Fiction. I thought maybe I would never be able to correlate that word with politics. 

George Santos to me is a screenwriter, a creator of his own fictionalized and idyllic world, and we are watching his fantasies play out in front of our eyes. 

Santos has proven to me that the creation of fictional characters is not limited to the novels I read.

It is frightening to see that the manipulation of a human being’s identity is not seen as a social threat to the people Santos should honestly serve.

How can a screenwriter of his nature reach a position in Congress of such relevance?

According to Soo Rin Kim, from ABC News, in November 2022, Santos was elected to “represent New York’s 3rd congressional district.” 

This means, from that point on, Santos started to build a contract with his people of complete and true service.

But apparently, this only works in a dystopian world.

The world that I see is the most real and hard to look at one, filled with layers of lies, one on top of the other.

Santos denies that his personal funds were used to support his campaign, which would violate finance laws.

“In a previous version of his campaign disclosure, the $500,000 was reported as a loan from George Anthony Devolder-Santos, with a checked box indicating it was from “personal funds of the candidate. But in an amendment to that report filed on Tuesday, that box was left unchecked,” Soo Rin Kim said.

Ensuring there is a disclosure of campaign funds is not just a court requirement, it is a social demand.

Santos’ fictional narrative is not limited to his neglect of the law.

Santos goes further in his novel and even confirms that his mother was in the twin towers in the 9/11 attack.

“But official immigration documents reviewed by The New York Times on Wednesday directly contradict that claim, too,” Michael Gold, a reporter from the New York Times, said.

Santos adds a tense moment to his story by narrating the chapter in which he lost four of his employees in a shooting at Pulse nightclub in June 2016.

“The Times reviewed news coverage and obituaries and found no evidence that could support the claim,” Gold said.

The story comes to a confrontational climax when he claims that he created a charity group to raise funds for surgeries on a service dog belonging to Richard Osthoff, a disabled veteran.

“Santos reportedly raised $3,000 and then took the cash for himself. This experience with Santos drove Osthoff to contemplate committing suicide, he said. 

Santos, meanwhile, has dismissed Osthoff’s claims as “fake,” Kelly Rissman, a reporter for Vanity Fair, said. 

To compose his character profile, Santos said he attended renowned schools any reader could recognize: New York University and Baruch College.

“In December, the Times first reported that none of these institutions had records of Santos’ enrollment … and Santos soon confessed that he had lied on his resume and had never graduated from any college,” Anisha Kohli, a reporter for the Times, said.

This first-person narrative puts him in the place of a person worthy of the wounds of glorious battles.

However, the truth, with the potential help of investigative journalism, becomes the villain of this story.

For the people, however, this journalism is the great hero that pulls us out of the mire of misinformation.

When it’s about politics, it’s about service.

For there to be a concrete and targeted service to its constituents, the truth should be a more basic premise than two plus two.

It is a clear political and social disservice to see fiction in places where fictional characters are not welcome.

It is necessary to leave to the screenwriters the role of creating narratives incompatible with reality.

It is necessary to leave the role of rationality and social conscience to politicians.

I believe this would not be too dystopian.