Posted by
Patrick S. Adams on Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:22:06 AM
Billy Joel wrote "it's always been a matter of trust." For constituencies and their candidates, there is a bond that can be as strong as bonds are in a family. Political candidates forge a deep connection with their supporters. They represent their voice, their dreams and their beliefs. They are looked up to the way the head of a household would be looked up to. Only, they have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people looking to them for leadership as compared to maybe five or six. The standards don't change even if the numbers do. Leaders put themselves in a position of trust. When that trust is broken, according to
Def Leppard "you're bringin' on the heartbreak."
Mark Sanford showed us this week that, like Billy Joel wrote, "The closer you get to the fire the more you get burned." As a rock star among fiscal conservatives and libertarians with a strong record as governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford was positioned to get to the "qualifying round" of America's greatest race (no not the Daytona 500), the race for president. He seemed to be a candidate that had no holes. He appeared to be a strong family man, as religiously faithful as the next guy and deeply committed to the future of the United States of America.
And then our hearts were broken.
Those who believe in the real God understand that the ultimate glory in life is also undermined by the most horrible of sins. And while many on both sides of the aisle can debate the story of Adam of Eve, it's pretty obvious that there was an apple involved and we have been dealing with that problem ever since.
Human nature is not liberal or conservative. It is. Existence occurs before essence because in the absence of existence there is no essence. As such, we mere mortals are not capable of truly grasping the greatness of God no matter how hard we try. We all may have different religious views, but I do know this: if you honestly and objectively examine the limited information we have before us, you probably want to take into consideration that no matter what tricks the universe throws at us, we should agree that there is something bigger about this than just "me."
For some reason, those who miss this always end up getting burnt.
Mark Sanford is the Gary Hart of our time. He was loved by his supporters. They wanted so bad for him to become president. Like Hart, he was a purist to his ideology. Though their ideologies were different, what their supporters saw in them was the same. They saw themselves, their hopes and their dreams. All it took was one stupid little "me" moment for Sanford and Hart and "we" got caught up in the collateral damage.
Liz Sidoti of the
AP writes "'They live their lives more in a fishbowl, and that has responsibilities and costs with it,' (Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist at City University of New York) said, adding that an adulterous politician doesn't just betray his family's trust, he also betrays the public's trust."
We know that the candidates who have no holes and who are the most pure among us are the strongest. As the best among us, they are the most capable of advancing our agenda. When trying to get what you want in the world of power politics, you want your best warrior out there. Although politics is life, it's also a game. As such, your best warrior is there because even though they can't guarantee you a win, they give you the best shot at it.
A great warrior overcomes the evils of life. They buck "business as usual" and set their site on conquest, not for themselves but for everyone. They are motivated by what their supporters believe in. In turn, their supporters are are motivated by what they believe in.
While spouses fall romantically in love with each other, candidates and their constituencies fall ideologically in love. Any violation of either trust is adulterous in its own way. It's hard to trust a politician that can't be honest with the one who should be his or her biggest supporter and strongest vote. What a candidate does romantically for their spouse, they do ideologically for their constituencies. Love of either kind is a two way street. The stronger the level of attraction between the two, the more trust that's required to make sure that bond isn't broken.
So you have a candidate that you love. You are banking on that person to deliver on what you believe in. And you see what just happened to Mark Sanford. At any time, your dream can go puff without having any control over it. It's existential. With a bullet, we could have lost Ronald Reagan within the first months of his presidency. We lost Robert Kennedy that way. But we lost Mark Sanford and Gary Hart to an "arrow," not a bullet. Regardless, their followers' cause was stopped and their followers' dreams were shattered.
Each of us has a candiate that we love. You will never know if they can go the distance. It's a matter of trust. It's a matter of taking a leap of faith that tells you there's a better chance this person is going to go all the way than the other ones. It's a matter of trusting in the standard and knowing that your candidate trusts in that standard as much or more than you do.
As heartbreaking as it is to see what happened to Sanford, we take solace in the notion that while he may have fallen, the standard itself has not. We will continue to ideologically love candidates who represent that standard.
Our candidates will either fail us or they will become heroic when they have beaten the odds and avoided the temptations of corruption and infidelity while effectively dodging the arrows of misfortune as they advance our agenda. The yearning for leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan will only cause us to seek out more heroes and heroines to put on the political pedestal despite the emotional risk we must take in doing so.
Some may now look at their candidates and be cynical because of Mark Sanford. Some may hope that this is the final lesson for future politicians. We all remember pictures of "The Monkey Business" and shake our heads going "oh no, not again." But we know one thing about standards and values. The offenses may be repeated, but the values stay the same. Therein lies the existential conundrum. You have the choice to root for your candidates and your causes or pack it in and go home.
I know how it feels. For the sake of this article, I am not going to name my candidates (fill in name of your candidate here). But I thought about them today. I imagined what would have happened if they were Mark Sanford. I prayed and then I cried.
Then I pledged to myself that it's still just a matter of trust. I'm always going to have to trust.