Is Sanford's Loss Women's Gain?
Matt Lewis
Columnist
Posted:
06/29/09
Immediately following a personal tragedy, it appears unseemly to discuss political strategy regarding who "wins" or "loses" as a result of someone's fall from grace. A week later, however, and it's time to cast aside those niceties, and discuss the impact the Sanford affair may have on politics.
As has been widely noted, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was a dark horse for the GOP presidential nomination. While he was surely a long shot, it should be noted that, at this point in a campaign cycle, the long shots sometimes do win. Or even if they do not win, they can emerge as real players (see Mike Huckabee), influencing the selection of the eventual nominee. Of course, the long shots who do go on to have an impact are usually blessed with tremendous communications skills, and nobody ever accused Mark Sanford of being overly charismatic.
Still, his potential impact should not be dismissed cavalierly, and so his removal from the race -- even at this early date -- does have repercussions.
So who "wins"? In my estimation, it is Mitt Romney. This is true for two reasons. First, Romney and Sanford occupy similar political turf. Both are millionaire businessmen known more for their fiscal conservatism than for their social conservatism. But because Sanford was governor of South Carolina (rather than Massachusetts), it was easier for him to argue he was the most trusted fiscal conservative.
Secondly, Romney's image problem has always been that he's a straight-laced square. Voters may find that quality a bit more to their liking, in lieu of recent events.
Sarah Palin also fares well from this -- by virtue of her gender. Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros recently asked, "Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate."
Politico also ran a similar story which quoted from several experts, essentially echoing Tantaros. For example: "The tendency or willingness to transgress sexual boundaries in general is much more likely in men than in women," said Paul Abramson, author of the forthcoming book, "Sex Appeal: Six Ethical Principles for the 21st Century."
The theory is that, after the extramarital affairs of Sanford and of Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Republican voters may grow wary of scandals and unconsciously vote for a woman, as they deem women to be evolutionary less likely to have an affair at that level in their career (it would be ironic for Republican Primary voters to vote for Palin based on evolutionary psychology).
But Palin's problem may be those around her. Sure, she may personally be scandal-free, but what are the odds that someone in her family will do something scandal-worthy in the next two or three years?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also should fare well. A former pastor, he seems unlikely to be tainted by similar behavior -- but is also specifically nonjudgmental. At least, compared to most pastors, he does not seem to be the sort to condemn. As Huckabee told ABC News,
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich probably loses a bit from this -- assuming you think he is serious about potentially running for president. He has sought to put his past affairs behind him, and one can assume that anything that makes the public conscious of Republican politicians who have affairs is not helpful. Still, Gingrich has been working hard to address his past, going so far as to appear on conservative Christian leader James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show to discuss it, so the damage is probably minimal.
In short, while this is not a coup de grace for any GOP presidential nominee, save for Sanford, Mitt Romney has both eliminated a competitor, and buttressed the argument for his election.
Of course, ramifications go deeper than the 2012 presidential campaign. Political consultants and staffers spend their lives helping "create" a future presidential candidate, only to see all their meticulous planning destroyed instantly, by something over which they had little control.
At the state level, in South Carolina, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint probably gains politically from this. While few would confuse Sen. Lindsay Graham with a mainstream conservative, Sanford and DeMint were clearly the two conservative leaders. Now there is one.
As has been widely noted, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was a dark horse for the GOP presidential nomination. While he was surely a long shot, it should be noted that, at this point in a campaign cycle, the long shots sometimes do win. Or even if they do not win, they can emerge as real players (see Mike Huckabee), influencing the selection of the eventual nominee. Of course, the long shots who do go on to have an impact are usually blessed with tremendous communications skills, and nobody ever accused Mark Sanford of being overly charismatic.
Still, his potential impact should not be dismissed cavalierly, and so his removal from the race -- even at this early date -- does have repercussions.
So who "wins"? In my estimation, it is Mitt Romney. This is true for two reasons. First, Romney and Sanford occupy similar political turf. Both are millionaire businessmen known more for their fiscal conservatism than for their social conservatism. But because Sanford was governor of South Carolina (rather than Massachusetts), it was easier for him to argue he was the most trusted fiscal conservative.
Secondly, Romney's image problem has always been that he's a straight-laced square. Voters may find that quality a bit more to their liking, in lieu of recent events.
Sarah Palin also fares well from this -- by virtue of her gender. Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros recently asked, "Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate."
Politico also ran a similar story which quoted from several experts, essentially echoing Tantaros. For example: "The tendency or willingness to transgress sexual boundaries in general is much more likely in men than in women," said Paul Abramson, author of the forthcoming book, "Sex Appeal: Six Ethical Principles for the 21st Century."
The theory is that, after the extramarital affairs of Sanford and of Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Republican voters may grow wary of scandals and unconsciously vote for a woman, as they deem women to be evolutionary less likely to have an affair at that level in their career (it would be ironic for Republican Primary voters to vote for Palin based on evolutionary psychology).
But Palin's problem may be those around her. Sure, she may personally be scandal-free, but what are the odds that someone in her family will do something scandal-worthy in the next two or three years?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also should fare well. A former pastor, he seems unlikely to be tainted by similar behavior -- but is also specifically nonjudgmental. At least, compared to most pastors, he does not seem to be the sort to condemn. As Huckabee told ABC News,
We're reminded that even good people do bad things, and smart people do dumb things. What Mark did was bad and dumb. I won't stop being his friend, but I won't pretend that what he did was okay, 'cause it wasn't. What he did to his wife and four sons is between them.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich probably loses a bit from this -- assuming you think he is serious about potentially running for president. He has sought to put his past affairs behind him, and one can assume that anything that makes the public conscious of Republican politicians who have affairs is not helpful. Still, Gingrich has been working hard to address his past, going so far as to appear on conservative Christian leader James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show to discuss it, so the damage is probably minimal.
In short, while this is not a coup de grace for any GOP presidential nominee, save for Sanford, Mitt Romney has both eliminated a competitor, and buttressed the argument for his election.
Of course, ramifications go deeper than the 2012 presidential campaign. Political consultants and staffers spend their lives helping "create" a future presidential candidate, only to see all their meticulous planning destroyed instantly, by something over which they had little control.
At the state level, in South Carolina, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint probably gains politically from this. While few would confuse Sen. Lindsay Graham with a mainstream conservative, Sanford and DeMint were clearly the two conservative leaders. Now there is one.