How do you solve a problem like George Santos?

With an outsider’s bemusement – and clearsightedness – the BBC this week asked what exactly could be done about the Republican U.S. representative-elect from Queens, New York.

Santos, who concocted lie after lie to either impress, elicit sympathy or forge connection with groups of people to whom he has none, has forged ahead to Congress. Another spectacle, the most protracted election for House speaker since 1859, has been the only thing to stand in his way.

“Whether a member can be expelled for behavior prior to their election remains a ‘significant area of debate,’ ” the BBC noted. After searching in vain for sure means of censure, the report from London settled on such watery upshots as reputational damage to the Republican Party and potentially “lonely days in Congress” for Santos.

It is hard to reconcile this gray area of expulsion with the litany of mischaracterizations and falsehoods of every variety peddled by Santos, both on the campaign trail and prior to embarking on it.

Here’s a selection of things he said about himself that are not true: that he is Jewish; that he is descended from Ukrainian immigrants (more specifically, that his grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust); that he is biracial; that he attended a private school in the Bronx and dropped out as a result of the Great Recession; that he graduated from Baruch College; that his mother died in 9/11; that he worked for both Citigroup and Goldman Sachs; that he ran a pet rescue charity (fundraising events were held, but the supposed cause never received the proceeds), and that four of his employees died in the Pulse nightclub shooting of 2016.

Grappling with the fact that New York’s 3rd Congressional District was swindled, fingers have been pointed in several directions. People fond of hand-wringing over the state of local journalism were quick to suggest that the organizations tasked with covering Santos on Long Island had failed in their mission. (The New York Times blew apart the Santos scandal with a lengthy, detailed report at the end of December.)

Much apart from the fact that a small newspaper did in fact call Santos’ credentials into question – the North Shore Leader found his claims “inexplicable” and acknowledged that while its preference was to endorse the race’s Republican, it found Santos (“most likely just a fabulist”) to be “so bizarre, unprincipled and sketchy” that they could not – the grumbling about journalism shifts the focus away from where it should by now be squarely fixed.

This consummate liar came along at what is arguably the most hospitable climate for his style of dishonesty in history. We can lash out at newsrooms, but it’s our basic systems of governance that have been weakened beyond recognition. Despite some reassuring repudiation of election deniers and their ilk in the midterms, Santos’ ascension tells us we are still in an environment rife with “post-truth” politics.

People who conduct themselves as Santos has are unfit to hold public office. And yet, unless we take a stand and decide that this cannot stand, it will.

This amounts to more appalling templating for the future of American democracy. As we mark the second anniversary of a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol that was egged on by a sitting president’s false claims of widespread voter fraud, the Santos revelations provide yet another opportunity for a turning point, a chance to redefine what is acceptable and what isn’t. It reflects very badly on us all that, once the customary hum of dismay dies down, it is an opportunity that will be blown.

« Previous

Another View: Time is running out for Afghan evacuees

Next »

Our View: Ice storm of ’98 showed Mainers how life should be