POLITICS JUNE 27, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
"I never figured Sanford for anything like this," mused one of the governor’s constituents in The New York Times this week. Mark Sanford’s friends are aghast. His neighbors shake their heads. His community simply could not see it coming. The Internet is in convulsions: Who would have thought Sanford capable of this?
Give it a rest. The man didn’t commit murder here. He’s in love. Anarchic, hurtful, but seemingly true love. Governor Sanford of South Carolina had what would, under ordinary circumstances, be considered an ideal romantic relationship in the 21st century. Slow to evolve and based on proven mutual friendship and respect, it was eight years in the making. The woman involved, Maria, was not offensively younger than he. She was not his intern, his boss, his student, his financial contributor. He was hardly using her for sex--indeed, he had not spent that much time in her company, as they lived on different continents. Nor was he deceiving her: He told her his family obligations, his pleasures, his fears. She even told him of the men trying to seduce her. In fact, they told each other so much (and slept with each other so little) that they left a huge paper trail--or cyber trail, rather--for their enemies to scrutinize. More hedonistic pairs leave far less ample evidence for their sins. But Mark and Maria confided in each other constantly. They supported each other tenderly ("I want to help [one of your sons] with film guys that might help his career ...”) They forgave each other’s differences--Maria’s insecurity ("you do not need a therapist to tell you who you are”) and the governor’s prudishness ("that would be going into sexual details,” he smiles, "...and unlike you, I would never do that!”).
But as it happens, the relationship had extremely bad timing. It took place almost 20 years into Mark Sanford’s marriage. It caused him to risk his relationship to four sons, to betray his canny, classy, and beautiful wife, to abdicate his responsibility to the state, and to take at least one government-paid trip for private pleasure. He might, nonetheless, have limited the damage in the style of his colleagues in Washington (think David Vitter; think John Ensign) had he been willing to disown Maria once he was discovered, had he been willing to toss her out like an ex-smoker tosses out his cigarette pack once he quits the habit: piously, proudly, unfeelingly, with not a thought for the projectile at the base of the trash bin. But the governor of South Carolina was not willing to do this: Instead, he told a marveling press corps how important and beautiful the relationship was; how he’d flown to Argentina to discuss its fate and had spent the last five days weeping. He apologized not only for hurting his wife but--get this!--for hurting his mistress. He apologized to the Other Woman.
For all the feminist enlightenment of our era, we have never succeeded in humanizing the Other Woman. Always, she is assumed to be shallow. Always, she is assumed to be opportunistic. Cold. Manipulative. Unworthy of human empathy. But there are deep-feeling and idealistic mistresses in the same way that there are pragmatic and cynical spouses. (Just imagine: Some of those people reading 10 Ways to Marry a Millionaire actually succeed.)
If Sanford is being lampooned with such cruelty on the web and on the airwaves today, it is not because he had an affair so much as because he had an unusually soulful, caring, and (for all the earthquakes it caused) oddly high-minded affair that he refused to disavow in the manner of his colder colleagues. It is for this reason that his amorous words are being reprinted on blogs across the country and followed by "Ew! Unsubscribe!” or preceded by "You may find yourself vomiting spontaneously.”
We inhabit a strange society, indeed, when love (albeit misallocated love, excessive love) seems to elicit, of all crimes, the most vocal and violent repugnance. As soldiers and economies continue to fall around the globe, citizens at home rise to denounce ... a love relationship gone awry. A love affair that is, in many ways, a dozen times nobler than its Washington counterparts, more altruistic than the carnal flings that get pardoned every week, and greater-souled than the flirtations (with power) of many of its sneering, small-minded critics.
Sometime last year, Maria wrote Mark how happy she was to love him--not because she imagined she could keep him forever but because she learned through their bond that she could love; that it was possible for her to feel at once enchanted and intimately familiar with a man. Let us hope she can keep this optimism, even after five days of tears. Let us hope that Mark and his graceful wife (who to her credit, both initiated a trial separation, and allowed him to explain his affair to the world alone, without holding his hand as though she was a babysitter who had reclaimed her charge) can put things together again in a new, imaginative, and electric way.
Did Sanford condemn himself by condemning, years ago, the errant Bill Clinton? "He lied under a different oath, and that’s the oath to his wife,” the governor told CNN during the Monica Lewinski affair, "So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.”
Let’s not forget his hypocrisy here. But at the same time, let us distrust, a little, our moral rigidities and place our faith instead in our human flexibilities, our good will, our capacity for forgiveness, tenderness, and reconstruction. It behooves us to admit that most of us are virtuous most of the time not only out of high principles but also out of small opportunity, or (worse?) small ardor. For all the fall-out of real passion--and there is always fall-out--it is better to have loved and erred than never to have loved at all.
Cristina Nehring is the author of A Vindication of Love: Reclaiming Romance for the Twenty-first Century. Her essays appear in Harper’s, The Atlantic Monthly, Conde Nast Traveler, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and the NYTBR. She lives in Paris with her infant daughter.
60 comments
Thank you for that sane article devoid of the left vs right political and moral indignation that is being spewed. It is a sad commentary on the society that so many are unable to recognize the emotional honesty and vulnerability that differentiates love from lust. I think this affair is a mirror for the society as a whole that exposes the insecurities of women in having their man taken by an opportunistic woman, the jealousies and unrequited fantasies of men to have a mistress but most of all how shallow and superficial so many relationships are brought together for reasons of status, security, class-consciousness, power than love. In a world where women have to read how to books like the Game for dating, men flock to how to books on seducing and mates are chosen during such games, is it any surprise that men start to look elsewhere as soon as the chase is over or when they mature enough to need love or women start to do nothing more than necessary to gain status and/or security and start to read how to books on holding on their man (and in some cases vice versa)? This is not to condone Gov Sanford's actions or his hypocrisy but it is quite sad when such e-mails are made fun of and waved like something to be ashamed of rather than appreciate it for what they are - parts of an emotional bonding that most women only dream of and most men don't have a clue about. The attitudes of US towards love (and sex) is largely a reflection of the widespread inadequacies and insecurities, surely?
- ManOnStreet
June 27, 2009 at 1:50am
This is the first thoughtful and deeply insightful article I have read regarding the Sanford "scandal". My first impression was exactly the same .... that this man had fallen genuinely in love with another woman. This is the stuff of novels, poetry and movies since time began. That "other woman" isn't invariably a slut, gold-digger or fallen woman. Sometimes people fall in love. Sometimes people fall out of love. It happens. Sanford had two choices and he missed both. The first is simply to keep the affair discreet. I suspect his mistress would have been quite content with that. The second is to confront his wife and negotiate a divorce. Both choices should have been made privately. And neither would have ruined his career or provoked this unseemly furor over a private affair. The shame is that he made such a public disaster of lies and subterfuge. The dramatic "absence" seems almost deliberate he could very well have phoned his office everyday and pretended he was indeed on that Appalachian trail .... easy. Why didn't he do that??? I suspect he wanted to be caught.
- Nikki Ty-Tomkins
June 27, 2009 at 4:33am
All of you hopeless romantics in the media who keep trying to see the human side of Sanford are still missing the central sin here, which is not his tawdry affair, but instead that Sanford built his political career upon the phony foundation of "Family Values" and holier than thou preching to the rest of us and condemning others who did not measure up to his stated rightwing religious beliefs. And try to imagine the very pathetic scene in which Sanford tries to lecture one of his young sons on the importance of honesty, loyalty and integrity. The question will be whether any of the young lads would be able to keep a straight face!
- frilz1
June 27, 2009 at 6:12am
Cristina, yours is a unique and thought-provoking perspective. Can't say I've read anything like it regarding the Sanford Affair.
- Spike
June 27, 2009 at 9:26am
This is the first reasonable, sensible commentary I've heard on this subject. Kudos!
- TedinPHL
June 27, 2009 at 10:41am
Oh boo hoo! Mark is in love! I would have had a lot more respect for that "love" if he made up his mind and either broke it off or filed for divorce. It happens every day and no one would have blinked an eye. My long gone Italian grandmother had a sying about people like Sanford: "He has no face". What she meant was that one should be able to appear in public as an honorable person - a person at whom others do not laugh at or snicker and smirk with a hand over their mouths. A person such as Sanford, she would argue, who has embarrassed and shamed his wife and 4 sons and made a total fool of himself, should resign and disappear from public view until he's earned his way back. It would be the honorable thing to do. Anyone old enough to remember John Profumo?
- toritto
June 27, 2009 at 11:10am
This is a great article, making many points that need to be made. The Governor's hypocrisy aside, empathy (for all parties to this unfortunate tale) is a much better response than the small-minded schadenfreude of too many on the Left. A much better apology than anything the conservative media have offered up.
- Ted R.
June 27, 2009 at 11:43am
the link to this article on the homepage does not work.
- max
June 27, 2009 at 1:32pm
After the couple of lines it took to realize I was reading a love letter from Sanford to his other woman, I turned away. I have no desire at all to invade his privacy even if someone has plastered his letters all over the internet. And that is ordinarily what I would think of the whole matter--none of my business. That doesn't mean I approve or disapprove. It just means that it lies within a sphere that belongs to someone else. EXCEPT that it is the Republican party that insists on making everyone's private family and sexual affairs a political matter and sanctimoniously crowning itself the protector of all of our values. The very idea of politicians as the guardians of virtue is ludicrous as is the Republican's homophobic obsession with who might be in love with whom. Fortunately, the very same Republicans obligingly keep on demonstrating what hypocritical frauds they are. Sanford might deserve some sympathy, or at least a polite willingness to respect his and his family's privacy, but for the fact that he too chose to dabble in the Republican public sanctimony about sex. For that reason he deserves nothing but scorn and public ridicule. Enough of these incidents and maybe the Republicans will stop rooting about in everyone else's underwear.
- roidubouloi
June 27, 2009 at 3:34pm
Beautifully written. Astute.
- BytheC
June 27, 2009 at 4:29pm
Gov. Sanford road his moral high horse for long enough. How; as a citizen, can I trust a man who would lie to his wife and sons? Do you honestly think he would not hesitate to lie to the citizens of SC? Actually he did by using our tax money. He didn't want to accept the stimulus money on the tax payer’s behalf, but he had no problem using tax payer’s money to fill the void of his mid-life crisis. Wow, if I'm not mistaking his actions are illegal. It's just amazing how you are making this out to be some high school crush when Gov. Sanford did use the tax payer’s money to go have sex with another woman. I feel sorry for his wife because of his stupid and foolish acts, but she seems strong and she should hold her head high. I will never advocate a wife leaving, many problems can be worked ousted only if they try, but this disgusting article glorifies a husband falling in love with an illegal alien of which under any other circumstance the good Gov. Mark Sanford would be trying to get her deported.
- JB
June 27, 2009 at 5:36pm
Here here.
- David Millstone
June 27, 2009 at 6:19pm
What a lot of malarkey! He was in love, fine. He was torn about his affair, he still loved his wife and sons, he felt guilty and responsible, all very human. But the simple, unalterable fact was *he did not act responsibly* as he should have, and fess up *before spending four days unaccounted for as Governor of his state, husband, and father to his children* not only out of his state but also out of his country. The truth is he was acting as if he was out of his mind - what else can one conclude. It was stupid, foolish, irresponsible, and as a politician and public figure he asked for and so deservedly receives every bit of what he is now facing, not because he was at fault but *because he defaulted.* If he loses the trust of his constituency and wife and family, he will have to live with that, and no amount of love, true or not, can save him from his fate, because he threw his fate to the wind and so the wind will decide, because he has not. Tough love, n'est-ce pas?
- tomeg
June 27, 2009 at 7:50pm
Such nonsense. The man is another hypocrite and deserves no pity whatsoever. This silly post is yet another sign of the Barbara Cartland crowd is alive and well.
- Puller58
June 27, 2009 at 8:09pm
Thank you for writing this lovely and wise article. Love is often chaotic and messy, particularly when circumstances for it are not perfect. Virtue as you point out, is often merely the consequence of "small opportunity and small ardor." Sanford may be the butt of jokes among those of a pre-adolescent frame of mind, and an object of scorn for those who are obsessed with one or another form of political correctness. Lets not forget though, that despite the disastrous consequences of star crossed love there is something unbearably sweet at the heart of it that most of us will never know.
- Blaine Walgren
June 27, 2009 at 8:18pm
I was saying "Here, Here," to Ms. Nehring's article, not to any of the commentary.
- David Millstone
June 27, 2009 at 9:06pm
Oh, honestly. If Sanford had the courage of his convictions, he would have divorced his wife, and dashed off into the sunset with his new love. But he did not. Why is that? I have no idea, but to make this guy into some kind of romantic hero is appalling. He was a coward, and only coughed up that weepy confession because he got caught.
- K. Grant
June 27, 2009 at 9:38pm
I posted this as a comment on Gail Collins' NYT column on the Sanford affair, but your article stirred me up to repeat (and slightly edit and amplify) that comment here: ----- Sanford's erratic behavior and hyperventilating have set me to wondering whether he's tangled himself in an internal war. On one side side stands on guard his puritanical sanctimony, his palpable political ambition, his ideological rigidity (which inspires him to refuse federal stimulus funds that could help relieve the plight of his state's unemployed and improve its wretched schools), and his view of God as a commanding, punishing deity who imposes stern rules to keep erring little Mark in line. And on that side as well stands his sense of duty to his wife, who by all accounts is one tough (and controlling) lady--his moneybags and his chief campaign manager. Presumably the love he professes for her includes a lot of stern sense of duty and rectitude. On the other side is the dangerous lure of the lady from Buenos Aires, for which read his emails. I wonder whether Mark and Maria ever talked about his politics. I wonder whether some part of him was sorely tempted to cut loose from all that rigidity, all those punishing rules, all that crushing sense of duty, and to go somewhere very, very different--"to try something exotic," as he told the reporters when they first caught up with him. "Exotic," indeed. Maybe, amid all these tearful confessions, he is really questioning a lifetime's worth of simplistic morality and fighting off the temptation to declare everything that his life has hitherto been a wretched, inhibiting, suffocating lie. Sanford is an interesting character, showing a touch of sad nobility as he struggles with his past, his present, and his choices. There's probably lots more to this saga than just a truckload of mid-life crisis and male libido. (And who knows, maybe some mental illness--bipolar disorder?) The more I read about him, the less inclined I am to dismiss him as one more caddish right-wing holier-than-thou. He needs to talk to more than someone beside a come-to-Jesus fundamentalist pastor. He has to come to grips with the punishing imperatives that seem to chase him like a bat out of hell. My guess is that what tears him apart more than anything else is the prospect of losing his four young sons. That must be truly hell on wheels. I don't want to justify Sanford. I think his right-wing politics and his hypocrisy are abominable. But I really wonder how, deep down, he is managing to stay faithful to that twisted, archaic superego that keeps him entrapped in what passes for American "conservative" rectitude. Great article, I should add.
- JM917
June 27, 2009 at 9:52pm
I wonder if we should see such an article if the guy was overweight and balding.
- Dave
June 27, 2009 at 10:30pm
Thank you. I've been saying much the same thing. Here is a man who fell hopelessly desperately horribly in love. There were no answers. It is the stuff of Greek or Elizabethan comedy, for they at least knew that Eros was not a kindly god. Yes, he did condemn others for his own sin. Let us be gentle and assume that he didn't understand the emotional truth until he lived it: he jests at scars who never felt a wound. I had hoped that he had decided that he preferred a life with the chance of blazing passion to one of domesticity and the pleasures of power. Alas, he is now apologizing to everyone and an oak tree instead of saying "I did it all for love" and walking away.Oberon has put new drops in his eyes and he sees the world as he did before. Still, he was definitely horribly deeply in love, and we need only pause on this Midsummer's Night to remember what an ass Eros makes of all of us.
- AlanK
June 27, 2009 at 10:48pm
Yes, I admit to having read those intimate emails and it sounds like he really loves this woman. Why didn't he just follow his heart and file for divorce from his wife and have joint custody of the children? That's where he went wrong - he wanted to have his cake and eat it too - how could he be stupid enough to ask permission to go visit this woman while he's going through therapy to fix his marriage? To have resolution? I had such high hopes of seeing him at a higher level in government and I believe he has just ruined his career, so he may as well do what he thought the Richard Chamberlain character in Thorn Birds should have done.
- Jean
June 28, 2009 at 12:09am
hope when time passes this whole thing will be remembered not like redneck politician adultery flick, but like romantic story. Thank you, Christina, for recognizing it for what it is in the midst of scandal and putting it in so well written article.
- vsha
June 28, 2009 at 12:19am
Yes, Mark Sanford is a human being who made a mistake. But I still think he along with Newt Gingrich are JERKS for trying to destroy Bill Clinton and paralyze the government during the late 1990s. And Sanford should also be condemned for using TAXPAYERS' MONEY to go to Argentina for his laisons and for rejecting Obama's stimulus money. So let me enjoy the irony of his current troubles.
- Anonymous
June 28, 2009 at 12:53am
Many of the comments in this thread remind me of comment threads attached to media stories following the death of one of my family. The comments were rife with conjecture and opinion about what may have led to my relative's death. They were full of speculation about his state of mind and financial condition and even on the possibilities of his death not having been what it appeared, because of assumptions that commentators drew only from their own paltry imaginings of what is possible in the world; that is, the more paltry the imagination, the more immediately lurid and fantastical seemed to be the conjecture. Commentators could not imagine all the possible vicissitudes of the quotidian, so they leapt to melodrama. The most literal-minded people I've known? Science fiction and fantasy buffs. It takes all that carny glitter to move them. I, too, have decided not to read the governor's private emails. I've seen a couple of quotes, of course, and I do not want to bring my own meager ability to imagine this couple's life-of-the-heart.
- David Millstone
June 28, 2009 at 9:10am
sorry: I hadn't finished the last sentence before sending. Here is my full commment: Many of the comments in this thread remind me of comment threads attached to media stories following the death of one of my family. The comments were rife with conjecture and opinion about what may have led to my relative's death. They were full of speculation about his state of mind and financial condition and even on the possibilities of his death not having been what it appeared, because of assumptions that commentators drew only from their own paltry imaginings of what is possible in the world; that is, the more paltry the imagination, the more immediately lurid and fantastical seemed to be the conjecture. Commentators could not imagine all the possible vicissitudes of the quotidian, so they leapt to melodrama. The most literal-minded people I've known? Science fiction and fantasy buffs. It takes all that carny glitter to move them. I, too, have decided not to read the governor's private emails. I've seen a couple of quotes, of course, and I do not want to bring my own meager imagination to vetting this couple's life-of-the-heart.
- david Millstone
June 28, 2009 at 9:57am
A sophisticated, thoughtful article about a love affair between grown-ups. So far, not one of the three major players has embarrassed himself or herself but flinging out ill-conceived, insulting remarks. Life is messy sometimes. As the song says, 'but beautiful.'
- Sandra
June 28, 2009 at 10:43am
Boo hoo. Yes, he fell in love. Sure, it's tragic. That doesn't excuse Sanford's leaving his state untended and having his staffers lie for him. Nor does it excuse not divorcing his wife, although that is a private matter between him and his wife. The fact is that he needs to resign or be impeached for his reckless behavior and dereliction of duty. This really isn't even debatable. No amount of sympathy for the hopeless romantic Sanford should obscure that conclusion.
- Brandon
June 28, 2009 at 11:41am
Thank you, Christina. If it takes publishing a series of love letters to get the United States to agree a politician's private life should be exactly that perhaps it may be worth Mark Sanford's career. Yes, he certainly put himself in the perfect position to be called a hypocrite, but he also has acknowledged that fact both in public and in private. I think we could get a lot more qualified and dedicated people to run for office if they knew their family and anything not within the direct sphere of their political duties was off limits to the press and their rivals. It's not "why" the particular elected official votes the way they do but "how" they voted that matters. There's plenty of fodder in the public record to toss out any politician with whom one does not agree. No one has to go after private matters.
- lrobb
June 28, 2009 at 12:17pm
Frilz1 and roidubouloi are 100% correct. This is not about Gov. Sanford's private life which is totally unimportant. What counts is the public hypocrisy of being a "family values" Republican trying to save us from Democrats out to kill babies and destroy the family. Nehring committed the cardinal sin of journalism - she buried the lead. Its not private adultery but public hypocrisy that counts.
- Dallas Bob
June 28, 2009 at 12:47pm
The article is saying that "This guy is in love, forgive him, he was only being human." Well I agree he was being human, and as a human he is imperfect. I forgive him for his bad judgement and his imperfections. That in no way excuses him from the consequences of his actions. When you lie to your spouse, your kids and your countrymen you must suffer the consequences - that is also part of being human. The way he used tax payer money to fund his affair, the way he left the state without its leader means he must resign from office. The consequences of his marriage and his relationship with his kids is a private matter - their forgiveness or lack thereof is up to them. I for one hope that the five days he spent crying in Argentina is just the beginning of many more days of weeping that he has before him.
- Marlin Perkins
June 28, 2009 at 2:06pm
I couldn't care less if he is in love or if he cheated on his wife. He abandoned the highest office in his state for five days and didn't tell anyone where he was going or leave anybody in charge. There is no excuse for that.
- liamvt
June 28, 2009 at 3:06pm
BY FAR the best article on this whole matter.Thank you.
- Mo
June 28, 2009 at 5:10pm
I think Sanford was trying to recapture his youth and making a big mess out of it. I also don't see any comments from the perspective of his wife who has been cheated on and demeaned in public. She has maintained her dignity and pride which is more than I can say for him.
- yrmother
June 28, 2009 at 5:17pm
It has occurred to me the Mark Sanford is not as black hearted as portrayed nor is Jenny Sanford as saintly. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Gov Sandford has broken vows and commitments and done damage to innocent people, and that cannot be minimized. However, if you ARE going to ruin your life, better to do it for love and not for some cheap, tawdry affair.
- Lily
June 28, 2009 at 5:48pm
In addition, I think that the fact that the affair proceeded so leisurely and mostly by email, with little face to face contact, made it possible for it to last for as long as it did. It's easy to carry out an affair on paper or in cyberspace with a fantasy ideal, while presenting only the best of oneself. In messy real life, I think the affair would have had a much shorter life span and would not be seen as nearly as romantic. In addition, i myself have lived both roles -- that of the wife cheated on and that of the other woman. I can tell you that neither is an attractive option. I can also tell you that from the other woman's point of view, most of the time the affair lasts as long as it does is because it's satisfying for the guy and the woman is willing to settle for much less than she deserves while deluding herself that someday he will leave his wife. It rarely happens and when it does, it's a pretty sure bet that sooner of later, the guy will cheat on the new wife as well.
- yrmother
June 28, 2009 at 6:23pm
High on the list of many person's favorite movies is Doctor Zhivago, a love story woven around adultery. It's the love that's the undoing here. If he was just romping around like Clinton, Frank, Kennedy, Kennedy, and Kerry, well it's only lust. But, what becomes of the broken hearted? What makes this so devastating to all involved is the human caring that is shattered. That is why the pain is so great among the family values crowd--they understand that love is valuable and unique among human behavior. It's the anti-family values crowd that loves to kick someone when they are hurt because they don't love anyone, even themselves. .
- IXLR8
June 28, 2009 at 6:45pm
Thank you. We are all only human. I`m sure the gov will have more understanding now when others fall. I didn`t read the e-mails. Plenty of us have been humbled. I think he will be a better person for the experience. And, yes, I do have respect for him for feeling sorry for the other woman also. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
- Jan
June 28, 2009 at 7:29pm
What an absolute joke. He wasnt in love with this woman he was in love with the secrecy, he was in love with the taboo, he was in love with his own self importance. Affairs never survive once they are exposed to the cold light of day cause it just isnt that exciting anymore and when he works out he has lost his career, his family and his self respect he will go crawling back. As fof Maria she knew he was married and should NEVER have gone there. All of you people who are romanticising this as 'he is in love' should wake up and smell the coffee. No one has mentioned the impact and humiliation caused to his family of his wife. In my mind he is nothing but a selfish pig!!
- Bec
June 28, 2009 at 7:38pm
maybe he didn't divorce his wife as some people asked above because he didn't believe in abandoning his family.
- izzie
June 28, 2009 at 9:02pm
Are you freaking kidding me? Is this really what we've come to? He was in love, fine. She was in love, wonderful. But he was sleeping around on his wife, with a woman who knew he was married, and the only thing any of you are concerned about is his "hypocrisy"? Seriously? So, what, if he hadn't been an outspoken moralizer, if he'd just been an average Joe, then it would have been perfectly acceptable for him to cheat on his spouse, and for her to sleep with another woman's husband, as long as they reeealy, reeeealy loved each other? How sweet. How romantic. How about his promise to cling to his wife, *forsaking all others*? Or to honor her - is this how much he cares for her honor? Look, I understand people fall in and out of love; and 20 years is a long time - people change. But then have the decency to wait until you're properly divorced from your first spouse - don't lie about it and sneak down to do it behind her back like a spoiled 5-year-old stealing a cookie. And in response to the posters here: what he did was wrong, period. Now, I understand no one's perfect, me included, so if one day I happen to stray and get caught, then guess what? It will *still* be wrong. Of course, I would hope that if I did happen to stray, I would receive forgiveness from my wife and others. But that's just it - forgiveness is based on the premise that there is something to forgive. To hear you all defend him as though he were a 16-year-old caught writing sappy love poems to his teacher in the back of his math book...feh!
- dhauck
June 28, 2009 at 10:07pm
On the other side of those emails, Mr. Sanford was going about his daily life with what had become the "other woman" in his heart: His wife. Constantly, for years, he kept up this pretense: Waking up and going to sleep beside her, accepting her kindnesses, insight and support, accepting her childcare and constant work in his home. All of this, while lying, lying, lying. Constant pretending. Never admitting the truth until he was forced to. And then, shamelessly, asking his wife "permission" to visit his mistress, unwilling to let go of any of the advantages both woman presented to him. Let me suggest this: If this is your paradigm of romance, you have bastardized love to the nth degree. Love involves sacrifice and vulnerability, not giving into illicit, egotistical impulse.
- Maureen
June 28, 2009 at 11:24pm
That same disease of wandering eyes and a wondering hearts costs thousands of thousands of children so much that the world can't calculate. It costs them the privilege of seeing their parents engage in a healthy marriage; it costs them significant financial damage and stability; it costs them safety and emotional security; it costs them the opportunity to learn how healthy parents actually do parent. There is no excuse. None. No honorable man OR WOMAN has the right to let there genitalia and their emotions follow their heart with anyone outside their marriage.
- J Thomas
June 29, 2009 at 12:19am
Ms. Nehring, I read a review of your book over at Salon. It intrigued me enough to read your article and I cannot but agree with your views. I know nothing of Sanford and am not Republican, nevertheless I did notice the story because as you say it departs from the script. One point - I am not sure if he is a hypocrite. He was probably faithful to his wife during the Clinton years - if he is not now, which of us has not had our own ignorant self righteousness undone by the actualities of one's life? I am not religious either but I find digs at his Christianity in the media offensive too. If anything, he came across as a person who was conflicted by his faith, duty and his own feelings. It could have been any of us in the way other political scandals are not. Watching the response to this is very instructive of how we react as a mob. The same mob would pay tickets if this was a film starring Mr. Clooney. It helps to have a few sane voices with a humanistic view like yours.
- Shama
June 29, 2009 at 1:50am
Its hard to believe that people can be so far from reality as the author of this article is. He cheated on his wife and family. Period He chose to break his wedding vows and devastate his family. Period. He committed adultery. Period. This romantic fog-babble the author writes is nothing but justification for her own lack of morals.
- Jim
June 29, 2009 at 9:38am
Been there, done that from a similar albeit not quite so public position. Someone finally said the truth; that we don't know why or when but we feel this and act this way. Thanks for the thoughtful article.
- Gerald
June 29, 2009 at 10:42am
I like everything about the article, except the use of the term "mistress." The phrase, in my view, is mostly obsolete and totally off point for a deep friendship between equals. She was not kept, there was no arrangement.... They were two people in love. Why call her a mistress? It's odd it keeps being used in the press when I swear I have never heard anyone I know call anybody we know a mistress. In the treatment of the Wolfowitz matter, involving the employment of his parner, she was called a mistress. Absurd!! They were both single. She had a good job that was interfered with by his becoming President of the organization. She was in no sense whatsoever a "mistress." There may be mistresses in Europe, involving stable long term deals, but we really don't have that here. And a romantic interlude involving two people on different continents does not a mistress make.
- OfftheCuff
June 29, 2009 at 2:22pm
It is hard for anyone to truly understand ~ to even imagine ~ a situation until they're in it. I despise Mark Sanford's judgment and hypocrisy, yet I hope that out of this he can realize not only his own humanity and fallibility, but that he will be able to extend that to the rest of the world as well. It would be a lovely thing if a man entrenched in moral absolutes would find that he has been wrong all his life, would promise to do better to the world at large, and then would follow his heart.
- lynette
June 29, 2009 at 2:24pm
Lots of people are betrayed by their spouses in ways other than affairs--endless criticism and put-downs, demands and orders, destructive financial irresponsibility, lack of emotional support when it is needed. In our society, it seems women do these things to men more often than men do them to women. If a man suffers a serious career setback, for example, his wife will generally turn on him with fury. Doesn't matter if it was his fault or not; doesn't matter if he was a Senior VP who missed out on a promotion to CEO or a janitor who missed out on promotion to custodian--in her mind, he is a failure, and she will make sure he knows it. The pain caused by this kind of behavior can be extreme, but there is little condemnation of it//partly because it isn't as "tangible" as an affair, and partly because of the "you go girl" attitude of so much of the media.
- jeff
June 29, 2009 at 4:05pm
Mark Sanford is a stalker - not a lover (and, I'll wager this is just his most recent of a long history of infatuations)... Initially, his angst-ridden apology moved me and I gave him the benefit of my liberal empathy. Unlike his fellow hoser Ensign's serial debauchery and the other hypocritical, "family values" spouting, adulterers' dalliances, Sanford's explanation of his indescretion seemed poignant - as if he had experienced an epiphany and was transformed by the magical power of a shared, all-consuming, true love (hey, life happens)... Then I read his emails and my 'yuck meter' went haywire... These were not the arduous sentiments of a man filled with desire and longing for his soul-mate... Instead, his expressions of passion resemble the whiny pleadings of an obsessed teenager (and a sloppy one at that - too thoughtless and self-absorbed to use spell check)... Rather than an urbane leader of a state bigger than some countries, Sanford appeared more like a pimple-faced dolt who still lived in his dead mother's basement... His ramblings reminded me of a seriously goofy guy's attempts to woo his "girlfriend" with plagiarized 'lyrical musings' stolen from a sappy, stupid, country 'love' song - an adolescent display of needy, pathetic (and, probably porn-inspired), drivel... I am convinced that his Argentine mistress tried to break off the affair; but, he wouldn't take the hint. Even after her "anonymous relative" exposed him to the media 7 months ago, he still came back... Apparently, 'Take a hike' failed to stop him and his narcissistic delusions of Lothario-ian grandeur. So here's a new tune Sanford can hum, "Hit the road, Mark, and don't you come back-no more, no more." And, if he won't resign, South Carolinians should dump him, too (and, Nevadans definitely need to give Ensign the boot as well).
- Phala
June 29, 2009 at 4:46pm
On the other side of these emails, Mark Sanford was continuing daily life with what had become the "other woman" of his heart: his wife. This means years of waking up with her, eating with her, talking with her, accepting her loyalty, her kindnesses, and her care for his house and children. And during all of this time: pretending, pretending, pretending. Constantly. And when necessary: lying, evading, and abandoning. Up to the point she discovers the affair on her own, when he begins to ask "permission" from his wife to see his mistress. (Classy.) If this is your paradigm of romance, let me suggest this: You have bastardized love to the nth degree. Love involves sacrifice and vulnerability, not giving into fleeting, selfish impulse: however pleasurable, however poetic, however long it took to develop. Indeed, Mark Sanford fled love--the kind that gives even when it isn't easy--straight into the arms of his own ego.
- Maureen
June 29, 2009 at 6:14pm
Mark Sanford's condemnation of behavior that he later indulged in makes the case for his "lightning strike" love affair. That kind of relationship is irrational and reckless. It is also irresistible.
- annieR
June 30, 2009 at 1:25am
How great, how noble he is to love. And to cheat on his wife, for years, behind her back, and continue to be dishonest to her? How noble that is as well. To decide to keep his wife while picking up a new woman? How courageous. To lie to his wife about what was going on in his life and feelings? How honorable. To keep stringing her on while lying to her? How noble. How could I have thought him a cad and a cheat when he is such a noble and heroic figure... Someday perhaps you can find a husband good enough to cheat on you while lying to you about it. I hope you truly find the love of your life and that he betrays you in every way possible so you can also find the happiness Sanford has brought to his wife. Then maybe you too can understand the joys of having love crushed by the dishonesty, deceit, and betrayal of another... and how loving and noble it is to have a jackass cheat on you while lying about it. Every girls dream I guess.
- Gekkobear
June 30, 2009 at 6:46pm
I know the Governor's personality very well. I am married to one of those. The story will go like this. He is involved (EMOTIONALLY OR WHATEVER) with someone, whom he is "in love" with. Then you will find out that there will be many others that he is/was involved with. These types of individuals, unfortunately, only love themselves. Its only about them and what you can do for them - trust me on that one. My word to the Governor's wife, just take care of yourself and your sons. You never win with this type of personality - they are NARCISSISTIC. Those of you who think that the Governor found "love". Follow the story to the end if you could and you will find out that it is all about THE GOVERNOR. Mrs. Argentina he will try to win his wife back, because now he is ASHAMED.
- beverly
June 30, 2009 at 7:47pm
For men, love affairs represent fantasy land. It is easy to have a fling, come and go however frequently, and be on one's best behavior and impressive too in everything you do, with a woman who isn't given the opportunity to see the "bad side". So too it is with the mistress. She gets to showoff her greatest assets, whatever they are, and hide her own disgusting habits. The best of all worlds. Husband and their wives see the bad habits, uncultured behavior, and get to experience the real person an elicit partner will never know. That is why it is a fantasy. Perhaps this story has capitvated so many because through it, many who will never have a physical affair, can do so in an imaginary way, deciding what they would do in the same situation. I am sure many men, who condemn publicly, would love to have been in his shoes in Argentina. Bottom line, let not one of us cast the first stone.
- mistajohn
June 30, 2009 at 10:49pm
Ms. Nehring, Yuour artcle gives cover to all the hopeless romantics in the world who have engaged in similar behavior. Sanford's AP interview yesterday reveals detail by detail of how this affair unfolded, and its not a pretty picture. He meets Maria in a dance club...why would a married man go trolling in a dance club; he engages in an emotional affair and never tells his wife about it. He meets her again and again, and continues even after counseling. Please see this affair for what it is: a calculated, deceptive, secretive act that two people should have never engaged it staring eight years ago. If he felt an instant connection with her 8 years ago, when everything was so innocent, why did he pursue it knowing that he should nip it in the bud. And how romantic is it going to be for the boys to hera the gov go on and on about his romantic details. How cruel of him to make such statements public, knowing how much its going to hurt his wife and kids. Its appalling that you are trying to spin this selfish and yes, cruel behavior into something romantic. I would rather take a dull, steady, trustworthy relationship with my husband that experience the kind of destructive love that he has engaged in.
- shiya
July 1, 2009 at 6:46am
Sanford seems to have had a series of 'relationships'. Just exactly what this means is open to interpretation. Given the relatively puritan nature of our society (and his own apparent morality), I suspect that most were fairly innocuous, but I could be mistaken. The last one seems to have been genuine. Many people seem to believe that there is simply one concrete personality that is set in stone and never changes. I suspect that human personality is far more amorphous and plastic. I do not accept his leaving the state without a leader. As for his family, that is for them, wife, sons and him to work out. If it means leaving, then let it happen. If they can reconcile, good for them. Otherwise, it is by and large none of anyones business. That is the lesson Republicans and social conservatives seem to be so intent upon learning the hard way.
- Charlie
July 1, 2009 at 8:49am
This article is a joke from start to finish. Sanford is a scumbag cheater, just like EVERYONE who cheats on their spouse. It doesn't matter if he's in love, they were having marital problems, etc. Either get divorced, or keep your pants on. Period. Exactly how do we know Sanford was "in love", anyway? Because the LYING CHEATER says he was? Please. He was likely trying to minimize his affair, and the I Was In Love Argument sounds far better than the I Wanted Some Strange Argument. Cheaters are also liars by default.
- Clint
July 1, 2009 at 12:07pm
I think the major fantasy this column constructed of Mr. Sanford as lover/hero has just come crashing down. In his therapy session with the AP, Mr. Sanford confessed to a "handful" of other women and infidelities spanning some 13 years. Is this romantic too, Ms. Nehring? You've forgotten a key ingredient in any real romance: character. The only thing ringing hollower than Mr. Sanford's profession of his "soul-mate" is your conclusion, "It is better to have loved and lost..." Better for whom, exactly? If you are ever the victim of adultery, I doubt this platitude will hold much comfort.
- Maureen
July 1, 2009 at 2:03pm
Sorry, Cristina, but you are romanticizing a middle-aged man's selfish, self-absorbed midlife crisis. You swoon over the supposed "Love" he demonstrates for his Other Woman, but I think you're just buying into Sanford's illusion that, somehow, his infidelity and dishonesty was actually some great epiphany, some heretofore never-experienced phenomenon -- as if by having sex, he'd somehow invented it. This tendency toward self-indulgence is not indicative of an admirable ability to experience Love. Rather, to interpret this man's self-aggrandizement as "Love" shows a tendency toward that great spoiler of relationships and careers -- Denial.
- Tavi
July 1, 2009 at 8:30pm
Ms. Nehring, What proof do you have that Gov. Sanford is, as you put it, "in love"? Is that some sort of Love Identification and Confirmation Test that Mr. Sanford has taken? Did Mr. Sanford personally tell you he is in love? Do you have some sort of special acumen for love detection, perhaps attributable to your Paris home, your education, and/or your upbringing? Is Love Identification in Married Conservative Politicians your personal area of excellence? If so, what are your methods, scientifically proven or unwise, for diagnosing Mr. Sanford's "in love" status? Is Love Identification just something a woman knows and understands? Or is this a skill reserved merely for some special woman or women? If so, are you one of those special women? How did you become a special woman? Did you study, take classes, and/or write a dissertation on the topic? Were you merely born with Love Identification skills? If so, do the other women in your family and/or your female friends have such talents? You alluded to Mr. Sanford's mistress being of an age that you seemed to identify as more acceptable than others for adultery. On what do you base this analysis? What age or ages of a woman or women be unacceptable for Mr. Sanford to commit adultery and to do so on multiple occasions? At the bottom of this story, TNR notes that you reside in Paris with your daughter. No mention of a husband or your daughter's father is mentioned. Are you married? Were you married? Does your husband prefer to remain anonymous? Does your daughter have a father? Can you identify your daughter's father? Are you divorced? Separated? Do you believe in the sanctity of marriage? Do you respect marital vows? Have you ever been the victim of adultery? Have you ever committed adultery? If you were the victim of adultery, did you spouse or former spouse maintain that his actions were based on his love of another woman? Or did you merely, as in this case, identify said love? If you committed adultery, did you love the man with whom you had sex while married to your husband and/or the father of your daughter? Did you use love as a justification to commit adultery? Do you believe adultery is ever acceptable? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not? Do you believe in lifelong marriage? If not, under what circumstances? If so, under what circumstances? One imagines that a highly trained and professional Love Identifier such as yourself will have no problem answering these questions directly, courteously, and, of course, promptly. Thank you for your time.
- Mark
July 4, 2009 at 12:58am