Mark Sanford proves himself unqualified for public office

People all over the net are arguing about whether or not Mark Sanford should resign from public office because he disappeared for five days and was discovered to be unfaithful to his wife.

There's a great deal of foofaraw going on about whether it's worse to go to prostitutes or to "fall in love," which doesn't interest me. I don't need to know whether the man is addicted to sex, love, power, alcohol, or Sudoku puzzles. I want to know whether he's an addict and, if so, whether he is in recovery. I have insufficient information to answer either question at this point.

Similarly, I'm not interested in arguing whether adultery always disqualifies the adulterer for public office. I'm interested in what the details of his behavior say about his character and his ability to do the job the citizens of South Carolina elected him to do. When you look at him from that angle, he doesn't show up at all well.

He was irresponsible when he left the country without either leaving contact information or putting his lieutenant governor in charge. That alone should be cause for removal from office.

He used a trade mission as an opportunity to continue his affair, which is unethical. The fact that he is paying the money back after having been caught is minimally decent, but deeply unimpressive.

He was willing to ditch both his public responsibilities as an elected official and his private commitments to his wife and children in order to pursue a sexual relationship, and he did that repeatedly, which points to deep selfishness and immaturity. This shows he is not a trustworthy person.

He doesn't hold himself to the standards he expects others to follow. In 1998, he called for President Clinton's resignation after news broke that Clinton had engaged in sexual behavior with a White House intern. Sanford has not resigned. The technical term for this is "hypocrisy."

He shows a startling lack of logical thinking in his attempts to to hide behind his religion, especially in his attempts to suggest some kind of parallel between himself and the biblical King David. Sanford's position appears to be that God let David stay king and forgave him despite his actions, so Mark Sanford should stay in elected office. The story of an ancient religious monarchy is not related to the qualifications to act as a public servant in a nation whose constitution separates church and state. However much some people may want a theocracy, we haven't got one. God did not elect Mark Sanford, and Sanford's relationship with God has nothing to do with his fitness to serve as an elected official. Furthermore, any decent theologian will tell you that forgiveness is not the moral equivalent of the Monopoly card that says "Get Out of Jail Free." Forgiveness is preceded by real repentance and followed by change; the consequences of the sins remain. People could forgive Mark Sanford for everything he has done and still not find him qualified for public office.

So there's Mark Sanford: his own actions and words show him to be irresponsible, dishonest, selfish, hypocritical, and a fuzzy thinker who doesn't want to face up to the consequences of his actions. This is not a man who should have the responsibility and privilege of running a state. He needs therapy, recovery, healing, and God's forgiveness, and I hope he gets them all. He does not deserve the public's trust, now or ever again.