Both Oars In What is the Standard?

Sep 11, 2009

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford can probably claim with conviction, “I know Rod Blagojevich and I am no Rod Blagojevich.” But, does one have to be as bad as the disgraced former governor of Illinois to be impeached?

 

Governor Sanford hopes so. He recently pointed out in his own defense that his misbehavior does not compare with the “heinous” criminal actions that resulted in the impeachment and removal of eight U.S. governors since 1871.  The beleaguered governor has a point. His actions do not include the alleged attempt to sell a U.S. Senate seat or the misappropriation of public funds to make real estate investments. On the other hand, his behavior does bare a certain resemblance to one of the two presidents who have been impeached in our short history.  

 

What is the threshold for impeachment? Is it simply a legal question? Or, do morals apply? In South Carolina, it seems to be both. The South Carolina Constitution states that “serious crimes or serious misconduct in office” by an elected official are sufficient grounds for impeachment.  The use of the word misconduct leaves the door wide open to discuss moral and ethical behavior, especially as it relates to one’s character. 

 

Character is a question for a public official because leadership involves more than mere mechanics; it requires good character. Unfortunately for the governor, the list of character flaws is far more copious and subtle than the state’s criminal code. In particular, untrustworthiness does not have to go to the level of proven larceny or fraud to be an impediment to a person’s ability to lead. Doubt in one’s ability to lead can result from proving to be unworthy of trust, even in personal matters. After all, in a free society, the opinion of the leader about his or her ability to lead is less important than the opinion of those being lead.

 

Governor Sanford has admitted publicly to having allowed his personal interests to direct, at least for a moment, his official activity and, at least for a time, put public resources behind those mixed motives. He misled the public as to his whereabouts and seemingly left his office unattended. He cheated on his wife. There is no doubt that these actions have raised questions as to his trustworthiness in the minds of both his constituents and the state’s legislators.  It is reasonable to ask: Can Governor Sanford continue to lead?  

 

Maybe it is idealistic and naïve to suggest that we have a right to expect our public officials to be role models. However, it would seem reasonable to hold our public officials to at least the same standards as we hold our athletes. Do we really want to live in a country where a public official’s immoral behavior is seen as inconsequential, but mistreatment of dogs, however grave, is grounds for serving time in jail and putting a career on hiatus? One would hope that when it comes to evaluating a person’s character, mistreatment of humans still ranks above mistreatment of animals.  

 

Beyond the question of morality, there is also the more pragmatic concern of simple morale and focus.  Several state legislators have correctly pointed out that the current situation is at the very least a distraction to the normal business of the government. Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley may blame her colleagues in part for the work stoppage in Columbia, calling their sustained interest in the governor’s indiscretion “nothing more than political posturing;” but, even the ever diplomatic, eye-on-the-prize Haley cannot ignore the fact that “Governor Sanford has become a badly flawed leader”. Surely, political foes of Governor Sanford are exploiting the situation to their own advantage, but there is no denying that the former fiscal responsibility crusader is struggling to lead the state in any direction.

 

As a child when my mom would ask me to clean my messy room, I would list all the terrible things I did not do, like smoke or drink or do drugs, to dissuade my mom from standing on her demand. In response, my mom would say, “Well, the standard for being a good boy starts a little higher than that. It starts with keeping your room clean.” In this day and age, mothers may be better judges of misconduct than actual judges or legislators. I am pretty sure any mother would define infidelity and running off and leaving your chores unattended as misconduct.