Once again we’re slowing down and craning our heads to stare at a roadside collision: Mark Sanford. We’re not riveted because we wonder whether Sanford should continue to serve as Governor. Face it, our most popular male leaders have been philanderers and not necessarily unseated as a result. (A woman would never get away with it, but that’s another story. Sara Palin’s behavior is blamed on postpartum depression, Nancy Pelosi is frequently referred to as “a grandmother.” If Hillary had a dalliance with one of her young staffers–”slut” would be the word of the day.)
What’s giving us pause about Sanford is the endless and intimate confession itself. Everyone’s asking, is he doing more harm to himself by continuing to apologize? It’s not the apology per se; it’s his delivery. He’s talking to us as if he were at his kitchen table not on national television. It’s too intimate, and it makes us uncomfortable–but we can’t turn away. Whether Sanford is just slick or truly remorseful, the point is, he’s not talking the way people–especially men–are supposed to talk in public. You could say he’s using his inside voice, pouring his heart out to a lover or close friend. If this saga was unfolding in France, he’d be using “tu”–the intimate pronoun–to address reporters. Even videos of him seem intimate. He leans in and huddles up to the microphone, bows his head, lowers his eye lids, and shrugs ever so slightly. His voice is low, hoarse, and–dare I say–sultry.
The private him makes us uncomfortable because we’re not imembers of his inner circle and we know we shouldn’t be listening. We don’t talk that way to strangers (or consequential strangers, for that matter) and he shouldn’t either. TMI, even in the digital age.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:03 am
It is a little like a train wreck but more. I think he actually expects people to understand how hard this is for him. He sees himself as different. This is not an affair but actually love. He has resisted temptation before. He apologized. I believe he does not see himself as hypocritical because the rules do not really apply to him or this situation. Even the rules he applies to others. I have seen this behavior before and it is largely from white men who are republicans. Not all, of course, but enough to see a pattern. It is fascinating because it doesn’t make sense. I see it as a shared delusion. It seems to be based on the premise that they will always be in power. The world will fall into chaos if they are not. These must be hard times for people like Sanford.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am
interesting comments on Sanford and Jackson, but it seems to trivialize the very significant concept of consequential stranger to raise common celebrities to this status.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
What are the chances of two Andys leaving me comments? Thank you both for taking the time.
Andy W: I think you’re right. If Sanford doesn’t see himself and his situation as “different,” at the very least he’s rationalized his behavior in a way that shuts out any conflicting interpretations. It’s amazing how “sincere” people can look when they actually believe their own rhetoric.
Andy Z: I think you might have read the Jackson piece too quickly. Celebrities are not our consequential strangers. Of course, in Michael Jackson’s entourage, for better and for worse, were his consequential strangers–the trainers, physicians, cooks, assistants and other hangers-on whom he used to insulate himself from the world. But not us–because a relationship has to go both ways to fall in consequential stranger territory.