What Makes Georgie Run?

George Santos is one of those amazing American characters who pop up now and again, the outsider desperate to be inside, the “by all means necessary” striver who allows neither ethics nor conscience to stand in his way. Santos is an easy character to mock, given his ham-handed machinations and transparent mendacity. He’s also an easy stand-in for the callowness of the current Republican Party.

Even though the House leadership knows he’s a fraud, they accept him in their fold because their hold on power is so tenuous that they prefer having a literal (allegedly, etc) criminal in their midst than do anything to undermine their tenuous grip on the majority. Even more hilarious, however, is the fact that they cannot denounce him too loudly lest they wind up accidentally splashing the cuffs of the (proven) fraud who leads their party. To excommunicate Santos for his relatively petty crimes is to be forced to confront their Golden Leader for his far lengthier and more expansive criminal history.

The new 23 count superseding indictment against Santos alleges that he committed identity theft and credit card fraud while running for office, accusing the then-candidate of funneling donor money into his pockets for designer clothes and to issue a fake loan to his campaign. Rarely has the aphorism “You get what you pay for” been more apt. The man could not suspend his own fraud long enough to run for Congress, which, I’m sorry, is hilarious.

And here I confess the following: I have some sympathy for George Santos.

America can be a cruel place to those born into modest circumstances. Santos is the child of Brazilian immigrant parents. His mother picked beans in Florida before moving to New York City, where she worked as a nanny and housekeeper. His father was a housepainter. These are not auspicious circumstances from which to launch one’s self. Yet it’s impossible to live in this nation without wondering how far one might rise, the leagues one might travel if only given the opportunity. Santos clearly wanted to be somebody. Anybody. Maybe the winner of a Brazilian drag queen contest. Maybe a Republican member of the American House of Representatives. But how? For Santos, a person of little obvious talent or intellect, what were his options for achieving such heights?

He could have worked his ass off, certainly. He could have studied hard and gone to Baruch College or the Stern School of Business at NYU… or he could just say he went to those schools. He could have done any number of legitimate things to rise in this nation, but those sorts of things maybe take the kind of hard work, sacrifice, and dedication that Santos was unwilling, or unable, to provide. Better to cut some corners. When confronted with unpleasant truths, better to create more pleasant ones. In this way, George Santos becomes Anthony Devolder, son of the “first female executive at a major financial institution” who survived the 9/11 attacks only to die a few years later (Santos’ mother never worked at a major financial institution and was not in the South Tower during 9/11). Or one could claim to be a reporter, an investor, an actor on Hannah Montana, or, perhaps, a model. One could elicit sympathy by being the descendent of Holocaust survivors or claiming to have a brain tumor. One could start a charity for pets or for children with rare genetic skin disorders. Santos has made all of these claims.

None of them are true.

But the truth is more than reality as we know it. The truth can also be created. That’s the genius of George Santos. He understands that “facts” are malleable. They can be bent, adjusted, cajoled. They can be connived. When facts are less friendly, they can be massaged. Maybe George Santos didn’t literally attend Baruch College as a star volleyball athlete, but who’s to say such a thing couldn’t have happened? In fact, who’s to say such a thing shouldn’t have happened if only the world had been a little kinder to poor George Santos?

Because the problem isn’t him. He understands his value. The problem is the rest of the world who does not. If he has to conjure a few confabulations to make them see, then where is the harm? If he can convince donors that he worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, doesn’t that just mean that he could have worked for those companies? And if the man they met could have worked for those companies, doesn’t that suggest that he might as well have? And if he accomplished the things he claimed - as his donors seemed happy to believe - doesn’t that further suggest that he is just qualified to run for political office as those who actually did?

Santos is more than a man. He is an expression of American exceptionalism, proof that somebody with nothing can become a person of influence and power in this great country. American history is littered with crooks and frauds who achieved greatness. The harm isn’t in committing tax evasion or fraud or foisting highly addictive opiates on the American population, the harm is not being able to afford expensive enough attorneys to immunize yourself from your misdeeds. It is gauche to be caught before one has a stable of high-powered lawyers on retainer. In this regard, Santos found himself, to borrow a Washington DC cliché, over his skis.

And so we are left with a mess. George Santos is now facing 23 counts on a range of charges, which sounds bad until you consider that the leading Republican presidential candidate is facing 91. By that measure, Santos is kind of a slacker. On the Democratic side, Senator Robert Menendez has only been charged with 3 counts for bribery, honest services fraud, and conspiracy; dozens of Democratic Senators have called on Menendez to resign. No Republicans are issuing similar calls for Santos.