A Conversation with Representative Mark Sanford

A lot of people are angry right now. They are angry because of the constant cycle of mass shootings in our country and the inability of our government to respond and create change. A lot of that anger has been directed at lawmakers and rightfully so. This morning, one of those lawmakers was in Summerville. So, I decided to ask him some questions and see what his plans were to protect the public from more shootings. I also asked him about offshore drilling and President Trump.

            Mark Sanford (R) represents District 1 of South Carolina in the US House of Representatives. He has had a long and complicated relationship with South Carolina, serving as governor until 2011. During his time as governor, he was most notably involved in an extramarital affair and disappeared for six days in Argentina with a mistress. While in office he became well-known for initially rejecting the money allotted to South Carolina by President Obama's stimulus plan and restructuring the state's DMV. He won a special election in 2013 for District 1 and has held that office ever since. This year he is up for reelection and is running against Democrat Joe Cunningham and fellow Republican Katie Arrington.

            I did write up an analysis of this interview that pointed out some things and highlighted other things but I am not going to release it yet. Maybe I won�t release it at all. Everything Representative Sanford says in this interview speaks for itself so there is no real need for an analysis. I liked some things that he said and I did not like some things he said. In the wise words of Forrest Gump, �That�s all I�ve got to say about that.�

            Here is the full interview:

My first question is about offshore drilling. If Secretary Zinke does not pardon South Carolina like he did Florida over President Trump�s proposal, what can you do at the national level to protect our state?

I can make noise. In fact, the bureau held a public hearing earlier this week in Columbia and before I went to DC I went to speak at a rally there. So, I can speak out. I met Zinke, he was to be my roommate up in Washington and I ended up passing on it but he�s a great guy and a good friend and I�ll continue to have conversations with him.

But what I would say to folks is that regardless of where one is on the issue of offshore, it�s ultimately bigger than the issue of offshore. There�s two different levels. One is the issue of federalism: the idea that not all decisions need to be made in Washington, that local communities ought to have a degree of input in the way that their communities develop. I�d say this issue is not all about offshore drilling and all of that, it�s about how we make decisions in this country. Secondly, you know, the one core value that is instilled in Americans is this notion of equal treatment. That we don�t go to a king or queen as plaintiffs for a hope of favor. We believe that if a law or regulation or government edict is in place that it�s applied uniformly. I have had conversations with the secretary saying, �What you can�t do is what you�re doing. You can�t say there are three considerations we looked at when examining Florida. They are heavily tourism reliant, they have a unique coast, and we need to take in the input from local and state reps. You can�t say those three things and then not apply them to South Carolina.

Following the shooting two days ago in Florida, what can you do on the national level to combat violence like this? What can be done to protect everyday Americans from this?

            I don�t know. We�re going to have a continued debate. Everybody wants an answer. In this instance, you had a young person that was clearly troubled to the extent that the local school identified him as a kid that they wouldn�t allow to even bring backpack into school. And so, some of the answer is going to be at the local level. Whether you are for or against bump stocks, Massachusetts outlawed them over the last couple of weeks. Maybe we need to look for a remedy at the state level. It�s a tougher issue than immigration. There are ten enumerated rights that come with being an American. One of them is to hold a gun. Now, the original intent of the founding fathers was that ultimately, guns are the teeth behind every right that we hold as Americans and there had to be some degree of symmetry between the force of government and the force of the individual. So, the idea was, if push came to shove, you could have an armed insurrection against the government. What we have done as a society is said that we are not going to allow you to have tanks or bazookas, those are illegal, but if it�s a carried arm we will allow you to carry it.

            There would be enormous pushback from folks on the pro-second amendment side of the equation to further restriction there. I think it�s a-a quagmire. I don�t have an easy answer. There�s something afoot that is clearly societal in nature that goes well beyond simply guns. It�s the larger notion of violence and the way it�s addressed.

            I grew up and I don�t remember this kind of thing happening.

What changed?

Well, it had something to do with the breakdown of the, in other words, what I�m saying is that some of this issue is going to be addressed by churches across this country, then it will be in legislative halls in state capitols and even the halls of Congress.

So, I think what we can do right now is do a better job in making sure guns are not allowed with the people that they are not currently allowed with. But sometimes they get them.

I voted for the Nix improvement which was a vote back in December and it afforded another $1.3 billion to help state and local governments coordinate. Some of these gun purchases have fallen through the cracks. In the Texas shooting, information that was held by the Air Force in terms of the dishonorable discharge was not forwarded into the Nix system and as a consequence the shooter was able to buy a gun when he shouldn�t have been able to. It was sort of a crack in the armor. The Nix improvement bill was about making sure that those cracks don�t exist. I think there are things that can be done like that that can be practical in nature, and that�s not palatable to others but it�s a starting point. And we�re going to have a robust conversation on root causes.

I remember taking a shotgun to high school. Not inside obviously but you would go duck hunting in the morning and you would go to high school and it would be no big deal. Nowadays it would be a real big problem. Society is changing and we need to look and we need to look at the scary angles. Society is changing.

You were in office before Donald Trump came around and changed our country so much. What�s been the biggest change on Capitol Hill since Trump took office?

            I don�t know if I buy into the hypothesis of the question. I wouldn�t say that Donald Trump has changed the country. We are a country of over 300 million folks and you can get the biggest bully pulpit and you can get the biggest microphone but you are not going to change the viewpoint of most people out there.

            I would say that he is a symptom of the country. He is a symptom of people�s frustration with Washington talking but, in many cases, not doing. In fairness to Congress and the political process they are not easy answers to many things that people want an easy answer to. And when you begin to hash it out and with the bulk of media outlets, people get self-selecting news. If they are really conservative they are going to listen to one set of stations. If they are really liberal they listen to a different set of stations. We aren�t talking to one another. When I grew up the only outlet in terms of news were half an hour a day or so and that was it. Now you�ve got this twenty-four-hour cycle of media and it plays to respective audiences.

            So, I would say he is a symptom, not a cause. On the good side, I remember being down in Beaufort County and talking to some older folks and they said, �We get it. We don�t like the way he is rough around the edges, but we want somebody to break china in Washington.� Not the country. And that was why they had voted for him. In fairness, on the regulatory side, I think he has been good. He�s done good in terms of dislocating the political system in Washington. In terms of bad, the way he treats others is not consistent with what I have tried to teach our four boys on the way you treat others. At times he is too rough around the edges. With these tweets he creates some of his own firestorms. Like any of us he has good and bad characteristics.

Thank you very much.