George Santos releases bold statement pushing back against calls for his resignation (msn.com)
I get it. Santos argues that he should remain in office, because "[he] was elected by the people." On the surface of it, that's certainly as should be. In my opinion, Marjorie Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis, Marco Rubio, and Rick Scott should remain in office, because they were elected by the people. Donald Trump was a different story, because he was never elected by the people, but he got in the first time on the technicality known as the Electoral College. The problem here is that "[he]" -- George Santos -- was not elected by the people. Some imaginary person invented by George Santos was elected by the people.
And Santos adds, with his now characteristic lack of what Tulsi Gabbard calls "shame," that we don't want "lying," or specifically, according to Santos, that we don't want him to lie. I agree with him.
When he uses euphemisms, like that he only "embellished" -- made up things that were not remotely true -- but didn't lie, he really makes the situation worse.
To more clearly understand the hole Santos has dug for himself, when he alleges that "the people" elected "[him]," "the people" have tried to tell him otherwise. Not only do his House of Representatives colleagues want him out, but even the people who voted for "[him]" want him out.
One way of understanding Santos' argument, which started possibly before Santos was born, and soared into the stratosphere with Trump, is what Lee McIntyre in this linked article calls "Post-Truth." Such a concept is completely mind-boggling, like "alternate facts," and it leads to an expectation that nothing is real, and nothing has to be real. You just have to say whatever you want, and that becomes the new framework. "Post-Truth" technically means after truth, and it very clearly implies that we're no longer dealing with truth. Perhaps we no longer feel a commitment to it. Santos can say he graduated from any college(s) or university(ies), that he worked for anyone, that's he's also a self-taught brain surgeon, that he invented the light bulb, or whatever he wants. He calls these assertions..."embellishments." They're not strictly and technically specifically correct in the usual understood sense, but if he thinks them, then they can feel sort of true to him, which makes them true. Unless he's just lying, which he reassures us he's opposed to doing. Unless that's a lie, too. Once you unhook yourself from the truth, or any responsibility to it, there's no place you can't go.
Oddly, McIntyre says that the scarier thing than lying is getting away with it. McIntyre needs to do a bit more research. Getting away with lies is very old news. If all the snake oil salesmen weren't long dead, he could ask them.
It would be inclusive and right to say that someone should have "fact-"checked Santos' extensive profusion (is that redundant?) of lies a long time ago. The media and journalists in his area of New York should have been more on the case, and the people who voted for him (and now regret it, and want him out) should have been at least a little more surprised, and maybe skeptical (that such a young and unheard-of guy claimed such impressive accomplishments). And that's not wrong. A lot of people fell down on the job. Which they shouldn't have. But none of that excuses Santos from coming up with all this insane nonsense. That was his choice. There are people in jail right now, like that Holmes woman from California, for doing exactly what George Santos did, although for a different purpose. It's certainly fair to say that Santos might be on the path to joining them, but even that fact, and whatever realization of it he permits himself, hasn't stopped him, or even led him to resign (which it seems the vast majority of people keep telling him they want him to do). Rep Robert Garcia (D {I know}-- Calif) says "nobody wants him in DC." If you can consider that to be other than partisan, it's a hell of a statement. (Maybe Ted Cruz wants Santos there, because now, Cruz is the second most unpopular elected person in DC.) I haven't seen any evidence that it's not true, except, of course, that Santos wants himself in DC. My guess is that that tenacious desire is going to cost him big.
I said, in the title, that I'm always interested in a good and logical argument, but Santos isn't giving me anything to work with.
No comments:
Post a Comment