Tag Archives: political rhetoric

two color line

The Helpful Example of George Santos

Santos created an avatar to enact the resume he wished he had.

Those of us who have spent their careers parsing the language of everyday life know the challenges of sorting out fiction and fantasies from hard realities. The “fiction/fact” dichotomy is easy to imagine, but hard to apply to the idiosyncratic worlds of politicians, influencers, business spokespersons and others.  Over many articles and books, I don’t think I ever felt comfortable to use the word “liar” to describe a public advocate.  That’s a term for a polemicist rather than a scholar.

But not always.

On the very best evidence, New York Representative George Santos is a liar.  As the nation knows, he makes things up that can be fact-checked to the highest  levels of certainty.  In spite of what he claimed in his campaign, he is not a graduate of neither the City University of New York nor NYU. That makes it all the harder to accept that he was in the top one percent of his CUNY class.  Nor did he have a Wall Street career with Goldman Sachs and other investment firms.  And his mother did not work at the World Trade Center.  (Bless her heart, immigration records show she was a hard-working nurse in Brazil, and a house cleaner and health aide in Queens.)  And by all accounts he is far more Catholic than Jewish.

Grifts too numerous to list.

The list of fabrications goes on with a list of lies that would be considered far too brazen for even a fantasy film screenwriter.  It’s clear Santos created an avatar to enact the resume he wished he had. Among other feats, it erased his various evictions, as well as charges of theft pending in Brazil. And it mostly worked. He got elected to Congress, seemingly raised campaign money, and initially gained the approval of a party with its own truth-testing issues.

As a fake, he may do real harm in Congress and with his new committee appointments. It is hard to imagine how he will overcome his character and credibility deficit. Yet–and here’s my point–he has inadvertently provided the nation and his party with a solid benchmark for understanding how Truth must sometimes be obliged.  If many Americans could talk themselves into believing that votes were “stolen” in Arizona, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the Santos narrative allows for no such magical thinking. His lies can’t be finessed. So fantasy-prone Americans –especially candidates and legislators in Washington and across the nation–may need his case to be reminded that Truth and character matter.  His existence in the House of Representatives is thus a useful antidote.  Moreover, his story is cautionary tale for those of us exercising the modernist impulse to always hold out for the possibility of “socially constructed truth.”  We need the example of lies that can’t be explained away even through a fog rhetorical doublespeak.

black bar

cropped Perfect Response logo 1

black bar

The Face of Trumpism Comes into Focus

 In a single 24-hour period the term “Trumpism” went from being a description to a pejorative.

                                                                          USA Today

Americans increasingly learn what they know from what they see. Many still can’t seem to grasp the Covid-19 threat, partly because it is not visible and must be confirmed in a lab. The threat seems abstract, hence not quite real. A hoax, perhaps. This principle of using a simple-minded visual guide for all that matters operates in many spheres of life, and even for all of us in the vivid images of delight in the chaos that motivated the mob at the Capitol.

All were white, and clearly delighted with the mayhem created in spaces most of us think of as sacred.

He started his administration on the Capitol steps four years ago ominously invoking the theme of “American carnage.” Almost to the day it will end, his proxies gave us a representation of what that can look like. In a single 24-hour period the term “Trumpism” went from being a description to a pejorative. As its supporters violated the our grandest government building, we saw its face in ways we will never forget: some costumed as warriors, most seemingly aggrieved by a complex world they don’t understand. Others expressed the feeling that they have been pushed to the margins.  All were white, and clearly delighted with the mayhem created in spaces most of us think of as sacred.

Trump has stood for very little beyond a virulent nationalism, focusing mostly on an unflagging sense of self-regard. He built his Presidency on the sand of his carefully combed visage, as well as a constant rhetoric of grievances. And it paid off, at least for a while. As Senator Cory Booker noted in one of the best of the delayed January 6 speeches in the Senate, Trump supporters seem to be part of a cult, carrying flags emboldened with a person’s name rather than a more inclusive symbol of hopeful values.

Watching the demonstrators milling around the Capitol, I was struck by the fact they seemed to have little to say; no argument to make, no ideal to uphold. “USA! USA!” and “Take back the steal” was heard most often. I’ve noticed the same pattern in other rallies. Holding a banner or flag is the thing. There appeared to be no war to protest, no law to challenge, no congressional action to dispute. They were there mostly to simply witness for Donald J. Trump:  a real-estate speculator turned into a cult figure.