(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . In the case of the boy who cried wolf, the lie gets a win either way [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-01-25 Fraudster and un-fabulous fabulist George Santos—a person who may have, inadvertently or not, entered into a corrupt bargain with the House GOP to deliver the Speakership to Kevin McCarthy (Santos, as it stands, can be seen as the tie-breaking vote)—has issued a statement that he has received death threats. (To be more precise, he has said that he was the target of an assassination attempt, before he had even joined public life. “’We go back to our house, it was vandalized because we were at a Republican party,’ Santos said,” according to The Hill.) At the outset, let me say I condemn all death threats. And of course, in any decent discourse, this would be the standard, a floor of decorum that normally goes unsaid. In normal circumstances, it wouldn’t need to be said. It would be understood. But here we cannot view this story without also noting that Santos has demonstrated himself to be a liar at every turn. So here we have in this man a person who now is issuing this statement that may be true, but also may not be true. We honestly cannot know, because the very point of contention of his assuming a role as U.S. Representative is that he has misrepresented himself at almost a molecular level. Nearly everything we purport to know of him can be called into question. So, on the one hand, we must condemn all death threats in all circumstances. At the same time, none of us would be blamed for at least wondering: is this another scam? A scam to end all scams—worse, a scam for sympathy? These are cynical questions, born of a cynical time in our history. If we doubt Santos’ story, he can rightly go back to whatever audience he has cultivated (or is in a process of cultivating—see flashing white power sign on House floor as evidence of fly marketing technique) and claim that, see, those heartless liberals don’t care one whit about us Republicans, even when we get death threats! Hypocrites, soulless babyeaters, harrumph, MAGA!” (Or whatever the opportune phrase Santos or his handlers may use to gin a sense of grievance.) But if we—even provisionally!—grant that Santos may have received this threat, and it turns out he really didn’t? Then that’s the ultimate troll. (This would be in the same vein as such following along the line of speculation that David Depape, Paul Pelosi’s attacker, may be transgender. At least, as the speculation went, that was what he had told his jailers. That self-identification was indeed promulgated in some venues of the media. This was buoyed by the right-wing agitprop wing, featuring such wit as Charlie Kirk saying that someone should be a “hero” and pony up bail, while simultaneously rumormongering that the encounter was not an assassination attempt gone awry but rather a lover’s tryst. Trolling.) As I understand it, this is a classic Catch-22. There’s no way to hedge this moral bet. If we say we can’t know if he’s telling the truth, then extremists could point to that as “proof” of not caring about death threats to Congresspersons. If we merely extend condemnations of violence, we run the risk of sounding hollow; however, if we go further than that and also offer support to Santos, if he is trolling, that would be even worse in the long run than being forced to eat crow, as so many left-leaning commentators and comedians did after McCarthy secured his Speakership vote. It would be like eating a boiled shoe. Not a pleasant experience. But of course, we condemn. We can hardly do otherwise. We live in “interesting times”; as such, it is incumbent upon all of us to deny a foothold or purchase for any untoward, malign intent. As for Santos, this episode shows that we still cannot trust him, and that there is no win-stance for Democrats in this situation, politically speaking. Either he’s lying or he’s not. If he is, then we’re punked. If we wonder aloud or suspect that he isn’t, then we’re the heartless villains that conservatives have caricatured us as: we fulfill a stereotype. But even evaluating the statement for validity, as would be called for in the case of an inveterate liar, means that the Truth has taken a hit, and all that rises above is image. Who voices what condemnations, how the media portrays that horse-racish aspect of the back-and-forth in this tense political climate: all of these become as or more important than the actual issue of normalization of violence. We run the risk of becoming desensitized, surviving if only by clinging to disbelief, if just until the next news cycle. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/25/2149146/-In-the-case-of-the-boy-who-cried-wolf-the-lie-gets-a-win-either-way Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/