Posted under Election 2012
Sanford’s become popular lately (e.g. Dougherty’s recent TAC article), and the man is principled, but I want to point out some important flaws.
Sanford:
- is a huge fan of arch-globalist Thomas Friedman. Dougherty mentions that Sanford “somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek” and later that “[h]e draws lessons from Ayn Rand’s work”. None of these thinkers are conservative.
- supported Graham recently in his US Senate reelection (not Conley or Witherspoon) and McCain’s Presidential campaign in 2000.
- received a D+ from numbersusa (on immigration) when in the US House.
- voted against withdrawing from the WTO and in favour of fast track.
I realise the governor looks great next to Obama, but let’s not get carried away. Dougherty writes, “Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin”. That’s because he isn’t a populist.
Weaver on 13 Mar 2009 at 2:10 pm #
I might as well say it: the man’s an ideologue.
Bush fell for ideology too, though of a different sort from Sanford’s, so we’ve seen how this can be dangerous.
Kirt Higdon on 13 Mar 2009 at 2:17 pm #
I’ve been cautiously withholding judgment on Sanford, although all that I have heard up to now has been favorable. But if he is a huge fan of Friedman, that is a deal killer for me. Friedman is an unabashed advocate of brutal militarism to achieve his goal of a global empire.
Weaver on 13 Mar 2009 at 2:42 pm #
In all fairness: Sanford opposed the Iraq War, which Friedman supported.
I’m almost certain Sanford is reliably anti-war in general, but I’d have to check. The immigration and trade issues and his appearing to be an unreasonable ideologue are what concern me most.
RedPhillips on 13 Mar 2009 at 4:33 pm #
Weaver, where was Sanford on the Confederate Flag on the SC State Capitol issue?
Weaver on 13 Mar 2009 at 5:12 pm #
Sanford doesn’t want to touch it.
I’m unaware of what his position was in the past, but right now he’s officially avoiding it, saying it’s divisive and complicated, and that its meaning depends on whom you ask. I guess that’s as good as could be desired.
—
Looking up his record earlier, I came across repeated claims that, June 1998, he: voted against a bill ensuring the preservation of sites important to the Underground Railroad. His justification was the Constitution. Without knowing more about that vote, it appears he’s willing to stand against the PC cult when in violation of one of his principles, such as abiding by the Constitution.
Nothing came up on his historical stance on the flag.
Trent Hill on 13 Mar 2009 at 6:17 pm #
He’s an “ideologue”? I know you guys love Kirk–but you’re all ideologues too–you are paleoconservatives. The mere fact that you cite him as an ideologue, drawing from Kirk’s opinions, make YOU an ideologue. I’ve always found Kirk’s explanation that conservatism isnt an “ideology” to be woefully stupid. Maybe it isnt a COHESIVE ideology, but it certainly is one.
As for Sanford, you are right that Rand, Hayek, and Smith werent conservatives–but Paul cites them too (in fact, he never cites Kirk or TS Eliot, but always cites Mises, Rothbard, and other libertarians). Is Paul not conservative? Do you oppose him for citing libertarians instead of conservatives?
It should be mentioned that Ron Paul has said great things about Mark Sanford, even suggesting he might pick Sanford as his VP in 2008.
I dont think the man is perfect, but he’s no-doubt good.
RedPhillips on 13 Mar 2009 at 7:01 pm #
Trent, I’m going to write a large article on Kirk and the ideology issue. Kirk is right in broad respects. Conservatism is not a systemic ideology like libertarianism or Marxism that attempts to explain the entire human condition in terms of the non aggression principle or the struggle of the proletariat, but in some ways Kirk is simply playing with words. What we call conservatism (paleo or mainstream) is an ideology in the plain sense that most people understand the term and we are ideologues whether we like it or not. Ideology commonly meaning something like a set of principles that are strongly held. Something like the opposite of a moderate or a pragmatist.
Now defenders of pristine word use could object that that is not what ideology really means or should mean and they would be technically correct. But at some point this can become counter productive. Language changes and this is where we are now. Haranguing against ideology without the proper nuance and explanation can play into the hands of our opponents.
The reason why this matters is because Kirk’s opposition to ideology has often been used to support political pragmatism and moderation by those who want to “move along” but also claim the mantle of conservative. (These folks also frequently cite Burke as well.) A good case in point is Jeffrey Hart who posed as the Burkean conservative and cast Bush as the ideologue because Bush didn’t support stem cell research.
Kirk’s formulation that politics is the “art of the possible” is repeated mantra like by moderates looking for the higher ground and has not been helpful to our cause. Kirk certainly did not mean rank political pragmatism. He meant something like politics can not perfect man or get rid of self-interest as the Marxist he was concerned with supposed. But it arguably has had that effect. For example, if returning to constitutional government is not going to happen, and politics is about the possible, then why continue to babble about it? That sort of thing.
Weaver on 13 Mar 2009 at 7:08 pm #
Mr. Hill,
Paul is better on immigration and opposes the trade agreements Sanford voted for. I’m closer to Buchanan than to Paul, but I think Paul would actually make a good President, relative to how the US currently is. Were Sanford to call for reducing legal immigration and work vesas and to take Paul’s stance on trade (even though Paul is a free trader of a sort) then I’d be relieved and likely supporting him any way I could.
—
Reg. ideology:
I’m wary Sanford is too attached to the idea of a flat world, as opposed to a particular place and people, and that he’s not taking an historical view since there has never been, and almost certainly never will be, a flat world.
And I’m wary that Sanford would fight hard to push for further globalisation and higher immigration. What’s the point of shrinking government if the nation is transformed, and thus lost?
And I’m wary he’d do this even against a clear reality that his theories aren’t quite working as intended – e.g. were wages low and unemployment high, immigration and free trade would likely have a negative impact. In theory these things lead to a prosperous world though.
RedPhillips on 13 Mar 2009 at 8:15 pm #
Weaver, who is the Governor who waffled on the Flag in office? Beasley?
Dylan Hales on 13 Mar 2009 at 9:58 pm #
Yes Red, it was Beasley. Huckabee stupidly campaigned with him down here during the primaries and I’m convinced that made the difference here (and had Huck won SC, he would have won the nomination in my view).
I also agree with your take on Kirk and ideology Red. Well said.
Sanford isn’t perfect, but he’s about as good as we are going to get from someone with the “executive experience” that Americans fetishize. I actually prefer Gary Johnson myself, but I don’t see that ship getting out of the harbor.
No politician is perfect. Not even Ron Paul.
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 1:43 am #
Yea, Beasley. Ironically, Beasley’s a pretty good politician otherwise.
Mr. Hales,
No politician is perfect, but Sanford’s wrong on my two core issues, immigration of course being most important.
Maybe it’s best to have a bad symbol in the White House to motivate against up until another Buchanan arises. I don’t have the answers, but someone needed to point out Sanford’s shortcomings.
Jack Hunter on 14 Mar 2009 at 2:17 am #
I’ve never thought of Gov. Sanford being “bad” on immigration until I saw that scorecard. And I still don’t:
http://www.scgovernor.com/news/releases/news_release_june08_a06-04-08.htm
It seems even Ron Paul’s scorecard is less stellar than that of Tom Tancredo:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX&VIPID=787
Makes you wonder about the relevancy and truthfulness of these scorecards?
It seems to me that many paleos have had much admiration and enthusiasm for VA’s Jim Webb in the past, and I have agreed with them. But Webb’s own politics poses as many – and even more – dilemmas for paleos than Sanford, particularly when it comes to being comfortable with statism.
Long story short – if “ideology” is the problem (and I consider myself a Kirkian) then paleos should cease any and all support of Ron Paul.
But if drastically cutting the state – even if it’s unpopular or your own party is againt it – paleos, libertartians and serious conservatives of any stripe aren’t likely to find a better man than Sanford.
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:02 am #
Here’s a better list, sorry I thought the aforelinked card linked to this list, but it didn’t: Sanford record.
He voted:
in favour of chain migration, hopefully on a Constitutional basis (Chrysler-Berman Amendment to H.R.2202)
doubling H-1B foreign high-tech workers, creating foreign agricultural worker program, and continuing foreign nurse guestworker program (for H.R.3736, against Watt Substitute bill to H.R. 3736, for Pombo Amendment to H.R.2202, for Burr Amendment to H.R.2202).
Ron Paul is better in this regard.
—
And this fits in well with Sanford’s supposed ideology of a flat world.
He’s unquestionably a believer in the rule of law and in honest governing. He consistently votes against illegal activity, as far as I’ve seen, and so relative to the dishonest, rule breaking politicians we have today Sanford appears solid on the issue. When legality isn’t in question, that’s when he shows his colours.
What this would mean in the Presidency, I dunno; as a governor he’s pretty good. This type of issue would be voted on by Congress.
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:10 am #
Hmm, actually both Sanford and Paul voted identically (for) H.R.3736 and (against) Watt Substitute bill on H R 3736.
Nothing is recorded (on Congressional website) about Paul’s voting on the Pombo Amendment to H.R.2202 or the Burr Amendment to H.R.2202. Nothing is said of Paul’s voting on the Chrysler-Berman Amendment to H.R.2202 (dealing with chain migration). It was in 1996, so Paul wasn’t in office then; he was reelected in 1996.
Nevertheless, Paul has later votes on similar issues that he was solid on.
Didn’t Paul say open borders won’t work with a welfare state? I think Paul’s of the view that increased legal immigration and workers isn’t always a good thing. Sanford hasn’t voiced such a reasonable stance as far as I’ve seen.
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:43 am #
It says:
Information on Chrysler-Berman amendment impact: to date 2,465,497 more immigrants since 1997 resulting from this amendment alone.
Anyway, I’m not looking to smear the guy. I’m just concerned conservatives are settling again.
Daniel on 14 Mar 2009 at 1:32 pm #
The fact that he likes Hayek and Ayn Rand is a plus to me, but his alleged admiration for liberal globalist Thomas Friedman is troubling. From what I’ve read about Gov. Sanford he leaves a fairly good impression, especially when compared to the other potential 2012 GOP candidates. If Ron Paul doesn’t run in 2012 and Sanford does I would certainly consider voting for him (something I cannot say for Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney).
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 5:35 pm #
There’s nothing alleged about Sanford liking Friedman, though it’s certainly possible he only reveres select parts of Friedman’s thinking, which would not be alarming. Clearly he doesn’t agree with Friedman on Iraq.
The link I provided in the original article offers this:
Weaver on 14 Mar 2009 at 5:45 pm #
That’s not the first time he’s been quoted mentioning Friedman.
A google search brings up: Governor Sanford’s [2]007 Inaugural Address:
And there are other published quotes of Sanford praising Friedman.
But anyway, this is merely a red flag. These things simply provide questions to ask the governor. I’ve never met the man; I’ve only read about him and heard about him.
C Bowen on 15 Mar 2009 at 1:53 pm #
Weaver;
There is one part of the Sanford story that is missing. Last June, he was invited to and spoke to the annual Bilderberg Meeting and this certainly, and rightfully, caught the attention of those who follow power elite angles.
At the time and today, I urged and urge maturity on the subject. Elites, while alien culturally and in many cases outright hostile, have to be engaged. If Mark Sanford is being groomed, lets watch and try to make sense and learn from the process–practice putting ideologies aside and being a mere traditionalist, mere centrists when discussing elections in our absurdist social democracy.
If Mr.Sanford can triangulate the Hard Right with the elite (rather than Buchanan’s mild Reagan Democrat proletarian strategy and outer party alliances), we can talk terms–yes, probably economic and more old republican virtue then pure culture war, but the elite has no desire to raise Mormons or Huckabee style evangelists to parity status–they chose going down with McCain over those options. (Jindal and Palin aren’t worth considerations–the idea is ridiculous.)
Kirt Higdon on 16 Mar 2009 at 2:20 pm #
The Bilderbergers? That’s many a bridge too far for me. These people are in many ways a world shadow government and if Mr. Sanford is engaging them, it won’t be traditional or Christian values which benefit from the engagement. I agree that as of now there are not any worthwhile alternatives, so I may have to sit out a presidential election or two or vote for someone who is practically unknown to the broad electorate. It’s not like I haven’t done that before and recently. But supporting someone from the global power elite? Didn’t the conservative sheeple just do that with Bush?
C Bowen on 16 Mar 2009 at 7:41 pm #
Mr. Higdon;
It’s not that I disagree necesarily, only that to the extent we are going to talk about those being groomed for the position-lets do it with maturity–I would be shocked, shocked to discover anyone in our spheres who doesn’t understand the rigged game part of it all at this late date.
It’s the framing of the arguments that are created on boards like this and a half-dozen others that can demonstrate, for example, why say, “Austrian Economics” might be in the interest of the elite (learning the language, rhetoric, and certain policy points.) They might see why a civil liberties Right is in their interest–they are suspicious of the police services too–and then ‘we’ have to be able to articulate what ‘our’ price is– a sane immigration policy, balanced budgets via dumping the Empire, and so on.
Weaver on 16 Mar 2009 at 9:30 pm #
There’s a lot of diversity of views among “us” – haha.
Immigration reduction and disrupting global trade is important to me though.
I’m not sure the Bilderburgers much care what our price is – they expect we’ll settle for the lesser evil as we usually have in the past.
They wouldn’t like Sanford’s aversion to the Federal Reserve Bank though, unless they’re attempting to break that and replace it with an international version. Paul mentioned that in his Congressional speech before Bernanke’s speech recently: that there could be an attempt at forming an international bank. Which makes sense considering the insane spending policies of the US and EU lately, which will certainly cause hyperinflation late this year or early next year. Everyone from Kiplinger (in his newsletter which I read) to Schiff has said this for months and months, and it’s obvious.
When people start confusing credit with capital, it’s clear there’s a problem. Credit can (among other things) help improve efficiency of capital distribution, but it is not capital. Houses, for example, are built with capital, materials, and labour, not credit.
When people like Schiff are deemed “extremist” for economics 101, you know there’s a crisis approaching.
Weaver on 16 Mar 2009 at 9:34 pm #
I guess I went off topic with the credit issue, but anyway if the Bilderburgers are influential as a group entity (as opposed to a meeting of important people with different and possibly very opposing interests) as people say, then it must have something to do with this.
As you say, they could certainly attempt to influence a perceived opposition leader. If big spending becomes the bad guy, then people like Sanford could become popular.
C Bowen on 16 Mar 2009 at 10:08 pm #
Weaver;
The Council on Foreign Relations rag, er esteemed magazine, is not hostile to Hayek’s idea of competing currencies which is actually the traditional remedy suggested. David Rockefeller himself said he is not “hostile” to Mises’s thinking (there was a moment in time when Mises could sit on a JBS related board with a Revilio Oliver) and represent American manufacturing interests.
The Elite care for the Central Reserve in so far that assists them–they could be shown that its played out and better Greenspan’s reputation then their own finances–an easy made choice when put in simple terms.
The trick of it is that the masses prefer the welfare state–the elite, which just lost a lot of money and has a lot of money tied up in government & municipal bonds, can’t necessarily control the ship from here–it to has interests and competing rivals.
A reasoned conservative populist front, with its people that it trusts, could influence as well, they would need us to sell the project to our neighbors.
Weaver on 17 Mar 2009 at 12:56 am #
Yea, that makes sense. That’s pretty much how politics works, but our biggest leaders would be Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, and their bargaining chips aren’t very strong.
Lou Dobbs could be strong I guess. And Buchanan, even if he doesn’t run. NumbersUSA had some success last presidential election, and it continues to have a noticeable impact. TAC, Chronicles, Takimag, and others too somewhat. I guess more paleos need to make an impact.
It makes sense that they could be fine with von Mises, which could allow for very high concentrations of power since there would be few interfering barriers.
However, I don’t see that happening easily within the current arrangement, at least so far as I understand it.
I agree with the point you’re pushing across: that this is about money and power, which of course is desired not only for its sake but often for results it can bring, and not ideology (that is to say I mostly reject Gottfried’s notion of the Therapeutic managerial state which treats ideology as a driver rather than as a justification).
Weaver on 17 Mar 2009 at 12:59 am #
It takes a wise and skilled man to play real politics as you’re talking about.
Weaver on 17 Mar 2009 at 1:23 am #
The Rockefellers seem to pass their money down the generations, but you look at Buffett and Gates – they’re giving most of theirs away.
The elites we have today aren’t like the ones of the past. The managerial class is very strange (in how they don’t seek to pass everything down to the next generation).
Eunomia » Sanford on 06 Feb 2010 at 2:00 am #
[...] when I found that Sanford had endorsed McCain in 2000, and I am aware of some of the legitimate complaints against him on the right, but a few things have caused me to take a very favorable view of the [...]