A King David for Our Times
Good rule of thumb: When you’ve violated the Ten Commandments every which way from Sunday, you’re probably better off choosing a non-biblical analogy to explain why you’re not giving up your powerful public office:
When South Carolina governor Mark Sanford made his rambling, tearful admission of infidelity on Wednesday, some people felt a bit of sympathy for him. Sure, he probably had no intention of coming clean until he was caught in the act of returning from Buenos Aires — but, once he finally got around to it, his confession was relatively heartfelt and not as obviously self-serving as we’ve come to expect from straying politicians.
Of course, that was Wednesday. Given time to collect himself, Sanford’s GOP instincts for hypocrisy wrapped in sanctimony appear to have made a full recovery. Via TPM Muckraker, in the course of “apologizing” as the start of a cabinet meeting, Sanford invoked the biblical story of King David, who didn’t quit his reign over his affair with Bathsheba.
Nothing says “Republican” better than citing the Bible as an excuse for clinging selfishly to power, does it?
It gets worse. Let’s take a look at that Bible story Mark Sanford publicly identified himself with:
As King of Israel and Judea, David saw Bathsheba in the bath (he was walking on the roof at the time, goes the story) and immediately had to have her. After getting her pregnant, he tried to conceal it by ordering her husband Uriah to return from war and sleep with Bathsheba, so that the baby would be thought of as Uriah’s.
But Uriah preferred to remain at war. So David gave an order that Uriah should be abandoned in battle, ensuring his death. Then he married Bathsheba.
Well, okay. But we all know that Gov. Sanford is a deeply, devoutly religious man, right? Which means he must have read the part of the Bible about David impregnating Bathsheba, trying to deceive Uriah into thinking the baby is his, and then arranging for Uriah to be killed, right? So we have to take him at his word that King David is a role model in these matters. Anyway, that’s his story, and he’s sticking to it:
In a statement issued after the meeting, Sanford doubled down on the David analogy:
I remain committed to rebuilding the trust that has been committed to me over the next 18 months, and it is my hope that I am able to follow the example set by David in the Bible – who after his fall from grace humbly refocused on the work at hand. By doing so, I will ultimately better serve in every area of my life, and I am committed to doing so.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
29 Responses to “A King David for Our Times”
David was king. Sanford is a governor. Last I checked, kings were not elected or impeached but occasionally overthrown. Will South Carolina citizens have to form an army to unseat him?
O Yes! Kathy is this an indication that he is deeply religious or is he a Leonard Cohen fan?
Hallelujah lyrics
Songwriters: Cohen, Leonard;
Now, I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light in every word
It doesn't matter which are heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
One of the greatest lyrics of all time. . . i am hoping he is a Leonard Cohen fan. . .and is is a song from his soul. . .
It's late- I just got home and I'm grumpy, which means I shouldn't say everything I want. But I can say that the analogy is great.
You know, it would be easier to take this seriously if there was less glee involved.
Technically I think he only bagged two of the ten commandments, although you could stretch things to include dishonoring his mother and father and not keeping the Sabbath holy.
Anyway the analogy is bad, Sanford is saying he will follow the example of David's putting his lapses behind him, not that his life is a re-creation of David's.
Thanks for the Cohen ordinarysparrow… I was thinking Sanford sounds more like “Bird on a Wire” but “Hallelujah” works, too.
I saw Leonard in Oakland a few months ago, it was grand. Leonard Cohen (and his fabulous band and back-up singers) put on the best concert I've ever seen… period!
I don't know. I sort of take the French point of view, “what's the big deal anyway?”. This is a concern between him and his wife. I think all this “home life is a reflection on political integrity stuff” is overblown IMO. Just look at all the politicians that have fallen into legal hot water but the wives stand beside them “supporting them to end” Never mind their spouse is a crook.
Religion shouldn't even be discussed on the issue. Publicly, everything the man did, should be discussed in terms of laws broken if any. Except privately between the family and their chosen religious guru, religion is irrelevant in the public forum on the issue.
“Nothing says “Republican” better than citing the Bible as an excuse for clinging selfishly to power, does it?”
Actually, quite a few things do. I have no problem with making fun of Governor (or is it King?) Sanford. But this is simply applying a criticism of one person to the whole group. Why not say it's a “white male” thing to do? I would guess that there are more white males in history who have done this than Republicans (though they will overlap).
Beyond that, as someone else pointed out, it's a bad analogy. Sanford isn't saying he's going to have his lover's husband killed and then marry her – which would be the King David story. He's saying that now his sin is put before him, he will atone and regain the public trust. But I understand that a person has to actually know the entire story before they could put that together.
The man made a mistake and looked to the Bible to try to help him correct those mistakes, it really says something about the critic when they point fingers at this.
His mistake is fair game, but some wont let a chance to take a potshot at someone's religious beliefs go by.
You know, it would be easier to take this seriously if there was less glee involved. ~ aabacot
Agreed, the celebratory attitude expressed by a few isn't entirely appropriate. That said, when republicans work so hard to portray themselves as the party of morality and family values, they set themselves up for those reactions. Falls from grace inevitably occur, and hypocrisy by it's nature isn't especially user friendly. I truly feel some sympathy for the man, afterall, each of us is human and susceptible to human failings, and each or us must know that love can be a powerful incentive – for good and sometimes ill. Soulful apologies are well and good, but if they turn into rationalization, spin, or avoidance of accountability, then much of the sympathy is bound to evaporate. The line between the public and private lives of politicians used to be respected more in the past. I'm not convinced that our current fascination with knowing absolutely everything about public officials is such a great thing.
Well, the Democrats certainly could never honestly say that _they_ are the party of “virtue”!
Glee? Pot, kettle, black…
Well if you weight it by sheer numbers, D vs. R elected officials disgraced in office since and including Bill Clinton, republicans have more than democrats. If you weight in deviant or illegal sexual behavior, republicans really pull ahead then. Democrats call it “republican self righteousness”. Republicans may want to call something like, “innovation”.
Well DLS, if you weight it by sheer numbers, D vs. R elected officials disgraced in office since and including Bill Clinton, republicans have more than democrats.
By the same token, Bill Clinton very publicly cloaked himself in religion after being outed on the Lewinsky scandal, seeking 'spiritual consultation” from several clergy including Jesse Jackson. Both parties are hardly perfect in avoiding scandal or in rushing to use religion when it suits them.
To be clear, I think Sanford should resign. You can't just leave your constituents high and dry. But the implication that the GOP is somehow unique in these issues is just more partisan BS.
Leonidas, “The man made a mistake and looked to the Bible to try to help him correct those mistakes.”
Well. Sanford is only trying to correct those mistakes because he was caught. His affair (funded by taxpayers) had been going on for some time. Sanford believes he can redeem himself by quoting the Bible. Apparently he only believes in the Bible when it is politically expedient. When Sanford's getting a little bang bang on the side at taxpayer expense while lying to everyone he's happy to ignore the teachings of the Bible.
Really the issue I have with Sanford is his hypocrisy. He has run as a “family values” and religious man. He also supported impeachment proceedings against Clinton.
Eliot Spitzer, the Democrat did it right when he was caught. It took two days for him to announce his resignation. The statement he gave is spot on. As a public servant he should do what is in the best interest of the people. Spitzer realized he had lost the trust of the people.
Spitzer: “I cannot allow for my private failings to disrupt the people's work. Over the course of my public life, I have insisted – I believe correctly – that people take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.”
The issues with both Sanford and Spitzer are not about sex. Sure it started with the sex, but it's about being effective in office and about trust.
Let Sanford quote the Bible to his wife because the sex part of it is between the two of them. And that just shows that Sanford doesn't get the other reasons why he should resign. Sanford is now trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the public by quoting the Bible, believing that his only fault is the sex part.
Having been misunderstood (“poor me”),mischaracterized (“poor them”) before, let me start with a dozen caveats and disclaimers:
I am a sinner
Democrats are good people
Republicans are good people
Democrats and Republicans both make mistakes
Both Democrats and Republicans are God-fearing people, have moral values, have family values
Having said all that, let me very carefully state my case, (I know it's rather long):
When politicians, government officials, spokesperspons, and pundits of a political party claim to have exclusive rights or title to such moral values, family values and “God-fearfulness,”; use such an alleged monopoly to lord over, preach, malign, demonize and just clubber the hell out of those of the other political party—not just politicians, officials, etc., but the total membership of the party–as being amoral, having no family values and not being God-fearing; and then, time and time again, violate those very same principles and virtues, I believe that's called hypocrisy. But I may be wrong…
That's all I am saying.
I am not calling all Republicans hypocritical or evil; I am just calling out those party leaders,politicians, officials, etc., who have made those principles planks in their ideological platform and then happen to fall through those (rotting) planks themselves,
Furthermore, any Democratic politicians who preach other virtues, accuse Republicans of not possessing thiose virtues and then trample those virtues themselves are Hypocrites, too!
As I have said before,I truly believe that all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever, share virtues and failings equally, including politicians. However, when politicians of either party, or the party itself, use such virtues or failings to vilify the entire opposition, it is not only hypocritical, it’s just wrong.
And, yes, Democratic politicians have been guilty, too.
DaGoat, “Technically I think he only bagged two of the ten commandments, although you could stretch things to include dishonoring his mother and father and not keeping the Sabbath holy.”
OK, good comment. I decided to try the same thing as you- how many commandments he violated (and I'm going to stretch it, like you did).
I come up with:
-Adultery (obviously)
-Covet (is the woman married?)
-Steal (from the taxpayers to fund his trip)
-Honor mother/father (He does claim to be a family values man. I think lying probably falls under this commandment, which I interpret as a broad code to live honorably, thereby honoring the parents who raised and taught you how to live.
-Keeping Sunday holy (he was doing the above, in part or in whole, on a Sunday, and let's not forget that he skipped out on Father's Day, I find this less of a stretch than you.)
-No idols (some of those e-mails make me think he worshipped her, but I'll consider this a stretch)
So the four we're missing:
-Murder
-Bearing false witness against a neighbor
-Using God's name in vain
-No other gods
Does Sanford get extra points for committing these together? How about extra points for committing one in order to achieve another (such as stealing so he could commit adultery)?
In Dante's Inferno, Sanford makes it all the way to the eighth circle.
And of course Sanford has violated the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“…violate those very same principles and virtues, I believe that's called hypocrisy. But I may be wrong…”
you are wrong. Hypocrisy, to quote wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that they do not actually have; this is usually done in order to mask their actual motives or feelings; falseness.
The term hypocrite is widely misused. Many persons state that hypocrisy is the action of 'not practising what you preach'. It is easy to see the resemblance, and completely understandable why there has been widespread confusion. However, this, like many others, is an incorrect definition
so, we may know that something is wrong and say that that thing is wrong but we may still do it. That doesn't make us a hypocrite.
Sanford would only be a hypocrite if he didn't actually believe that adultery was wrong but said that he believed it was wrong. There is no indication that this is the case.
DaGoat,
Well, it's kind of easy to “put your lapses behind you” when you've had sex with someone else's wife, impregnated her, tried to deceive her husband into coming home from war to sleep with her so he will think the baby is his, arranged for her husband to be killed when he won't cooperate, and then married the dead husband's wife. Right?
I gave him bearing false witness since that is often interpreted as lying. I left off covet since I don't know if the woman was married or not. Stealing from the tax payers is a good point but I really can't give him idolatry, so I'd give him a solid five.
oh you are so lucky Steve to have been with LC. Here, his show through ticketmaster sold out in literally FIVE seconds. No tickets to be had anywhere, unless you really were KING DAVID with bags of money. But, I am glad for you. His old poetry books live right here next to my desk.
dr.e
Sanford isn't saying he's going to have his lover's husband killed and then marry her – which would be the King David story. He's saying that now his sin is put before him, he will atone and regain the public trust.
The point isn't whether Sanford is saying he's going to have his lover's husband killed and then marry her. First of all, there is nothing in the biblical story itself to indicate that King David “put his lapses behind him” or had the intention of doing so. In marrying Bathsheba after having her husband killed, he rather continued lapsing — he didn't put them behind him. Plus, God did not consider David's lapses past and gone because he took David and Bathsheba's first-born son, Absalom. The atonement was forced upon David; he did not show any willingness to atone on his own.
Second, the offensiveness of Sanford's analogy is not simply in the grandeur or biblical/historical importance of the individual to whom Sanford compared himself. Sanford is interpreting King David's behavior to mean that he was “putting his lapses behind him,” and apart from the fact that that interpretation is not really supported by the text, there is also the arrogance of Sanford's suggestion that he can “put his lapses behind him” simply by saying so and then holding on to his position of political power. By analogizing himself to King David he is, first, suggesting an enormous level of arrogance on David's part and, second, identifying himself with that arrogance.
Tell me: How can a man who cheated on his wife over a period of at least a year, then continued to lie to her and betray her by continuing the affair after she found out about it and told him to end it, then lied to the entire population of South Carolina and his own gubernatorial staff, deceiving them, putting them in, to say the least, a very awkward position, and leaving the state of South Carolina leaderless for what, if his plans had gone as intended, ten full days, put those “lapses” behind him the day after he is caught? What “lapses” is he “putting behind him,” exactly? The affair itself, or the fact that up until the very last minute that he could do so, he was still lying about it to his wife and his staff, only admitting to it and cutting short his “vacation” when his lies caught up with him? Is the “lapse” he is putting behind him the fact that he would still be with his lover right this minute if he had not been seen at the airport getting on a plane to Argentina?
And how does keeping his powerful political position constitute “putting his lapses” behind him? You put your lapses behind you AFTER you have atoned for them to the people you have hurt and/or harmed — not 24 hours after your disgraceful behavior is discovered and before you have done any of the work necessary to even begin to say you and your family are ready to put the “lapses” in the past.
The man made a mistake and looked to the Bible to try to help him correct those mistakes, …
No, that's not what Sanford did. He made a mistake (actually, he made multiple mistakes, and very serious ones) and then looked to the Bible to try to excuse those mistakes. You don't correct mistakes as serious as the ones Sanford committed by pointing to a Bible passage and interpreting that passage to mean you can just put everything you did behind you the day after you're caught red-handed.
dr. e said: “oh you are so lucky Steve to have been with LC… His old poetry books live right here next to my desk.
Yes, I was very lucky (luck plus the fact they had to add two shows because of the incredible demand). His poetry is on a shelf next to my desk, too. Resting between e.e. cummings and Shel Silverstein.
FWIW: Here's a review and some great pictures.
“Plus, God did not consider David's lapses past and gone because he took David and Bathsheba's first-born son, Absalom. The atonement was forced upon David; he did not show any willingness to atone on his own.”
Because this is such a interesting story and one of the first uses of parable and because David wrote Psalm 51 in repentance… I'd like to clarify:
David did repent and was forgiven.
Absalom was not David and Bathsheba's first born son. Absalom's mother was Maachah (or Maacah). David and Bathsheba's first born son did die a week after his birth, becoming sick after Nathan left David and died before being named.
Nathan told the story that brought about David's repentance.
David did repent deeply *after* Nathan was sent to him and told the parable (one of the first parables told) about the two men, one rich and one poor and the poor man's only beloved little lamb that was taken by the rich man to feed a traveler. (2 Samuel 12) After hearing Nathan's story, David was angry and said, 'As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.' David didn't realize that the story was about himself. Nathan listens to David's outrage and then Nathan tells David that David is that man and David repents deeply as evidenced by Psalm 51.
Psalm 51 written by King David is a Psalm of Repentance which is introduced and begins:
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba
1 Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
Steve K. . . after reading your Bird on the Wire suggestion had to see if it was on Utube and yes a definite fit. . .but then found Alexandra Leaving and got stuck on replay with LC for a while. . .Wow, and you got to see him in concert. . .You must be living the good life. . .
DaGoat, (on the ten commandment thing)- yeah, so a solid five, possibly six if one wants to stretch it. Thanks!
I went back and read the story of David and Bathsheba. I should have done that in the first place; then I would have known that Absalom was not David and Bathsheba's son.
I stand corrected on the details of the process by which David repented and was forgiven. That said, the actual events as set forth in the Bible only make Gov. Sanford's use of that story more inappropriate, not less. David had to pay a price for his misdeeds. That price was the death of his first son with Bathsheba. And pleading with God, fasting, and praying did not persuade God to spare the child's life.
Let me be clear: The concept of God killing David's child to punish him for killing Uriah is extremely problematic for me. I'm not a fundamentalist; I do not take the Bible as a literal model for human justice, or as a not-to-be-questioned instruction book for how to live one's life. The only reason I'm talking about it here is because, if Mark Sanford is going to apply the biblical story of King David to his own situation, then he should be honest about the parallels, or lack thereof. And the truth is that there is no reasonable comparison between God sending Nathan to force David to confront his own misdeeds and then face real consequences for them, and Sanford forgiving himself hours after he was caught committing adultery and misappropriating public funds by announcing his decision to stay governor and “put his lapses” behind him.
Someone searches, of all places, wikipedia for a definition of “hypocrisy.” Don't bother, Republican politicians have given an entirely new meaning to that word—and “it ain't pretty.”
In the story of David and Bathsheba the king keeps his relationship with Bathsheba never seeing the need to set aside his involvement. But I thought in the New Testament, Jesus kind of gave us a new way of seeing adultery when he admonished the woman to “go and sin no more”. Is Mark Sanford perhaps Jewish when we only thought he was Christian???