With the exception of David Joyce (OH), who voted “present,” every Republican voted to kick Ilhan Omar off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, possibly the most blatantly racist action the House has taken since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Especially jarring, after the disgraceful vote, was when the chair recognized Brazilian criminal George Santos and he was permitted to address the House. “Today I rise,” he read from only somewhat coherent remarks prepared for him by his staff, “to congratulate my colleagues on voting to remove Representative Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. The passage of H.R. 76 sends a strong message that we support Israel and the Jewish community. I urge the 118th Congress to now stand together, proudly upholding every single American no matter race, pedigree, religion nor creed has any American than their neighbor, that Jewish Americans are patriotic Americans and that we all have a role in fighting bigotry and anti-semitism in our country. We must make sure that the House of Representatives reflects such principles as a united body.”
What a defender of the Jews! Almost on a level with his colleagues QAnon Jewish Space Laser psychopath Marjorie Traitor Greene and Arizona Nazi Paul Gosar. Let’s turn to the Jewish daily newspaper based in New York, The Forward, to see how they celebrated Santos’ defense of their co-religionists. Reporter Jacob Kornbluh noted that “An overwhelming majority of Jewish voters in New York’s 3rd Congressional District– 94%– think their freshman Republican representative, George Santos, should resign from Congress over a web of lies about his background, according to a new poll published Tuesday.”
Santos has come under fire for lying about having Jewish grandparents who fled persecution during World War II and calling himself a “proud American Jew” during the campaign. He reportedly posted offensive remarks about the Holocaust and made jokes about Jewish stereotypes before he ran for Congress.
…In an interview with an NBC reporter on Saturday, Santos repeated the debunked claim that he has “Jewish ancestry” but he refused to engage with the media about the revelations that his maternal grandparents were both born in Brazil before the Nazis came to power and that his mother was a practicing Catholic.
Only 9% of Jewish respondents said they voted for Santos in November. His Democratic rival, Robert Zimmerman, who is Jewish, received 72% of the Jewish vote.
Nonetheless, 63% who said they voted for Santos on the Republican and Conservative lines regret their choice. According to the poll, 87% of Jewish voters do not think Santos can be an effective representative for the people of the district, and 81% say it was wrong for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to have seated Santos on two lower-level House committees.
…Santos gave a speech on the House floor on Friday marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. On that same day, a number of descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors published an open letter to McCarthy urging him to respect the memory of those that perished in the Holocaust by forcing Santos out of office.
“To falsely claim to be a descendant of Holocaust survivors makes him both a traitor to the sacred memory of those we lost in the Holocaust and a traitor to the truth,” Linda F. Burghardt, a scholar-in-residence at the Holocaust Memorial & Tolerance Center of Nassau County, New York, and a resident of Great Neck, wrote in the letter.
Earlier this month, Jewish Republican elected officials in Nassau County called on Santos to submit his immediate resignation.
Bruce Blakeman, Nassau County’s first Jewish executive, called Santos a “stain on the House of Representatives” who deceived a large population in his district “who identify themselves legitimately as being Jewish” with his lie about his grandparents.
Reporting for FiveThirtyEight.com this morning, Geoffrey Skelley wrote that “Santos is unpopular everywhere, not just in his district. In mid-January, about 3 in 5 registered voters across New York state told Siena College that Santos should resign, and majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents held an unfavorable view of him. And Santos’s infamy has made him unusually well-known nationally (as well as unpopular) for a House member who’s only served a month in office. In a YouGov/The Economist survey released last week, 52 percent of Americans held an unfavorable opinion of Santos, compared with only 14 percent who had a favorable opinion, far worse numbers than those for a divisive figure like Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia in recent YouGov/The Economist polling. It’s impossible to know if the intensely negative views of Santos will eventually precipitate his resignation. Only a two-thirds vote of the House can force him to exit, unless he decides on his own to resign. Given the GOP’s narrow House majority, such a vote is unlikely to happen anytime soon, especially considering Santos occupies a swing seat that Democrats could win in a special election. But the more the public has learned about Santos, the worse his numbers have become. And for better or worse, Santos’s decision to decline his committee assignments will almost certainly not be the last time we hear about him in 2023.”
In 2023? Is he drunk? It will almost certainly not be the last time we hear about him today! After all, is there any other member of Congress willing to give their staff members tips about where to get— or not get— botox injections? In an opinion piece for Politico yesterday, communications strategist Danielle Tomson explained that Santos will never resign because he’s getting the attention he craves. “Like many of those in his generation, the 34-year-old millennial lawmaker has watched national recognition lead to power and influence. In an ‘attention economy’ like the ones created by social media platforms, attention is the most valuable currency, over truth or morality— even money. Santos is simply a product of his environment… Those trying to shame Santos will find their words falling on deaf ears: For the congressman, it is more important to be noticed than liked.”
After the global financial crisis in 2008, so many in my millennial generation faced the cold reality that a stable job, home and retirement were not givens. Not only that, it was the corrupt big banks that were getting bailed out by the government, not average Americans. With the additional backdrop of a failing War on Terror, cynicism about power, institutions and truth set into my generation. Creating a “personal brand” became a way to rely on the one thing that would never go out of business: ourselves.
A “fake it till you make it” attitude pervaded this personal branding environment. If powerful people lied for money or power and got away with it— be it in the 2008 financial crisis or the pretense of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq— why could you not embellish the truth a little?
Luckily, anyone could make a business out of themselves using new social media platforms that could quickly turn a regular person into an internet celebrity. Venture capitalists placed bets on “unicorns” with inspiring stories that could reap fame— while attracting users and investors. Online news, like Breitbart or The Huffington Post (which employed a young Andrew Breitbart before he founded his own site), discovered personality-driven news drove more traffic. Forbes launched its 30 Under 30 list in 2011, jumping on the influencer-driven media bandwagon and creating the heroes-cum-villains of my generation.
As media scholar Alice Marwick points out in her book Status Update, new Web 2.0 technologies encouraged a fixation on status, attention and getting followers in a world of influential leaders. And the increasing demand for content left little time or incentive to look behind or dig deeper into a click-generating story.
Politicians have simply adapted to this moment, according to Gaetz, who interviewed Santos while guest hosting on Bannon’s podcast. “If we didn’t seat people on committees who embellished their résumé running for Congress, we probably wouldn’t be able to make quorum,” Gaetz said.
Santos likely thought he was doing what everyone else was doing in the age of the influencer.
Although he denies any criminal activity, the congressman has admitted to a number of biographical fabrications. And with that, Santos joins other too-good-to-be-true alleged scammers in the news cycle, albeit in different fields, who doctored their personal stories (and businesses) for influence, power or money. The most recent examples include fallen crypto giant and effective altruism-acolyte, Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX, or student aid entrepreneur currently being sued by JP Morgan for $175 million, Charlie Javice of Frank.
Be it in politics or start-ups, all of these figures played to the incentives of a media and tech landscape that rewards individuals who can sell a niche-story, regardless of its veracity. Such tall tales get clicks, funding, donations and attention from people who want an outsider to do the impossible. In Silicon Valley, it is a story of young people who “do well by doing good” and could growth hack their way to market dominance. In Republican politics, that story may be one of a gay, Brazilian immigrant businessman with “Jew-ish” roots and a questionable animal charity, who also backs Trump’s “Stop the Steal” election denialism.
It’s a risky game to play, but these attention seekers think their fame— and the influence, money or power they assume will come with it— will insulate them from consequences. And for now, it seems to be true for Santos, who has so far successfully dodged calls for resignation.
With Santos joining the orbit of people like Burra and Gaetz, I am even more sure that the performance will not stop. Like a World Wrestling Entertainment fighter, Santos has joined a political promotion where he must fashion a new role for himself. Playing the well-meaning MAGA-dunce may just be it.
As much as other Republicans, such as Speaker Kevin McCarthy, may express doubts about Santos to the press, Santos and his daily tabloid exposés are now the perfect diversion. Republican-run legislatures around the country are introducing bills banning drag, while Twitter can’t stop talking about Santos’ time as a Brazilian drag queen. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene got a seat on the House Homeland Security Committee, even after saying “we would have won” if she had organized the Jan. 6 riot. Yet, this news is not as salacious as Santos receiving money from a cousin of a sanctioned Russian oligarch. The GOP has little reason to kick out such a welcome distraction.
Our technology, politics and media have created structural incentives for a scam — and our culture seems to love it. We live in a love-hate relationship with billionaire unicorns and untouchable CEOs. Forty-four percent of Americans believe they can become billionaires, while 40 percent simultaneously hate billionaires. We rue a Gatsby. We live to gossip about a scammer. We may even find it badass (and Netflix-binge worthy) when faux-heiress Anna Delvey, born Russian-German immigrant Anna Sorokin, nearly scammed the world’s biggest banks into investing in her startup.
In a similar vein, far-right influencer Jack Posobiec wrote in one of his books that “Donald Trump is an anti-hero.” From Tony Soprano to Frank Underwood, Americans love an anti-hero who will do bad things for noble reasons and has a complex moral character.
Yet lying one’s way into a congressional seat is different from scamming powerful people like venture capitalists, big banks or (in Trump’s case) the Deep State. Santos has reportedly lied about his mom dying in 9/11 to New Yorkers who have experienced the horror of terrorism. Faking to voters about such things is punching down, not up. That, it seems, may have been Santos’ true transgression, and one we might see more often as more members of our generation seek office.
