Joe Darby’s quicker than I am, I learned from his op-ed piece today:
South Carolinians of every cultural and political mindset have asked why the governor has drawn a firm and ludicrous line in the sand on the use of stimulus funds for education; they have wondered whether he’s cold and insensitive, out of touch with the common people or laying the groundwork for future political aspirations. I had the chance to talk with the governor prior to his first-term election and early in his first term, and I think the real reason for his stance is that our governor really isn’t a Republican — he’s a libertarian.
I probably had a lot more exposure to Mark Sanford than the Rev. Darby did, during the 2002 campaign and in the early days of his administration, and it took me several months to fully realize what Joe picked up on from fewer clues, if he realized it way back then.
Sure, his idea for cutting back income taxes was out there during the campaign, as was his tuition tax credit proposal. But they didn’t seem that central at the time — the tax credit idea was presented as a sort of boutique, experimental, peripheral thing, not his entire education strategy, which is what it turned out to be. And lots of “conservative Republicans” have some economic libertarian ideas mixed in with their other positions.
But it took a lot of exposure on my part to realize how very different this guy was from that herd. I had picked up on the way he stood aloof from other Republicans, but that had seemed almost a virtue, hating parties the way I do.
Then, one day, in a private conversation in his office, it hit me fully just how outside the box he was, and I blurted out: “You ran as a ‘conservative Republican,’ but you’re not that at all! You’re a libertarian!” He allowed as how perhaps I had a point.
Yeah, I know — that sounds amazingly stupid on my part, mainly because everybody knows now that that’s what Mark Sanford is. But the realization had to do with the utter purity of the difference. What I had realized, and what I was saying, was that he was utterly unlike any other Republican, and certainly any “conservative,” I had ever met. And suddenly I was realizing how many GOOD points normal Republicans had, points which he lacked. Normal Republicans wanted efficient, streamlined government, and felt a responsibility to make it run on time and on budget. This guy simply didn’t believe in government, on a very deep, fundamental level. Lots of “conservatives” grumble and even rant about government. None dismiss it as fully as he does.
There was, essentially, nothing conservative about him. He was a classical liberal, through and through, and his ideology was utterly unmodified by experiences in the real world. Most people, as they live and work and interact with the world, modify such extreme views, seeing how they don’t always work. Not this guy. Most people try to get things done, and to get things done you have to face reality. He had never cared about getting things done. He hadn’t in Congress. He was perfectly satisfied to cling to hermetically sealed ideals, unsullied by experience.
And yes, there was a time when that was a revelation to me.
Related Posts
When asked whether he considered himself a conservative or a libertarian, William F. Buckley, Jr. allowed that sometimes he said one and sometimes the other and gave the impression that libertarianism and his brand of conservatism would have a great deal of overlap on a Venn Diagram. Sanford, to me, is what some refer to as a small government conservative as opposed to a social conservative or one a a number of other conservatives huddling under the tent of the Republican Party.
I remember when he was running in the Republican Primary for Congress a number of years back. I think there were about six people in the field and he was well back in the pack. A friend said he liked Sanford but that he liked Sanford but that he would never win because he insisted on doing things his own way. He always has. Some call it arrogance other, misguidedly I think, political opportunism. I honestly think that he is a man who does what he, in his heart, believes to be correct. There are worse things to be said of a man.
Sen. Sheheen’s bill (http://www.thestate.com/news-extras/story/743668.html) may bring the issue to a head. Historically our Supreme Court, being made up largely of former legislators, has sided with the G.A. over the executive (this is the body that approved the existence of the Budget and Control Board with logic that still eludes me after many readings) but I still do not understand how the legislature can direct the executive in a discretionary act.
We shall see.
Isn’t it nice to have a Governor with the same political philosophy of our Founding Fathers?
Thomas Jefferson made a perfect expression of Classical Liberalism in the Declaration of Independence.
John Goodman wrote an excellent article on classical liberalism.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
Joe Darby has not put much thought into philosophy, but he is a collectivist, a statist. He sees himself as a subject of the state, and he wants to use the state to transfer wealth from those who earned it to people himself and his ilk.
Why have you gone to moderating comments? That certainly slows the flow of conversation.
I agree, Greg. And I certainly didn’t do it intentionally. Someone was helping me fix some other setting yesterday, and maybe the wrong thing got accidentally clicked. I’ll see if I can fix it…
Oh, and if Sanford is a Jeffersonian, that helps me understand why I always preferred John Adams. I’m pretty sure I would have voted Federalist in the election of 1800. I may not have liked Hamilton much, but I’m a big Adams fan.
I think I’ve got it fixed now (the moderation thing). Sorry about the inconvenience.
Apparently, there is one person at the Wall Street Journal that is not enamored with Mark Sanford. Thomas Frank wrote in the Opinion section of the WSJ, “Eighteenth-Century Man” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914757330399021.html) that South Carolina’s governor is touchingly naïve.
Only six hundred forty-two days until South Carolina gets leadership in the governor’s office.
Hugh Leatherman’s revised budget still spends more money, without any of the Pelosi Pork Money, than any budget in state history.
What is the argument for spending money we don’t need to spend, when the money is borrowed from future federal taxpayers?
Lots of this debt will be paid for by devaluation of the currency, which will be a sales tax. Does Joe Darby think a 25% federal inflation tax on the working poor is a good thing?
Greg–
My dear husband allowed as how at least Sanford does what he believes in his heart to be correct, when it hit me that Adolf Hitler also did what he believed in his heart to be correct, and Pol Pot, et al. I think it beats being cruel and heartless disingenuously, but not much if you’re the one whose job is lost or kid’s education is severely hindered, etc.
Of course Sanford is a libertarian, if not an anarchist. He’s not even into funding the police, typically one of those governmental functions sane libertarians will spring for.
Kathryn
But that’s the problem with labels, isn’t it? Everyone has their own definitions of those terms. If you ask me, of course Mark Sanford’s a conservative. He’s also a ‘classical’ liberal as well as a libertarian. I could say which one of those terms I think best describes him and you could disagree. You could say one or more of those terms is not accurate at all. And neither of us would be more right or wrong because we both have different definitions of those words. There’s no precise meaning in them as they relate to American politics. Therefore, in my opinion, they are meaningless.
I find all the constant labeling in this country’s political discourse to be silly at best and sometimes even downright sinister.
I really don’t know that either Hitler or Pol Pot (and I know much less about the latter) acted on principal as much as meglomania. Regardless, I think you are engaging in a reductio ad adsurdem here. Sanford has a strategy for strenghthening the State in the long run (one that does not involve genocide as your two lads engaged in). His beliefs are a long way from totalitarian and make, I think a great deal of sense on many occasions. I think questioning his sanity is a bit strong. I think he believes in providing police but not with the $700m. I know that you find his actions frustrating but i do not find them to be the actions of a lunitic, a meglomaniac or a totaltarian, merely one who is using the powers vested in him to act in what he believes are the beat interests of his State. Isn’t this what we expect elected officials in a representative democracy to do?
Mrs. Fenner,
Why did you choose to compare Mark Sanford to Adolf Hitler?
You admit that Sanford is a libertarian, which is the polar opposite of totalianism.
Since you didn’t put much thought into your insult before posting it, take time to examine your own motives and the other dishonest accusations made by yourself, Joe Neal and those who cannot stand up and debate Sanford’s reasons for not wanting to give this windfall to our irresponsible legislature.
If you really don’t like fascism, you might want to study up on it as a system of political economy, as well as a personality cult. Then take notice of how Barack Obama is truly a fascist in his deficit spending, seizure of companies, firing of executives, government telling businesses what products to make….