Why the George Santos scandal is so historically unprecedented

In ancient Jerusalem, the old King Solomon said “there is nothing new under heaven”. Solomon never knew George Santos.

Thanks to the revelations about a seemingly endless series of lies about his background, the newly elected Republican congressman from Long Island has happened without precedent in American history. Within weeks of taking office, he became a national celebrity without doing anything. It is not that they have actively courted the limelight in the way that figures like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) when they attracted media frenzy as new members of Congress. It’s just that the story is so fantastical and absurd that it leaves no clear precedent.

Since the New York Times first reported on Santos’ lies about his religion, education, and résumé in late December, things have escalated. Almost every aspect of Santos’ life has come under question and the attempt to explain it has become more and more laborious – from the worthy attempt to insist that he never said he was Jewish, but that he was “Jewish,” to his beginnings. steadfastly denied having dressed in drag as a teenager in Brazil before finally admitting to reporters at baggage claim at LaGuardia Airport that he was just “having fun at a festival.”

Santos’ lies also led to investigations by local and federal law enforcement agencies. The New York Republican is facing questions about his campaign finances and how he was able to loan his congressional campaign $700,000 after he was evicted for not paying his rent and also taken to court for not paying his debts. There have been complaints about the conduct filed with the Federal Election Commission and the House Ethics Committee. There are also outstanding questions about a decade of criminal charges in Brazil. Santos has denied this, telling the New York Post, “I am not a criminal here – not here or in Brazil or any jurisdiction in the world.”

Sean Wilentz, a Bancroft Prize-winning historian at Princeton University, told Vox that Santos is more of a character in American literature than American history, citing the work of Herman Melville. At Confidence-Man. “This is not something historians can help with,” he said. “There is no such example.” No, Santos is a foreign object – the rickshaw puller is an American archetype, and there is nothing more clichéd than the dishonest politician. As Wilentz puts it, they are “made of recognizable materials.” But his shadowy figure and compulsive lying on Capitol Hill are still remarkable. “Embellishing happens in a fairly large amount that you can do,” Wilentz said. “It’s a different order because it’s a life that’s made.”

He notes that “it’s one thing to be Marjorie Taylor Greene and make all this crazy stuff, and here you just have a cipher.” Using another literary reference, Wilentz compares Santos to John le Carré’s “nobody who drips all over the novel”.

Santos has been left in an unusual political position. Local Republicans in and around the district have called on him to step down and the defense offered by national Republicans has been lukewarm — based on procedure and precedent rather than a sincere effort to defend Santos on merit.

The Santos joke has become one of the few things that both parties can agree on. As one member of Congress told Vox, “you have Democrats and Republicans texting each other Santos memes. They’re a bipartisan joke.”

However, they also made him a national figure. At polls from early January from Navigator Research, the majority of Americans have expressed their opinion on people, making them more known than far more established and influential politicians like Reps. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). Another poll from Data for Progress shows that more than 60 percent of Americans have an opinion of him, even more than Greene. From those who have heard from Santos, they always have a negative opinion of him – even the Republicans have overwhelming views unfavorably unfavorably the first New York Congressman. In his home state, polls have found that Santos is more popular than Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in Congress, and that he is as politically toxic in New York as he is nationally.

It’s a level of celebrity that penetrates beyond politics. Santos has become a staple of late-night television comedy – he has served a month in Congress and has played the character in two different characters. Saturday Night Live sketch — and Twitter and MSNBC’s #resistance obsession. His office on Capitol Hill has been the site of constant media stakeouts and TMZ cameras follow him around the airport. Even Santos is aware of his new status and has privately expressed concern about becoming a meme.

No one knows what strange path the Santos saga will take next. In recent days, he has been tied to his Russian oligarch cousin (who accused Santos of scamming). they) and accused of defrauding homeless veterans by siphoning off money from a fundraiser for veteran service dogs. (Santos has denied this.)

Almost every twist and turn the saga has taken so far has entered uncharted territory. While Congress has provided scandals for nearly two and a half centuries, they all have familiar roots in common human traits like ambition, sex, or venality. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee watching a stripper dive into the Tidal Basin after being caught drunk in a car with him is unusual, but alcoholism and adultery are rare on Capitol Hill. Even more ancient crimes – like the 18th century senator plotting with the British to conquer Spanish-occupied New Orleans – come from impulses like greed or the lust for power shown daily by elected officials of both parties.

But Santos is something different. The level and frequency of his seemingly compulsive views mark new territory in modern politics.

After that election, it’s hard to imagine that there will be any future members like her – there will be a stronger effort to check that politicians who are eager to claim to be college volleyball players aren’t just making it up. they go to college, let alone play competitive sports there. But if something is chosen in the future, at least historians will have an analogy.