Gov. Sanford's long, perhaps naked, hike

Tuesday morning, a Google search of "Appalachian Trail" revealed some 1.2 million hits. The top result was a news story about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford skipping out of his state for a few days to visit the trail over the weekend.

The second hit (I'm assuming this is a coincidence) was a feature story about Naked Hiking Day.

Whether or not Mr. Sanford wore clothes on his outing afield is his own business. Today I discuss the reactions from other South Carolina state officials, past and present.

Evidently, Sanford sneaked out for multiple days without telling the lieutenant governor (a separately elected position in that state, and in this case a political rival), legislators, his security detail, or even his wife, precisely where he was going. He turned off his cell phones and only infrequently called back to check in.

Staff members were aware of Sanford's intentions and of his vague destination. But they were unable to pinpoint exact geocoordinates of his location, nor were they able to speak to him on the hour every hour.

Some, including Bob McAlister, who served as chief of staff for a previous governor of that state, have argued that Sanford's actions were egregiously irresponsible and unprofessional. "From a professional standpoint, this can't happen," McAlister said. "It's very disconcerting."

State Sen. Jake Knotts shares Sanford's party but also has long been a rival to the governor (from what I've read, Sanford is far more popular with his constituents than he is with his coworkers in the state capitol). Knotts also has insisted on near-continuous connectivity with the governor.

"As the head of our state, in the unfortunate event of a state of emergency or homeland security situation, Governor Sanford should be available at all times," Knotts said. "I want to know immediately who is running the executive branch in the governor’s absence."

To an extent, this smacks of the universal criticism that politicians can lately expect from their political rivals; such actions have, unfortunately, become standard operating procedure in many political circles.

But I think it belies a reality far more disconcerting that the one worrying Messrs. Knotts and McAlister. That is the point I wish to address here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my continued fondness for Mr. Sanford.

In his absence from South Carolina, there have been no hurricanes, riots or floods. (And if there had, the state's Constitution grants the lieutenant governor authority to act in the governor's absence during emergencies. The National Guard can be duly called out, and requests for federal aid can be expeditiously made, even if the governor is in Timbuktu and has sworn a vow of silence.) Neither the hordes, nor the Yankees, have invaded. The state's police forces, its cities' fire departments, it's highways and bridges, they have all remained. Wal-Marts did not close down. Attorneys continue to litigate, doctors to heal, factories to produce, loggers to chop.

Despite Mr. Knox's demand to "know immediately who is running the executive branch," I have seen no reporting of private citizens sharing the same concerns. The lives of South Carolinians are entirely unaffected.

A governor is not the president of the United States — he has neither the responsibility nor the authority to handle foreign relations matters that do not rest. A governor (or senator, or other potentate of almost all description) can walk away for a few days and most people won't even notice if they don't see it on TV.

For all the attention paid to Mr. Sanford's (four days and counting) vacation, the world has not stopped. We don't need a guardian to remain in the governor's mansion, or even a phone call away, on call for every second of every day. Knox and McAlister seem to think that because the governor is on vacation, the rest of us will forget to wash our hands after we go to the bathroom, or to buckle up when we get in the car. They're wrong. We can survive just fine on our own.

Many news reports of Mr. Sanford's outing have used descriptors like "bizarre" to tell this story of a man who has a stressful job and wants a few days away. I have a theory on that: Mr. Sanford is a committed conservative who resisted the idiotic "economic stimulus" plan passed by the federal government earlier this year. He will command a tremendous and growing amount of respect in coming years as more people realize that the stimulus was a sham and a trillion dollars was wasted. My sense is, those who call his trip "bizarre" are trying desperately to paint him as an oddball.

Maybe he is. Maybe on Sunday he wandered the Appalachian Trail in full naked glory, with all the other oddballs. That doesn't matter that much, in the long run.

What matters is, for a few days an elected official did not insist on "fixing" something, did not seek a new rule to enact or a new tax to levy. He spent a few days not regulating, not managing, not enforcing. Or to put it another way, he spent a few days not trying "to improve peoples' lives."

And people's lives continued just fine.