There was a special election last week in South Carolina. Granted, most deemed it “special” because the vote was held to replace a senatorial appointee. However, the Intramuralist finds it “special” because of the uniqueness of the candidates.
While each candidate certainly sported a resume that deserved serious consideration, neither was noted most for any professional qualification. The Republican candidate was Mark Sanford, known most as the former governor who resigned 4 years ago after lying about his whereabouts as opposed to being forthcoming about his affair. The Democrat candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, known most as the sister of popular satirist Stephen Colbert as opposed to any individual accolades. From a distant, arguably judgmental vantage point, it seemed a poor choice of candidates.
Poor indeed. Sanford won by an approximate 10% point margin.
While not a resident of the Palmetto State, part of me wonders if this is the wisest representation for the people of the 1st Congressional District. A former governor… a man who left because of lies — granted, they were entirely regarding his personal endeavors — left his wife, children, and statehouse to pursue the object of his infidelity. He is engaged to her today.
Ah, yes, I hear the rousing chorus of “amen’s.” In fact, I read the screeching comments in cyberspace and selective editorials in the immediate aftermath. “Is this the best we’ve got?” seemed the strong — and even oft articulated — implication.
Truthfully, I agree. Is Sanford the best we’ve got? Now many of you have participated in this dialogue long enough to know that the Intramuralist unabashedly believes in the giving of second, third, and even fourth and fifth chances. Many times I have mercifully been on the receiving end of those grace extensions, and hence, I believe wholeheartedly in the generous outpouring to others. But that outpouring is accompanied by one caveat. Only one. But a significant one at that.
In order to freely offer that second or even seventeenth chance, the heart of the recipient should be willingly repentant. True, no man can fully gauge the heart of another, yet the question is: was Sanford repentant of his actions? Was he truly repentant of the destruction of his family? Or rather, was he simply sorry he got caught? Repentance and remorse are two totally different things.
Again come the “amen’s,” especially, I assume, from those who supported the candidacy of Sanford’s opponent. Of course. That’s the way partisanship sadly works in 21st century America. When we desire the liberal candidate, we loudly pounce upon the indiscretions of one conservative Mark Sanford. Oh, wait; many of us will then turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of a liberal Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, two more whose unscrupulous behavior merited their political exit but are seemingly, currently, waiting for enough time to pass so they, too, can re-enter the political arena. Again, let’s ask the question: are they repentant of their actions? Or are they only waiting for enough time to pass? Better said: has the heart of the man changed?
Too often we assume the heart has changed because the candidate in question advances our desired political cause. Sorry, but that’s not enough for me. Call me an idealist. But the Intramuralist wants representation by a person who is wise and of solid integrity. Note that I’m not talking about a man who is perfect and ever without error. A man of solid integrity still makes mistakes. But he doesn’t hide them. He doesn’t repeatedly lie about them. He doesn’t just “repackage his behavior” in order to make himself sound better. He also doesn’t merely wait for enough time to pass so that we forget about the magnitude of his indiscretions — and so he can resume a desired political career. He is instead truly repentant for what he’s done.
“Is that the best we’ve got?” The best, my friends, equates to nothing less than a man of integrity.
Respectfully,
AR