Sanford

I got my recommended daily allowance of schadenfreude over the past few days watching SC governor Mark Sanford first disappear and then reappear and admit adultery. Twitter has been quite enjoyable as people all over the country make fun of him (my personal favorite was the one about how outsourcing adultery puts American homewreckers out of work).

The only thing I know about him is that he was on McCain's VP shortlist and that he spent most of the early part of this year posturing over the stimulus package. That's enough of a reason for me to want to see him taken down.

Most of the criticism on the left has been pretty circumspect about the adultery aspect of this, focusing more on the dereliction of duty inherent in him disappearing for 5 days. Most progressives focus on the sin aspect only in the context of Sanford's role as a typical Republican family values blowhard and hypocrite. Talk of the Nation on NPR is talking about this even as we speak: is cheating on one's spouse enough of a reason to disqualify someone from further public office?

If you put it that way, the answer's no. I don't think that Sanford should have to resign just due to the adultery, although if you add the dereliction of duty aspect the answer might be different. But neither do I agree with my progressive friends who say it's only a matter between Sanford and his wife. I definitely think that a person's personal behavior should be weighed as a factor in deciding whether or not to vote for them.

My reasoning is this: marriage is not simply an exclusive sexual arrangement; it is a deep commitment - a contractual obligation, if you will - that one person makes to another. And if we cannot rely on a person to live up to his/her commitments to the person they are closest to, then why should we expect them to live up to their commitments to the voters?

Now, that doesn't mean that I would vote for someone with whom I disagreed on every issue if the only thing in their favor was that their opponent was known to sleep around. But all things being equal, or in a primary situation where both candidates are more or less acceptable ideologically (John Edwards against Hilary Clinton, say), I would absolutely decide who to vote (or against) based on their ability to live up to this commitment. If that makes me a puritan, well, put a buckle on my shoe, because I can live with that.