully in the midst of tryst relationships. Others in lesser offices have resigned in shame for similar infidelities.
Certainly, infidelity is a matter of personal character. Beyond the obvious, Governor Sanford’s ethical leadership is questionable considering his departure to Argentina and absence without notifying his staff. In fact, he told them he was hiking the Appalachian Trail in Northeast Georgia. More importantly, he left the country without transferring gubernatorial powers to Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer. The press published romantic emails from Mr. Sanford to his Argentine mistress. Were they written on the gov.sc.gov email system? Was it ethical to publish the intimate email? As commander-in-chief of the South Carolina National Guard and head of the South Carolina Homeland Security, was there a risk for national security by having a romantic affair with an Argentine woman? Can Mr. Sanford effectively complete the remaining few months of his governorship, or should he resign? What other moral leadership implications are there to be considered? Let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Infidelity is indeed a matter of personal character. In my opinion Governor Sanford and others in similar situations should be punished. The American people deserve and require a person with character and integrity in a leader. I do not believe that he should or that he is even able to effectively complete the remaining few months of his governship. This sounds harsh and everyone makes mistakes, but that is just part of the job. If one chooses a political career, in my opinion, they must be able to walk the straight line. Similarly, celebrities choose their careers knowing they will be in the public eye and therefore have no privacy. It is unfortunate, but they already know what they are getting themselves into. The same goes for political figures. We hold them to a higher standard than most, as we should. They are leading us and representing us, and therefore that gives us the right.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of leadership is more than just some formal functions; leadership is defined as the ability to guild, direct, or influence people. Leaders don’t have a private life when they lead the public. For example, how many parents would want their children’s teacher to be someone known with sexual infidelity? Though the function of a teacher is to teach and take care of assignment, yet parents are always concerned about the private life of the teacher that teaches their children and if any sexual perverseness is reported in the private life of the teacher, the parents don’t want their children to be in a class with such a teacher and so the school would normally fire such a teacher. The “politically correct” ideologists are confused and want to define new moral rules that can cover up their awkward moral epilepsy. The governor should be fired if he would not resign. Not only did he belittle the office of the governor like many others we’ve seen in the past whom I consider “moral pariah”, he even spent tax payer’s money doing it. And come to think of it, is there no law broken here, can we still trust a leader who spent our money going after some mistresses? It was not just infidelity that was the moral issue here; we are talking about a governor deceiving his staff, he told them he was going hiking (lack of integrity), misappropriation of state fund (no trust worthiness), negligence of duty and others. Every time he has gone to see his mistress; he must have lied to his staffs, he lied to his children, lied to his wife and lied to the entire state. I do not think anybody would argue that lying is a character permissible in leaders.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone say "fish bowl"....
ReplyDeleteI found his confession to be abit weird.. in my opinion he gave too much information than he should have....
When Andre Bauer (Lt Governor)was interviewed on the Huckabee Show, he said, the Governor usually never hands over power to him, bacause Gov. Mark Sanford was always reachable by phone and in any case there was no emergency. I believe he should be left to govern the State until the end of his term.
In my opinion, the press has a share to blame. Do we know what Sanfords 4 sons are going through, when all they see is thier parent(s) on TV.... Yes there was deception on his part, and his integrity was put in question....
There are 3 main reaction categories to this issue
1. Mark Sanford is a lying 'scumbag' and he should resign
2. Mark Sanford is a good man who made a huge mistake and should resign to heal his marriage
3. Mark Sanford private life has nothing to do with his integrity in office and principles, and he should be allowed to complete his term, and run for the highest office if he wishes.....
Its upto to an individual to decide....
There was a time when a politician's private sexual life was treated as being just that....private. The only person that really needs to be concerned about this man's fidelity is his wife. As long as the politician is not spending public funds on his mistresses (or boyfriends, for that matter) then I really am not concerned.
ReplyDeleteIt has only been since about the time that Clinton took office that using this kind of private dalliance as a whip to publicly flog a lawmaker has come into fashion. After the republicans spent 8 years delving into the Clinton's lives in more and more invasive ways, the democrats just turned the tables in the New Millennium as the new way of getting rid of elected officials unfortunate enough to get caught with their pants down.
It all reeks of hypocrisy. There is a reason the Europeans are unconcerned and unshocked by their leaders' dalliances. The very nature of the kind of man that SEEKS POWER through public office dictates that many will play around outside of the marital bedroom. Politicians are top loaded with power hungry, ultra competitive macho man types. It is the nature of the beast. It is also a part of the nature of the beast that so many of this 'type' are known to have an eye for the ladies, not to mention they have no shortage of women throwing themselves at them because of their power, money and position.
In dealing with such issues, one has to ask a number of questions to clearly understand the scope: Did they break any 'formal' laws? did they break any moral laws? The answer to both Mark Sanford and Silvio Berlusconi is yes and yes. Formal established laws are in place to protect the public and interest of the state. Moral laws are a guide to the way you live and conduct yourself. Both should be indicted for breaking established laws, and both their wives will likely exact their own brand of punishment. Given a choice of the two, I'd take my chances in court....
ReplyDeleteAs the story develops, it appears that Mr. Sanford didn't just stray once, but several times. What does that say about his integrity? How can you trust someone who can't be honest with themselves much less others around him? I know that most politicians are not trustworthy and if they were, they probably wouldn't be in office....but wouldn't it be great if this country was run by folks with a sense of honesty and integrity? So, if I said that he needed to be removed from office because he isn't trustworthy, then I think that would apply to many politicians.
ReplyDeleteThe question is did he spend government funds on his affairs. If the answer is yes, he needs to be fired.
What I find very interesting is the people who claim virtue the loudest (like he did in the Clinton years) are the ones that are faced with the temptation of an affair (or something else) and finds themselves doing the same thing that they were so adamantly against (when it wasn't them). I wonder if he has learned anything from this...
Mark Sanford’s story brings a bigger question to light – where is the line drawn between politicians’ personal and public lives? Should there even be a line – or do our public officials surrender their privacy when they choose to “represent the people”?
ReplyDeleteI do not condone infidelity, but it alone should not be cause for a resignation. Could it be possible that many people are jumping on the “resignation bandwagon” because infidelity is widely frowned upon in society (or at least it is publically)? Newest reports indicate that Sanford did not misuse public funds in the rendezvous with his mistress. It is disheartening, however, to hear about the countless lies Sanford told his family in an effort to hide his extra-marital affair. Sanford was acting in his own self-interests (psychological egoism).
Lying, in most cases, is not a crime. What if we determined that Sanford was ‘not’ an adulterer/cheater, but simply a liar? Would there even be a story that is newsworthy? Is infidelity worse than lying? Lying, I suppose, is more “morally acceptable” for politicians.
We all want our elected representatives to be strong leaders who possess the right qualities. We want them to be free from fault and live with honor and integrity. We are disappointed when our leaders don’t live up to our moral standards. These “moral hiccups” cannot be completely excused, but news similar to Mark Sanford’s story is becoming all too familiar.
Mark Sanford should resign his position as governor of South Carolina. While his marital infidelities are a personal matter between he and his wife, his recent revelations indicate that he is not the trustworthy individual that he professed to be. If he will lie to his spouse, can he be trusted with the business of the state? I know some will argue that an individual’s personal life is separate from their public political life, but at some point a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Where is honesty and character in American politics? The Treasury Secretary cheated on his taxes, and now oversees the IRS. The current head of the House Financial Services Committee once hired a gay prostitute as an aide (after employing his services for sex). Later it was discovered that this prostitute was seeing clients in the legislator’s apartment. We have also had a congressman arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in an airport restroom. How many remember the House banking scandal in 1992? Some legislators wrote hundreds of checks without having funds to cover them, yet were never punished. As a voter I expect more – much more. Sanford should resign as soon as possible and return honesty and character to the statehouse in South Carolina.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Sanford’s actions do indeed reflect a serious personal character flaw. Having said that, he is certainly not the first person, much less politician, to commit such an indiscretion and as such he like others should have the opportunity to seek forgiveness and redemption in his personal life. The larger issue, as was the case in the examples of previous politician’s indiscretions, is that the Governor is held to a higher standard because of his choice to serve in a public office. We hold those in various careers such as police officers, teachers, politicians, religious leaders, and professional athletes to that higher standard, but my thought turns to the question: Should we hold anyone to a higher standard? The human race is innately flawed and there are plenty of examples that reinforce this fact. Are we simply setting ourselves up to be let down by those who we hold to this higher standard? Perhaps certain positions, public or private, that we hold to these higher standards should be required to acknowledge that certain ethical indiscretions are terms for immediate removal thus eliminating any debate on the topic.
ReplyDeleteFor me, Governor Sanford's action and the media attention it has drawn reflect a bigger issue. Republicans like Sanford have set themselves up as not only political but also moral leaders. The party openly appeals to Christians and evangelicals; hence, when they do something that goes against the code of morality set by these voters, they immediately become the target of a stone throwing party.
ReplyDelete(It's still a big deal when Democrats mess-up, but it seems to me to draw less attention - with the exception of Clinton, of course.)
In all reality, even politicians (maybe even particularly politicians) are not perfect. I think this is something we all know, but when these leaders use the Bible on the stump and declare themselves the family values party, it's hard to remember that they are less than divine. Even still, as Sanford continues to sink in his own quick sand, he references the Bible and alludes himself to King David. If he left all the religious talk out in the first place and solely ran on the issues, would he be in as much trouble? (Well, of course he could debate then he wouldn't have got elected...)
For the large part, I believe Sanford's personal life should remain out of his political hemisphere. However, the real ethical problem, as mentioned above, is how he reacted - presenting a false front to his governed state. It's also still not clear how the affair affected his work or what government funds were used. One of the values I was always taught as a Christian was honesty. Maybe that's one more politicians need to learn about.
Personal behavior is the result of the person’s values and character. Infidelity is completely related to personal character and depends on the emotional state of mind. But a relationship when is illegal is ruining to his character as well as the environment if he holds power and designates a leadership position. Concerned to this leader, it is indignity for a person in such respectable position. If that relation is certainly important he must have made it legal not giving any chances of speculation. It is more ruining for the press to publish his intimate email. It is the responsibility of the organizations to monitor the content being sent through the company emails. They also have the right to monitor in order avoid such inappropriate content sent through company emails. Privacy is lost at the same time dignity to his position. This may the perfect example of whistle blowing against people in power. The leaders must understand that people are watching and observing every move they make. In that sense they would be aware and be extra alert while handling their personal issues as well the professional.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Pranathi Nakka