Rep. Santos: A Tale Of Graft And Identity Politics

In a sadly unsurprising development to the saga of Rep. George Santos (R-NY), the House Ethics Committee has found that the self-described businessman and financier “cannot be trusted.” After their investigation found evidence the congressman had misused funds at nearly every stage of his campaign – spending donations on things like a Las Vegas getaway, adult website subscriptions and even Botox treatment – the committee has referred his case to the Justice Department and launched a renewed effort to expel him from the House.

Even congressional colleagues who refused to vote for his expulsion last month are now calling for his ouster. Current House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) called the findings “very troubling,” and Rep. Jeff Jackson (D-NC), one of the few Democrats to have previously voted against Santos’ expulsion, has now tweeted that “The report is fully damning. I will vote to expel him.”

I voted to make sure Rep. Santos received his due process.

He has now received it.

This report is fully damning. I will vote to expel him.

— Rep. Jeff Jackson (@JeffJacksonNC) November 16, 2023

While Congress’ sudden discovery of a moral compass is a cheering development, the whole debacle begs the question: how did an unrepentant and obvious grifter like George Santos get elected in the first place? The answer is identity politics.

George Santos the candidate had an identity that was a New York Republican’s dream. The son of Brazilian immigrants — perhaps the only true thing about him — whose grandparents survived the Holocaust — without being in Germany — and whose mother died on 9/11  — impressive, as she was in Brazil at the time; he attended a prestigious New York high school — he didn’t; graduated at the very top of his class from Baruch College — nope; earned an MBA from NYU — never actually attended any institution of higher learning; worked for Goldman-Sachs and Citibank —not according to their records; and campaigned as one of the first openly gay Republican candidates — despite being married to a woman until a divorce just prior to his congressional run.

For the Queens district full of financiers with socially liberal views that Santos sought to represent, his story – his identity – was too good, or too good enough, to be uncritically accepted as true. It did not matter that he had no political experience or policy recommendations. The invented facts of his lineage, leanings and learnings were as good as fools’ gold.

It is always a disservice to American citizens when identity – creed, class, color, etc. – rather than policy or content of character is used to sell a candidate who may end up creating laws that affect millions of people. Santos proves that the right is by no means immune to the identity politics pointed to as an issue exclusively plaguing the left.

The real story of George Santos exposes the corrupt philosophy at the heart of identity politics: it doesn’t matter what you think; it only matters who you are — or who you pretend to be.