What was the point of George Santos? The tale of a modern-day parody in US politics that, notwithstanding, actually happened
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
Voted as Pi Media’s Political Moment of the Year, Republican George Santos, who served as the US representative for New York’s 3rd congressional district, was expelled from Congress on December 1st. His short-lived tenure seemed like a parody in many ways. Case in point: Santos brandishing an unidentified baby in Congress’ hallways during a screaming match with Pro-Palestine protesters seems like something out of a terrible movie. And yet, it really happened.
His expulsion was expected, but nevertheless shocking. He is only the sixth member of the House ever to be expelled, and three of his five forerunners were supporters of the Confederacy.
The expulsion itself was predicated on his extensive use of campaign funds for personal expenses such as Botox, luxury goods and OnlyFans. His campaign’s filings were also littered with questionable expenditures at $199.99, cents below the federal threshold that requires receipts. Santos’ case is far from the first campaign finance scandal: in 2012, Jesse L. Jackson Jr., a Democratic congressman from Chicago, resigned amid a federal investigation, and was ultimately charged with spending $750,000 of campaign funds for personal outgoings. And in 2019, Duncan Hunter, a Republican congressman from California, pleaded guilty to charges that he spent more than $200,000 in campaign money on personal use.
Nevertheless, Santos stands out: beyond spending campaign money on personal use, he also lied about his background. His CV indicated he held positions at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and that he attended Baruch College. Neither claim is true. He stated that his mother had been working at the World Trade Center during 9/11 and that it “claimed [her] life” (she actually died in 2016 from cancer). He also contended that his grandparents had escaped the Nazis during the Second World War (there is no evidence of this), and later backtracked on his religious identity, stating “I never claimed to be Jewish … I said I was ‘Jew-ish’”.
While his ridiculous lies are admittedly entertaining, they are also far-reaching when considered in the political landscape. On being questioned, Santos told the New York Post: “I’m embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume. I own up to that… we do stupid things in life.”
Regardless, it begs the question: how did someone whose entire life story was built on lies become elected to a position of power? And will this kind of political caricature be preventable in the future?
Santos now has 23 criminal charges leveraged against him by the federal government and is expected to go to trial in September 2024. In the meantime, he’s busy making Cameo videos and trying to make as much out of this media field day as he can. In a recent interview with comedian Ziwe he said “I’ll be back … I’ll outlive them, each and every one of them” when asked about a return to politics. Equally, Santos’ story might show future candidates how to abuse the campaign finance system, despite his ultimate downfall. It is also worrying that 112 Republicans still chose to support him in the vote for expulsion.
Media discourse has jumped on the unfolding of Santos’ lies. SNL cast member Bowen Yang’s skit ‘George Santos Expelled Cold Open’ is essentially a six-minute eulogy to his career, with lines such as “If I’m guilty of anything, it’s for loving too much-slash-fraud” and “they whispered he used my donations for Botox, and I said it was fillers, slut” hilariously encapsulating Santos’ entertaining and narcissistic demeanour. Funny as they may be, however, most of Yang’s jokes are not far from the truth: Santos used many of these claims during his political career.
Negative reactions to Santos were even seen in staunchly Republican-supporting news outlets: Brian Kilmeade from Fox News was harsh on him in an interview, in which he read him a list of all his alleged campaign finance violations, finishing with the accusation: “You used campaign funds for your own benefit.” Seemingly, even right-wing broadcasters had enough of Santos’ deception by the end.
General media reaction points to Santos’ long-term meaning and legacy: he was an entertaining figure, but it is worrying that he was even in politics to begin with. The public found a role for him as political comic relief. But now, he will likely disappear. On a more serious note, we can point to him as a case study that will, hopefully, never again be seen in US politics.