embellishing and governing?
the peculiarity of the George Santos saga
The drip, drip, drip of lies pooling around newly-elected Republican George Santos continues roughly four weeks after the New York Times first questioned inconsistencies in his biography. Santos himself, on multiple occasions, acknowledged ‘embellishments’ in his story which even fellow New York Representatives stated flatly yesterday were lies. These ranged from his family history, his education, his job history, his religion, and his campaign finance statements; all false.
Within the ten days he has represented New York’s Third District, Santos faced countless questions about every aspect of his life, his campaign ethics, and his future. At the same time, during an interview earlier this week, he used hand signals some critics charged were Q Anon or White Supremist symbols. It’s been a rocky few days in office. Mr. Santos is defiant, arguing he will show his truth in the days ahead.
Why does the House of Representatives allow him to retain the seat? Isn’t this an embarrassment of epic proportions? Are the people of his district served adequately by a legislator whose history and statements are the focus of every single public event he attends rather than focusing policy questins to serve those who sent him from Long Island to Washington?
I do not know him; I only know what I have read from a variety of publications (I read three newspapers daily and a fourth on Saturday). I know that his admission of embellishment in late December put him under suspicion for the many politicians with whom he needs be a dealmaker if he is going represent his constituents. The individuals he will need cultivate to pass laws require some confidence that as they put their credibility on the line, they are making a deal with someone who will not hang them out to dry. They now have evidence he is not the real deal when he commits to something. I am not sure how, because of the drips, Mr. Santos can provide that sense of assurance.
Most noteworthy is not that he refuses to step down; it is pretty clear that former President Donald Trump’s boast prior to the 2016 election that he could still win the election even having shot someone in Manhattan is not a radical assertion but at least a plausible one. The sentiment may be outrageous but the candidates and ultimately elected officials we have in the capital these days don’t seem to think their actions are all that likely to cost them elections; apparently rejecting ‘the Big Lie’ is a much more risky step for many.
What is notable is how utterly brazen Santos’s admissions make this. Accountability in our system comes with having a free press which can pursue subjects. A partisan press is less helpful but partisanship is always part of the context, of course. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased journalist, official, military officer; the key is that those individuals not act in a partisan manner. A free press at least has the capacity to examine someone’s statements, pursue questions, double check with others. Santos must have known that scouring politicians’ histories is pretty common, especially someone with such as fascinating alleged biography. Yet he still portrayed himself in grandiose, ‘American story’ terms.
The reason this creates consequences is the increasing number of folks who come to elected office with sullied relationships to truth deeply undermine the compromise process upon which democracy is built. Compromise requires trust, a history of keeping one’s word, and projecting fidelity in a professional political relationship into the future. If an elected official lied to her or his constituents in the run up to the election, how does he or she view them? Expendible in the process as long as they vote for you at least once?
This further erods the public support for a system which works for them. That is tragic and ultimately dangerous for all of us. The persistent assumption that government rewards those who do not play by ‘the rules’ (even our political illiteracy means many don’t have the foggiest idea what those rules are) but punishes those who do play by the rules is absolutely pernicious for faith in a governing on behalf of all. The peculiar case of George Santos, regardless who or what he is, exacerbates that every day he is in Congress.
Further, those outside the United States who hear us trumpet the ‘rules-based order’ must wonder why we apply that term only outside our borders rather than to our own political system when we so clearly do not apply it internally. That does not increase our credibility much, either.
Peculiar indeed. FIN