'Fair is foul, and foul is fair' (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
In the arena of modern American politics, few figures have enjoyed an ascent as rapid as Vivek Ramaswamy. This 38-year-old son of Tamil Brahmin immigrants has positioned himself as the intellectual heir to Donald Trump in the current Republican primary — with a heavy emphasis on “intellectual”.
By the standards of American political discourse — never quite on a par with the UK’s Oxford Union tradition — Ramaswamy has displayed all the quintessential qualities of a great debater. Each of his words, whether you agree with it or not, strikes with laser precision. He knows exactly what he is doing. And it’s working: his poll numbers are on the rise, resonating well beyond Trump’s staunchest supporters while retaining this critical base.
Yet Ramaswamy’s adept leveraging of Trumpian language is less an embrace of ideology than a shrewd tactical move. In a political climate where Trump’s influence looms large, Ramaswamy has made Trumpism his own, albeit with a bit more nuance. When it comes to politically sensitive topics such as Ukraine or Taiwan, Ramaswamy is adept at threading the needle. He panders to Trump’s base with an initial broad stroke — arguing for a more hands-off approach to these nations’ security affairs — only to follow it up with a meticulously detailed explication that he can seemingly recite from memory. This strategy allows him to engage a broad swathe of Republican voters, from the most zealous Trump supporters to those who prefer a more nuanced stance, as well as some anti-imperialists on the isolationist Left. When media outlets or rival candidates accuse him of U-turning or selling out his own party, Ramaswamy counters by claiming his remarks are taken out of context. And then, with remarkable alacrity, he delivers the much-needed context, nullifying the critiques.
For all the attention he commands, however, Ramaswamy remains an enigma. Yes, he’s a family man, a monotheistic Hindu, a Harvard and Yale graduate, and an an accomplished national-level tennis player. But what else is there to him? Is it pure, unadulterated ambition, or is there more than meets the eye?
In the realm of American politics, few debaters have shown Ramaswamy’s rhetorical skill. Consider Senator Ted Cruz, who served as Solicitor General for the state of Texas and has appeared before the US Supreme Court nine times — securing victories in five cases. Cruz has delivered 34 appellate oral arguments, a record unmatched by any practising Texas lawyer or current member of Congress. Yet Ramaswamy’s talent eclipses even Cruz’s considerable gifts. Cruz is smooth, but he is thoroughly unlikable and can’t respond in the off the cuff the way that Ramaswamy has mastered.
At this point, the competition seems less between Ramaswamy and his Republican opponents and more between Ramaswamy and the boundaries of political discourse he is continually pushing. In that battle, he seems to be carving not just a niche but an entirely new landscape.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI like Ramaswamy and I would suggest he’s not a particularly complex character.
The first thing to note about him is his intellect. He was valedictorian of his high school. He didn’t just go to Harvard for his BA, he graduated summa cum laude in biology. Then he studied law at Yale. He is extremely bright and can, as the author notes, understand complicated problems and explain them to a general audience at the drop of a hat.
He then went on to have a remarkably successful career, first in a hedge fund then by founding his own biotech company which sought to cheaply in-license drugs from big pharma that had failed in clinical trials and test them in other diseases. That strategy had enough home runs to make him rich.
As an aside, he’s an accomplished pianist and, as the author notes, a highly-ranked tennis player.
In my opinion, like many gifted people, he’s primarily a meritocrat because meritocracy works to his advantage. That’s why he has little patience with race-based quotas or other preferences based on ethnicity or gender: let everyone compete and the best will rise to the top. He’s fundamentally a capitalist more than a politician.
The other considerable talent he possesses is handling “gotcha” interviews. He goes on left-wing talk shows where he knows the interviewer will try to trip him up and holds his own (a risky strategy but so far it seems to be working and raising his public profile).
As the author notes, he’s playing a shrewd political game; simultaneously appealing to the Trump base (even to Trump himself) while also appealing to some moderate voters.
I know his strategy is working because the msm is now furiously trying to take him down. There’s almost an industry of anti-Ramaswamy articles.
The question I can’t quite figure out is his end game. My best guess is he’s either positioning himself to be the obvious choice if Trump has to pull out of the race because of his legal troubles, or he wants to be Trump’s VP and is reasonably confident Trump will not complete a first term because of the law suits (although Ramaswamy denies wanting to be Trump’s VP).
We are in a time of profound change when the old system and its leaders no longer work for most of us. Something, and someone, new is needed. Even if Ramaswamy’s political ambitions ultimately fail, I view him as the first of a new generation of politicians trying to bring fresh and innovative leadership to our country.
Great post.
I admire your confidence and only wish I had the same.
Golfclap !
Why is that a mere comment and not the main article.
“In my opinion, like many gifted people, he’s primarily a meritocrat because meritocracy works to his advantage.”
He has many impressive personal accomplishments, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a good candidate for President. Does he have the sound political judgment to make workable policies for people who do not have his drive and determination? What would he propose to do about the widespread Fentanyl addiction in the US? What about the enormous and growing wealth gap? Where does he stand on the status of immigrants entering through the Southern border? These are not questions which can be solved with a spreadsheet and telling people to work harder and smarter.
As Tina Turner almost said: “We don’t need another hedge fund manager”.
If you believe him, he is a patriot that realized the American Dream and sees the opportunity for others to realize that dream slipping away. He wants to restore the America that gave him so many opportunities. He says he will always do what he thinks is best for the country.
Ramaswamy is young. His end game is likely 2028.
Meritocrat is a great term. Something we should expect from leaders…real talent.
Socialism is effectively a bureacratic Yes Man system that favors the compliant over the talented.
Hierarchies are natural. They will exist in any environment. The goal is to create the fairest Hierarchy and one based on talent is the fairest system. I’m glad we’re starting to see impressive people rise over the stifling magisterial bureacracy that squelches talent in favor of mediocre yes men.
It’s not that a meritocrati system is fairest, but that it is most productive and efficient, providing a bigger “pie” to then get “unfairly” divided up.
It would be great to see him debate Biden, though I doubt that Biden’s team would allow that.
Another Ramaswamy voter here. He is able to run as the pro-science candidate without sounding too ‘techy’ for the Trump base.
“While he claims not to deny climate change, he simultaneously challenges the prevailing scientific consensus.” I would quibble with that, as apparently does Ramaswamy. One can both accept climate change and challenge prevailing political consensus on the nature and remedies to the challenge. It is my experience that Ramaswamy, unlike traditional politicians, accurately addresses complex problems with well-articulated, complex answers. Should we have a problem with that?
No we shouldn’t, but complex answers are notoriously difficult to sell. Perhaps the question could be rephrased as: does democracy have a problem with that?
Breaking: A guy running for president is ambitious.
Thank you Mr. Bryant. I have Watched Some of the hour long interviews. He is impressive and comes out better than one minute answers in a debate.
Ramaswamy is by far my favourite candidate – smart, successful, ambitious and articulate. I wasn’t thrilled with his comments about a climate change agenda hoax. He was being a bit deceitful in an effort to pander to some Trump voters. Still, he’s by far the best candidate IMO.
There is room for a climate agenda hoax next to a climate change reality. Just like it’s possible to acknowledge a climate change problem and oppose a climate change crisis. Ramaswarmy seems to disagree with the measures, if such a temperate word can be applied to such radical actions, taken to address climate change, not with the idea of climate change itself.
I think he was playing word games, which I don’t like.
Let’s evaluate how effective green policies are by taking the case of Germany. What did the greens do.
Closed nuclear plants Vastly increased subsidies for windmills and solar which caused energy prices to soar.Found that solar did not work that well for a country that is lies north of the 45th parallel and is cloudy in the winter.Vastly increased dirty coal (lignite) burning, This policy both greatly increasing their carbon footprint and causing other pollution that (according to an NBER paper) kills several thousand a year.Became reliant on Russia for natural gas.So to summarize, following the green agenda; impoverished people by making energy more expensive, increased both CO2 and pollution and had serious negative consequences for Germany’s national security.
I believe that when Ramaswamy says he is opposed to the climate agenda that is what he is talking about.
The cost of energy soared because Putin cut off Europe’s and Britain’s oil supply that came from Russia. Germany wasn’t the only country affected.
You’re saying that Putin sabotaged his own pipeline?
Germany was made particularly vulnerable by extremely bad policy decisions. They simultaneously strengthened Putin’s hand and increased carbon output, whilst deindustrializing and placing their citizens in a cost of living crisis. Germany has the dubious of distinction of being the poster child of how not to Go Green.
I agree that net zero will be an unmitigated disaster and that Germany is just starting to feel the impact. I know Ramaswamy feels the same way and I know he believes CO2 is a problem, not catastrophe waiting to happen. I don’t like the word games though.
In opposing the climate change agenda, Ramaswany was the one candidate who came right out and said we need to build nuclear plants. THAT is the climate roadmap that would really have an effect on the problem.
So we can agree that there’s a climate change “problem” but not a “crisis.” Wow, that makes no sense, but I think that’s your way (or Ramaswamy’s) of saying “let’s do nothing.”
Please educate us all on what we should do.
he is bit more nuanced. He agrees to climate change, that too brought about by humans. However his sticking point is climate change agenda/policies
He still seems like a precocious lightweight to me. It is more likely he is angling to be Trump’s pick for VP. He can’t steal Trump’s supporters away from their god and he can’t win the nomination. As other have pointed out why buy a copy when you can have the original.
A Donald Trump victory is the only way the world can avoid, or at least delay, a US-provoked nuclear exchange.
I think he’s actually auditioning to be Lady Macbeth, but otherwise happy with the analogy LOL.
I can certainly see him as President sitting down to discuss government policy with Diane Feinstein, John Fetterman and Mitch McConnell.
Vivek is a great example of a highly intelligent, very successful person who suddenly has to make sense of the global politics of power and makes a complete idiot of himself. We have seen it before in a bit different flavor with of it in the case of Obama and his Russian pivot. The idea that Russia can persuaded by the US, or any other power, to stop its wet dream of becoming a great dominating power in Central and Eastern Europe, and, together with China, to end the American domination in the world.
What Vivek is saying about Ukraine is devoid of any understanding that this is the US chance to stop worrying about Europe defense by working with countries that, unlike Germany, would not mind spending 2-4% on their own defense against Russia. Poland, Ukraine and Baltic Republics, Finland are credible allies provided that some idiot in the WH does not decide one day to make nice with Putin.
It will cost US less over time, and will allow it to focus on China without weakening its position in Europe. Vivek plan is to betray all allies in Europe, betray Israel, destroy US credibility, and then fight Xi. How stupid it is?
Ramaswamy is in the race to do one thing: wreck any apparent front runners to smooth the way for Trump.
Seems he’ll say just about anything to get attention, please a ‘base’ and, crucially, attract v rich donors. For example I doubt he cares much about abortion but if saying something some rich donors, like Leonard Leo, want to hear he’ll say it.
And if he needs to grope deeper into conspiracy shadows to get the profile he wants he’ll do it.
Ker-ching.
Now where we seen this before?
Well said Sir! Spot on.
From every other politician in the world.
Yes to be fair many politicians can tend to say what they think folks want to hear esp when trying to get elected, but this fella a bit more unique in the dangerous conspiracy twaddle.
Someone we’d want with their finger on the button? I think not.
Unfortunately though for all his playing to a specific gallery GOP highly unlikely to go for a non-white candidate when it comes to it, even in this day and age. Quite a similarity there with the Tory members back in UK one suspects.
I liked Hally, and I think Christie much more honest too. I think they’d both beat Biden fairly easily. At some point GOP ought to click that it has candidates that can almost guarantee the end of Biden, but it seems wedded to the nut-jobs that just might allow Biden to wriggle through. Memberships not always the smartest are they. I mean Corbyn was another similar example arguably in the UK.
94% of Americans support interracial marriage and you think a bunch of people in the GOP won’t vote for a non-white candidate. Based on what?
GOP members about 8% of US pop, so I guess poss the 6% clusters?
You’re assuming the 6% who don’t support interracial marriage are white.
You missed the ? in the sentence. No assumption made. I never brought up the inter-racial marriage issue.
However stand by my suggestion GOP highly unlikely at the moment to select a non white. The demographic of GOP membership, whilst changing slightly with more hispanic still overwhelming white and of certain generations. Fact so many seem to prefer a criminal, sexual predator who will illicit white supramacist support if he thinks useful to him, may just suggest something in it don’t you think?
I won’t argue this endlessly. Let’s say all the racists support trump and the GOP. I think I’ve demonstrated that this is such a small fraction of the population that it would have very little impact on the GOP selection process.
Another reason he won’t get the nomination is that he’s not a Christian. No way.
Hmm. Biden keeps telling us what a threat to democracy the fascist MAGA crowd is, while the Dems spend about $10 mill supporting who they consider the most extreme candidates in GOP primaries.
Too young. He needs to vary his schtick a little.
He follows the Obama model and is not to be trusted. Only Trump would make a deal with Putin over the Donbas republics, and he will not be allowed to take power again.
I’m uncertain how anyone can be considered an intellectual if they believe climate change is a hoax and peddles other red pill type conspiracies.