A post in which I rant my two cents on Mark Sanford

The big topic of conversation today at work was the Mark Sanford scandal. I feel that eventually, Americans are going to be forced to adopt a more sophisticated attitude about sexual issues, or there won’t be anyone left to run the country. Personally, I could care less about a politician’s sex life if he is a good representative who agrees with me on the issues. 70% of men polled admit to cheating on their wives at some point in the marriage. I don’t understand why government representatives are held up to a different standard. But then I don’t understand the whole monogamy thing to start with.

Monogamous marriage is an out-dated patriarchal/religious concept we drag from medieval times. The church enforced it for four main reasons:

1. To ensure the purity of line of succession. Property succession at the time went to sons. Nobles were considered to be of higher character, better people than serfs. They therefore wanted their property and birthright titles to go to the true heirs who were of pure blood. Plus men wanted to be sure that their property and money went to their own children.
2. Prevention of disease. This is also why women were famously expected to be virgins on their wedding night. To ensure they did not have venereal disease which would harm the child or prevent pregnancy.
3. To prevent moral impurity or sensual pleasure. If you had been told you couldn't have sex for the rest of your life, would you really want anyone else having a good time? For certain bitter people, that answer is no. They just really didn't want anyone else having a good time. There are still a lot of people like that. If you have lived a life of restraint and minimalism and that viewpoint is found to be invalid, you have wasted your life. You are a fool. There will always be those who want everyone to be just like themselves.
4. To increase their financial, and thereby political, influence. If you had the approved choice of going to church or getting it on, which would you choose? I thought so. Since the church was the de facto police force of the time (it was much easier to keep order if people thought they would be struck by thunderbolts, rather than have to keep a large police force), it was in the nobles’ interest to support the church; at least in word, if not in deed. The more influence the church had, the more money they had, and so on. They wanted butts on the pews, tithing. They wanted nobles in those pews too, tithing, paying for churches, and purchasing dispensations.

Of course, even when these rules became so important, there was largely a nod and a wink to infidelity, originally. Nobles frequently begat bastards, some of whom were recognized, educated, and even ironically became important people in the church. Illegitimate children of Roman nobles could be ‘adopted’ and formally put in line for succession. Because they understood that this concept of absolute fidelity really didn’t make sense, and didn’t really work in the real world. It still doesn’t.

So why all this ridiculous barking in the media when yet another politician is discovered en flagrante delicto? It certainly isn’t "news" any longer.

1. The ridiculous and hypocritical fascination Americans have with sex. Because of our Puritanical roots, we are absolutely horrified, yet absolutely transfixed, by any mention that someone has touched their naught bumpy bits, or those of another. Never mind that everyone does it. Never mind that it is a perfectly natural biological function. We still have a very outdated double standard of virtue when it comes to public figures in this country, despite the cultural saturation of sexual messages in which we live.
2. The ridiculous romantic fantasy fairy tale we accept as the true expectation of marriage. Marriage was an institution used to consolidate political and financial power. It began as alliances between tribes to stop wars and increase wealth and trade. Marriage has traditionally had much more to do with property rights than with hearts. And yet uneducated conservatives continue to preach to unknowing masses about “unions sanctioned by God” that are to remain pure, etc. Balderdash. That is a relatively modern development that we collectively seem to believe is rooted in time immemorial. Not so. In the "chicken and egg" analysis, religious sanction of marriage was definitely late to the party.
3. The 24 hour media cycle. I don’t agree with people who blame the media for everything. But. They are guilty of pandering to the lowest common denominator, and of a race for the bottom. There used to be a feeling of responsibility among journalists. They knew that they had a sacred trust to report things the public needed to know. Yes there have always been scandals, and those that reported on them, but by and large the media understood their place and responsibility. When Franklin D Roosevelt died, he did so in his mistress’s apartment. But his body was taken back to the White House and put into bed. The media didn’t report where he died, because it was more important that he was honored for his service to the country and the man he was than to expose a scandal. That kind of judgment and restraint is a thing of the past. I can only think this has become worse since the deregulation of media ownership. Our media now is collectively owned by huge corporations who care for nothing but profit. If a scandal sells, however irresponsibly, they will cash that check; and the responsibility of the media be damned.

I was all for outing Larry Craig. He was a sanctimonious hypocritical bastard, and frankly, hanging was too good for him in my opinion. Mark Spitzer should have been investigated for exactly who was purchasing his honey, plus he broke the law (another ridiculous law – but that is a topic for another rant). Hypocritical sanctimonious hubris is always going to lead to a fall. But I say let the Bill Clintons, and the Mark Sanfords, and the other regular married guys do their jobs. Who they are screwing, frankly, is none of our business. If they experiencing marital difficulties they should be allowed to resolve those quietly with their respective spouse. The American people have no place in their bedrooms.

I would actually rather have a politician in charge of things who understood a little about life, who maybe had a little sympathy for the common man, than some rich bloodless pillar of virtue who didn’t understand what it was like to be human.

I was not a Mark Sanford fan. I thought he was a bombastic show-boating politician who opposed the bailout money much more as a way to grandstand and attract attention than out of any personal conviction. But if the conservatives want to have anyone left to carry the flag, they need to get out of the morals business. You can’t legislate morality, whatever Bob Inglis says, the sanctimonious prig. But from a sheer practical perspective, if the Republicans want any standard-bearers left, they’re going to have to change their standards.