Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in On the Sanford Affair

Re: On the Sanford Affair

mandeville — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Nathan, I agree. It also shows a firm lack of understanding nature. Further, I don't think anyone should be upset if he saw the woman on government business trips, unless we agree that politicians can't golf, have dinners or conduct other personal affairs in conjunction with their official duties.

If I send a sales rep 500 miles from our plant to visit a customer and he decides to have dinner with a friend, should I make him reimburse me for a portion of the hotel and travel expenses that I paid? Of course not. If he picks up a women in a bar, should I fire him? I know one thing; if I fired a woman or minority for infidelity, they'd sue me in a flash. The bottom line is that there's no difference between an employee working for me and a politician working for his constituency. If the people don't like the politician, they shouldn't vote for him the next time round.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Phil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

What makes us think that someone who refuses to honor one oath -- his marriage vow -- is going to honor his oath of office?

Exactly, if you can't keep a promise to a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL -how are you going to keep a promise to a concept called "the public".

We all know infidelity has always occurred-and always will-but the only way to determine the seriousness of the aldulter's contrition is the passage of time (years and decades, not weeks and months).

If we held politicians to the same standards as the rest of us, the affairs of state would all have to be conducted from within prison walls.

But we don't.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Bob Guzzardi — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

If the CEO of almost any private company, large cap, medium cap, he or she would have been gone. Even small businesses are affected by behavior of owner. Leaders lead by example as well as words.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Bob Guzzardi — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

It is near impossible for a politician to campaign or govern without support of his or her spouse. I hope the betrayal can heal. There are four young boys affected by the example set by their father. Regardless of what we think, as a practical matter, Mark Sanford's political career has ended until he resolves the matter with his family. The intensity and risk taking evidence that this was a romance and it will take time for this to reconcile. Mark Sanford, unlike Rick of Casablanca, chose romance and self over his obligations of his office and to South Carolina and to his family. A tragedy and who but for the grace of God go some of us. Yet, it does appear his effectiveness in government and politics is ended.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

dg lesvic — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Rest in Place,

You wrote,

"If we want politicians to stop setting themselves up as tin-pot gods, wouldn't holding them to the same standards of professional conduct as the rest of us be a good place to start?"

You missed the point entirely.

Sanford was the rare exception, a politician not setting himself up as a tin-pot god.

If we held politicians to the same standards as the rest of us, the affairs of state would all have to be conducted from within prison walls.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

LowcountryJoe — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

>>In virtually every job I've ever had...absenteeism like Sanford's, without prior notice or valid excuse, would have gotten me fired...Why should a governor be held to any different standard? If we want politicians to stop setting themselves up as tin-pot gods, wouldn't holding them to the same standards of professional conduct as the rest of us be a good place to start?<<

Who's going to fire him? And wouldn't holding him to the same standards of professional conduct as the rest be a good place to start?

Two decent questions that utimately come back to who/what, exactly? Think about those for a bit [not just how they relate to the governor of SC] and after obtaining the answers/connection, it might be wise to not hold your breath while waiting for things to change.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

dg lesvic — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Daniel,

Sanford was scary?

Mind-readers like you are what's scary.

And me.

Get those nasty thoughts out of your head, right now!

Re: On the Sanford Affair

rpl — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I'm a little surprised at Don's defense of Sanford's conduct. In virtually every job I've ever had (the notable exception was when I was an academician), absenteeism like Sanford's, without prior notice or valid excuse, would have gotten me fired. That's irrespective of whether I was "critical" to my employer's operations. Why should a governor be held to any different standard? If we want politicians to stop setting themselves up as tin-pot gods, wouldn't holding them to the same standards of professional conduct as the rest of us be a good place to start?

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Martin Brock — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Well you can blame the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution.

Most of the constitutional reform of the last century involved no amendments. It rather involved incredibly broad interpretation of the commerce clause. So now, if you grow marijuana in your back yard for your own use, the Federal government may jail you, using its authority under the commerce clause, because you might have sold the pot across state lines, even though you didn't.

That's just what the courts have been saying for nearly a century now. The Feds can also regulate marriage, because you might move with a spouse across a state line and then seek resolution of a marital dispute, even if you don't.

In fact, the Feds can govern practically anything under this theory, so federalism is thoroughly quashed, not by any constitutional amendment but simply by an assertion of Federal authority that authors of the constitution never imagined.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

tms — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The most ridiculous criticism I heard regarding the Sanford situation was from Howard Fineman on MSNBC. He explained that Sanford's political philosophy is all about states rights (and "not the racist kind"), and therefore, as a Governor, he views himself as equal in importance to the President of the United States. Since he sees himself equal in importance to the President, how could he just leave the way he did?

As you point out, this has nothing to do with his political philosophy. But, if it did, leaving the state without a chief executive for several days is, if anything, entirely consistent with his philosophy of limited government.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Daniel Kuehn — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

This guy was reckless and endlessly dedicated to what made good electoral headlines even before this - and it was scary that he was a serious presidential candidate in 2012. I'm glad that prospect is out of the picture at this point.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"It occurs to me that your point is very strong evidence against the contract theory of government. We did not and would not agree to put so much power in the hands of the political class, therefore, it is evident that they took it." - Randy

Well you can blame the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Libertarians and old-time Conservatives should seen this coming and made a special 11th Amendment that the U.S. Constitution can no longer be amended (before it was too late).

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Well, let me amend that last, what the SCOTUS was saying is that lying is okay as long as it isn't done under oath.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

SCOTUS ruling in a lawsuit brought by an Ohio group (who had sued a politician because he lied on the campaign trail about what he would do if elected to a state office, promises on which he reneged of course) was that lying by politicans is not a civil or criminal offense and polticians are free to lie whenever and about whatever.

Character counts in our private and commercial world, but not in politics.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

John Galt — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Sorry; character counts. I was rather disappointed that he didn't resign immediately after meeting with his cabinet.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

LowcountryJoe — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Scot Lehigh should realize that these decisions are ultimately left up to the voters but you'd never know that he understand this based on what he writes; it's as though he believes it's the media who selects the official. He might be correct, come to think of it.

One thing he writes has me questioning Scot's accuracy in reporting:

As a congressman, Sanford had voted to impeach Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky; the president, he declared, had violated his oath to his wife.

Was this really Sanford's reason to vote to impeach? I'd like to see that. I think that Sanford's vote to impeach was about the lie that then President Clinton told about relationships while being under oath to tell only truth.

Oh, and Martin Brock, none of your posted views are ever inconsistent, are they?

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Martin Brock — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

A Well-Planned Retirement From The London Times

It's an urban legend.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Another good example of the market creating a demand; and, of corporations so large no one any longer is capable of knowing what is going on:

A Well-Planned Retirement From The London Times:

Outside the Bristol Zoo, in England, there is a parking lot for 150 cars and eight coaches, or buses.

It was manned by a very pleasant attendant with a ticket machine charging cars 1

(about $1.40Cdn) and coaches 5 (about $7).

This parking attendant worked there uninterrupted for all of 25 years.

Then, one day, he didn't turn up for work.

"Oh well,", said Bristol Zoo management, "we'd better phone up the city council and get them to send a new parking attendant."

"Err, no", said the council, "that parking lot is your responsibility."

"Err, no", said Bristol Zoo management, "the attendant was employed by the City Council, wasn't he?"

"Err, NO!" insisted the Council.

Sitting in a villa some where on the coast of Spain, is a bloke who had been taking the parking lot fees, estimated at 400 (about $560) per day at Bristol Zoo for the

last 25 years. Assuming seven days a week, this amounts to just over 3.6 million

($7 million)!

And no one even knows his name.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

M.C. Hubbard — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"infidelities shouldn't end political careers" - heh, but they can hurt them and more...

"such a paragon of virtue that he or she can be trusted with vast swaths of our lives and property"

Looks like Edwards is being accused of a sex tape on top of all the rest... http://www.nydailynews.com/...

Sanford, please don't have a sex tape. :(

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Jeremy P — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Well, I don't think Obama is compulsive. He thinks out his plans very deliberately and maximizes his political agenda. He wishes to remodel America in a way in which neither you or I agree with or approve of and the philosophy which he rationalizes his actions with is silly and evil, but I would contend that he is very deliberate. Horrible, but deliberate. On the other hand, I think the decision to invade Iraq was knee-jerk and compulsive. Bush was compulsive and horrible, while Obama is deliberate and extremely horrible. My only point is that pragmatism and deliberation are desirable traits for a president to have especially in foreign policy. I agree that the Pres should have much less power, but this is irrelevant to my point.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Martin Brock — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

And, exactly what do we do, what do we think, when there is no difference?

My statement here refers to discussion of Don's previous post.

On the one hand, in this post, the sudden disappearance, death, or retirement of a particular corporate official has no very dire consequences, because this official is only one person.

On the other hand, in the previous post, one corporate official can contribute tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in value to the corporation in a single year, as much as a thousand other employees combined, because his unique contribution is so rare and valuable.

These assertions seem inconsistent to me.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Somehow when a person, and person, exits this vale of tears, the rest of us just soldier on.

Should have read, ....any person, exits this vale of......

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Martin,

And, exactly what do we do, what do we think, when there is no difference?

"But the same logic doesn't apply to a high-ranking corporate official?

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 28, 2009 12:34:58 PM"

"Although I believe that corporate officials of any rank generally are far more socially productive than are even the highest-ranking government official, I've never known a society to be endangered by the sudden disappearance, death, or retirement of any corporate official.

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Jun 28, 2009 12:50:50 PM"

A corporation is a corporation is a corporation, and by any other name should smell so sweet.

Fill a pot with cold water, stick your hand in, then pull your hand out. The hole you leave behind is the hole that will be left when Bill Gates dies, Steven Jobs dies, when Putin dies, Obama dies, that was left when Kennedy died, and when you and I die.

Somehow when a person, and person, exits this vale of tears, the rest of us just soldier on.

Re: On the Sanford Affair

vidyohs — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

So it would seem. :-D

Re: On the Sanford Affair

Marcy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

What makes us think that someone who refuses to honor one oath -- his marriage vow -- is going to honor his oath of office? Or having broken either one of them once, isn't a very good candidate for a repeat performance?

If the oath of office isn't something we hold a politician to, then we might as well just install kings who can hand out public funds to their friends or spend it on their own pleasures, without accountability, and who exercise increasing control with no regard to our rights. Which is pretty much the direction we're headed.