Should George Santos Resign?
There has been a political hue and cry for George Santos to resign his seat as a New York Congressman. But should he?
Politicians have a long tradition of embellishing and obfuscating both their own credentials and those of their opponents. Huey Long, who used the byname "The Kingfish", was an American politician who served as a governor of Louisiana and as a United States senator. In campaigns, The Kingfish tried to outrage his voters by using stilted language that his electorate would not understand. The Kingfish once accused a political opponent of 'fornicating with his own wife.' The electorate was outraged, not understanding the meaning of the phrase, construing an evil intent to his opponent, and not realizing the Kingfish's true intent. But what is the current political paradigm? The Zeitgeist if you will.
The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the dominant set of ideals and beliefs that motivate the actions of the members of a society in a particular period in time. Ipsism asserts that the current Zeitgeist began in the early 1990's. The Clintons, with the help of James Carville; and a toe sucking political consultant; campaigned on the country being in a recession under G H W Bush (It's the economy, stupid) though economic indicators remained positive through the election. No piker, herself, Hillary (who had been declared an unscrupulous liar and dismissed from working on the Democrats' Nixon Water Gate Committee) would declare any criticism of her man as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Later Hillary would lie that she had been under attack on a foreign trip; start the 'Obama's not a citizen' trope; finance the false Russian Dossier on Trump.
The Democrats would argue that G W Bush was 'selected not elected'; 'Bush lied people died'. Bush 43 was under constant false attacks throughout his Presidency (it should be noted that Ipsism is not a fan of Bush 43).
Obama was widely denounced as being a liar: Rep. Wilson yelled "You lie" to Obama during a speech to Congress; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, called Obama the “biggest liar in the world”. Who can forget, 'keep your doctor'; 'you'll pay less for healthcare'; 'moderate Iranians'; gun-running to Mexico; admitting he didn't have authority for an act before issuing an executive order. The list goes on and on.
Biden is ignominious for his lies, yet they are dismissed as just coming from 'good ole Joe'.
But, the best explanation of the political zeitgeist came from Harry Reed, Speaker of the House, when asked why he lied about Presidential contender Romney not having paid his taxes. Reed simply replied, “We won didn't we?”
And that is the reply that George Santos should give, 'I won, the Constitution requires that I be seated.'
Even though there is a mostly Democrat call for his resignation, he has an absolute right to his seat. Santos has fallen back to the historical meaning of 'hue and cry' -- 'a loud cry calling for the pursuit and capture of a criminal. In former English law, the cry had to be raised by the inhabitants of a hundred in which a robbery had been committed, if they were not to become liable for the damages suffered by the victim'. Santos said that he will only resign from office if asked by the 142,000 people who elected him. So far, no one has established that he committed a criminal act to win his seat.
When good ole Joe boasted that he graduated at the top of his law school class; or was arrested with Mandela; or that his son died in Afghanistan or even that he takes national security seriously - all lies, why is he not asked to resign? What a difference from his first run for President, in 1988, when an outcry caused him to withdraw due to plagiarism? Obviously, there has been a seismic change in acceptance of lies from Joe's first run to the present day.
Even Trump boasted in 2016 of a $10B net worth though Forbes and others said that his net worth was less than half of that.
When a senator had to admit that the war records he boasted of were stolen honor, as he had never seen combat, why was he not forced to resign?
And speaking of lies, why should society so readily accept the lie of transgenders? If a man believes that he is a woman, or vice-versa, aren't we supposed to not only accept the lie but to embrace it? The transgender need not have surgery for a 'sex change', simply feeling that s/he is of the opposite sex is enough to allow biologic men to compete in women's sports, win and even set records. Biden administration officials are allowed to have a handle-bar mustache, wear a dress and declare themselves to be a woman. And we're supposed to embrace that. And when a transgender official (still biologically a male) was named 'Man of the Year' by a satirical website, it wasn't the transgender who was criticized but the satirical website - they were even banned from Twitter!
When Ipsism's Old Coot was a young whipper snapper, we're told that these people were called 'cross-dressers'. Much more truthful, no pretense that they had been able to alter the reality of nature. They were recognized for what they were - men with a psychological problem who needed mental help, not acceptance and glorification of their transformed couture.
So, Santos should say that he really wanted to do all the things that he boasted of in his campaign. Then, the zeitgeist would be required to not just accept his lies but embrace them.
If we can be forced to accept that men are women, why shouldn't we accept George's lies?