A New Standard for Scandal

 

Photo Source Google.

A Republican congressman from Florida is under federal investigation in connection with the sex trafficking of a 17-year-old girl. He won reelection in November by a more than 2-1 margin. A Democratic senator from New Jersey was indicted on federal corruption charges in 2015 and was "severely admonished" by the chamber's Ethics Committee after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. He was nonetheless reelected by a double-digit margin in 2018 – the same year federal prosecutors dropped their charges against him.

Scandal? What scandal? House members in both parties have been subject to allegations and convictions ranging from sexual misconduct to financial impropriety and ethics violations – and nonetheless kept their jobs.

It appears that the quote is discussing how the definition of "scandal" has changed in recent years and how politicians are becoming bolder about hanging onto power despite often serious allegations against them. It also highlights how the political environment has become more tribal, where people's perception of scandal is shaped by their political views and party loyalty. Additionally, it notes that gerrymandered districts and the lack of viable alternatives for voters can also provide a cushion for politicians facing scandals. The example of Rep. George Santos, who is under fire for having made up vast parts of his personal life and record, is used to illustrate how even a politician without any defense of their behavior can still hold on to their power, especially if they have contributed to the majority of the party in the House.

The article suggests that the political considerations for a scandalized lawmaker are more complex in a swing district where the balance of power is fragile. In this case, Rep. George Santos, a Republican from New York, holds a crucial contribution to the Republicans' narrow majority in the House. If he were to quit, there would be a special election in the swing district, giving Democrats a viable chance of picking up a seat and narrowing the already-shaky majority of the Republicans in the House. The article suggests that the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, faces a difficult decision whether to call on Santos to resign or to keep him in his position, as losing one vote could have significant impact on the party's majority in the House.

The article suggests that the political considerations for a scandalized lawmaker are more complex, and depend on several factors such as the strength of their grassroots support, the support of local party leaders, and the value the subject holds to the larger caucus. It is noted that the more valuable the subject is, the less likely the people with whom the person works are going to cry foul and demand that person step down. The article uses examples of Rep. Matt Gaetz and former Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who were easily reelected by their constituents despite facing allegations of misconduct, due to their strong grassroots support and support from local party leaders. On the other hand, Rep. George Santos is in an unusual situation because his very ethical and legal issue is that his constituents don't know him at all, since Santos fabricated huge swaths of his resume, leaving much of his fate to the political calculations of the party. The article also notes that it is difficult to remove a scandalized lawmaker if they dig in their heels.