What is the "sheep's clothing" here? He is running in the Republican primary, and the case against him seems to be that he has conservative policy positions.
It feels like the assumption is that people would find it strange that a "nice" or "respectful" person could be conservative. There are probably people that feel that way but they probably don't consider voting for the GOP if that is the case.
How is "Trumpism" or "MAGA" differentiated from standard GOP policies here?
Most polls seems to have him in the high single digits in either 3rd or 4th. Those are like peak Tom Steyer numbers. Trumps lead over Vivek is similar to Biden's over RFK.
I think that being civil is good for both sides. The whole basket of deplorables dynamic was that people spent a lot of energy saying “he’s a bad person, don’t vote for him.” That distracted people from actually talking about what’s good for the country. And if more than half of the country actually believes that making abortion, immigration, and trans medical treatment illegal is good for the country, you have to go convince some people. You can’t just call them bigots and hope to win.
Restricting the franchise for groups that on average vote against your party and letting a homicidal nationalist dictator keep gains made invading another country is "certainly not illiberal"?
Anti-anti-Trumpers during MTG's second term: "I don't condone throwing journalists out of helicopters, but keeping children in cages and imprisoning political opponents is supported by many Americans. You can't just label anything you don't like as "extreme""
I dislike this idea being branded as a conspiracy - it is literally true to an extent, but the branding is an attempt to make the idea seem on its face invalid, declassé, only conceivable by bad means. But greater Saudi involvement on 911 is a fair question to ask about
I thought the analogy was pretty clear. Like Trump, he's a dangerous predator (wolf). Unlike Trump, he's pretending to be more docile and harmless (sheep). The "sheep's clothing" is the veneer of civility.
Did you read the part where he describes being against my bodily autonomy as just, respectfully, a difference of opinion, and wants to thank me for contributing babies to the world?
"Ramaswamy has deceptively packaged his rhetoric as respectful and empathetic" is an odd sentence . The rhetoric is respectful and empathetic. It's only "deceptive" if you think conservative is the opposite of respectful and empathetic. He believes standard soapbox conservative things (some with more vim than others, especially the social policy stuff, although the foreign policy stuff sounds crazy), but apparently not Trumpian election-denial, fraudulent ballot things -- which I don't know, seems like a huge improvement?
You're conflating "conservative" with "GOP policy", which until pretty recently was a pretty reasonable simplification for streamlining conversation. "Conservative" is not, by default, "the opposite of respectful and empathetic". And there are still influential people that that identify as "conservative" but reject the GOP. But today the bulk of active politicians willing to put an R next to their name are increasingly disrespectful and cruel - in both policy and rhetoric.
Note I don't claim this is true of the bulk of Republican *voters*. I think many conservative voters identify as Republican because that worked for a long time. They are basically respectful and empathetic, but now that their party isn't, they don't know what to do. Some are abandoning the GOP; some are "holding their nose"; some are finding satisfaction redefining as more radical and aggressive amongst new groups that are embracing it.
(democrats, Democrats, and liberals are having related schisms but that's a tangent on a tangent and I'll resist.)
If I believe that it would be administered fairly, I think a civics test in order to vote would be great! Make it be re-taken every decade. Our country's history with that is...not good, though.
Well the author made no mention of race. If that's what we're supposed to take away: "non-white people (sheep) can be conservatives (wolves) too", she didn't say that.
He has extreme conservative positions (rather than just conservative ones), veering into fascism (when fascism means the type of social policies supported by Mussolini, Franco and Salazar).
I think he tries to come off as more moderate than Trump while actually supporting policies that are more conservative (plus some radical ideas like restricting voting).
I don’t believe Tom Steyer was ever in the top five candidates in the polls. Rama Swamy is regularly in the top three. His numbers are lower, but everyone other than Trump has lower numbers than most of the Democrats in 2019-20.
I appreciate the analysis of his policy positions, and I'm sure that a Ramaswamy presidency would be very damaging to the country.
But on the other hand, I think this article incorrectly minimizes the importance of the tone politicians and leaders take. Leaders through their tone demonstrate to the country what appropriate behavior is, and show citizens whether or not they're valued.
Part of the unique problem of Trump is that he gave a large part of the country implicit permission to be vocal racists, xenophobes, and bigots; and made a lot of minorities believe that the government is against them in ways beyond policy. I don't think a Ramaswamy presidency would have those problems to the same extent.
Of course, that virulent hatred was part of the appeal of Trump, and I don't think it's possible to win over his supporters without that strain, even if you get all the policy positions right. The MAGA core doesn't really care about policy, anyway.
Exactly. This article itself is part of the problem, because the premise of the article is that Ramaswamy should be demonized rather than engaged with in civil, matter-of-fact discussion about the merits of the positions he advocates.
No thanks. Angry demonizing of your opponents is bad and corrosive to democracy no matter which side it's coming from.
What gap? He's not hiding the substance of his policies. He's just not also being an ass***e in his rhetoric to boot. That's commendable, not a point to beat him over the head with.
He's from Ohio? Perhaps the policies could be attributed to growing up a minority in the Regan Era where he said anyone could be an American. My cousin is from Ohio (The same town as Vivek), and those policies are pretty common in the Indian community down there.
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. Some of this stuff is now unpopular enough with his primary voters that it tends to make me think he believes it, and isn’t wearing sheep’s clothing (at least on those issues).
Yeah this is interesting because until pretty recently, it was *normal* (in the US) to have aggressive policies and deferential rhetoric - that gap was *expected*. Trump changed that (with help from people like Limbaugh, Ailes, whomever) so much that now it's actually noteworthy you can have a GOP candidate (albeit a longshot) who has very aggressive policies but uses the phrase "with due respect" on a regular basis.
Bodnick's article couldn't have been written in any prior election cycle.
I think you are confusing rhetoric for argument. Rhetoric is one tool among many when making an argument, but rhetoric is not an argument itself. Ramaswamy is being quite clear and straightforward about his policy positions (his argument) and he is using soft rhetoric, tone, and words.
Where does it say not to engage with him? I think it was a very civil description of his policy ideas and tonal differences. Not a hint of hyperbole in the whole thing, so I don't know how you could say it was "demonizing".
It's not just about tone. It's about predictability and sane behavior. Trump's policies are not the worst, most threatening thing about Trump.
Ramaswamy is clearly not the sort of politician who would make something like January 6 happen. Electing Ramaswamy would not heighten the dangers in Ukraine and Taiwan in the way that electing Trump would.
Maybe by a little but not Trump level. I suspect he's like most Rs who are afraid of Trump, pretending to favor Trump and his agenda while secretly hating him but considering him the lesser evil compared with Democrats
I'm inclined to agree with you, although the failure of any of them to repudiate Trump's efforts to steal the election really worries me that they are attempting to normalize these efforts in the future. For that reason I won't vote for Vivek, no matter how reasonable he sounds. If protecting democracy and the rule of law isn't priority number 1, then the other priorities don't matter.
My instinct is to agree, and if the election were held tomorrow between Ramaswamy and Trump, I would enthusiastically vote for Ramaswamy. But I caution that we have no direct evidence he wouldn't attempt a coup or take a cleaver to foreign policy. We have only the basic assumption that "that's crazy, and presidents aren't that crazy". I sure hope Trump is an outlier on this. But given how little we know, and how weird it's gotten, this is far from certain.
There's still something to be said about the Lee Atwater style southern strategy.
While outright bigotry and violent language is a particularly bad tone and enables all sorts of malicious folks, when Ramaswamy is proudly drafting on all of Trump's policies, but can wrap it up in softer, more academic language, it's worth noticing.
There's the similar issue with whatever's going on with Christopher Rufo.
The belief that gender dysphoria is s mental illness is not an “extremist ideology.” It is a perfectly normal belief in Peachtree City, Georgia, which is a highly educated light red city in a purple county in a swing state. Ramaswamy is also spot on when he says adult transsexuals should be treated with empathy and respect. It’s possible to be civil and decent to mentally ill people while honoring ancient truths about biology and human nature! This article does more to show that Maya lives in a liberal bubble than that Ramaswamy is “toxic.”
I think the writing is on the wall with this with the slow walk away from these interventions for children in the better healthcare systems in the world. The difference with ours is that it will be the tort system instead of experts that set the limits. Look out for the lawsuits over the next 10 years.
Sorry is the idea that gender dysphoria is a mental illness somehow offensive now? We prescribe things for it. You go to doctors when you experience it. It's written up in medical textbooks. It is by definition a mental illness.
Right, but in those textbooks the treatment isn't to tell them that they should stop wanting to be a different gender. When conservatives say, "it's a mental disorder", what they are trying to say is that these people are crazy and their sincerely held beliefs should be invalidated by their craziness. They are using the fact that it is considered a medical condition to invalidate the treatment prescribed by the medical establishment that wrote the textbooks in the first place.
It literally is a mental disorder. The fact that somebody somewhere says it's a mental disorder and also says other things that are false doesn't make the true fact any less true. This is a constant line of argument I see and it's absurd.
I think you missed the part where his OPNION on things like a parent’s right to make healthcare decisions for their child, and a woman’s right to healthcare decisions for herself, are not up for debate.
That’s what makes him extreme. He can shove his ancient truths up your ass if you both consent. Anyone’s OPNION on that is not important nor should banning that be an acceptable policy.
“It’s a losing argument to let people debate my core rights as a parent or as a woman.”
I think this is not a winning strategy. Pro-Choicers should continue to attempt to persuade people to become pro-choice. Trying to deem the topic not up for debate may feel nice, but I think in practice will not have the desired end effect.
"It’s a losing argument to let people debate my core rights as a parent."
I hate to break it to you, but people *are* going to debate those rights, whether you "let them" or not. The State already restricts parental rights in many ways. For example, you can't abuse your children or refuse to have them educated.
Every election cycle the youngest voters are by far the most liberal, but every election cycle each voter cohort slides right as it ages. A little of that is vote switching, but more of it is the fact that the most educated voters tend to start voting youngest. The independents, moderates and non-college voters only start voting in their late 20s and 30s, at which time the age group balances out.
Meanwhile, because of the baby boomers and long life expectancies, over 65 voters are growing as a share of the population, and because of low birth rates in the early 2000s, younger voters are declining as a share of the population. The point being that you can't count on demographics or younger voters to swing politics all that much.
“Christine, I respectfully disagree.” (sorry, couldn’t resist.) Specifically, CONFLICTING rights ARE debatable, and to the extent that, as Harry Blackmun wrote, a growing fetus acquires the rights of a live human at some point during a pregnancy, those rights MAY conflict with the right of a pregnant woman to fully control all health care decisions.
More germane to more citizens is the RIGHT to economic self-determination and access to success in the marketplace, versus the RIGHT of the citizenry (“all of us, working together”, or “government in a democratic republic”) to tax the income obtained from that success, and to do so progressively.
I submit that WHERE YOU STAND on the continuum of either question is something about which “reasonable people may differ,” and in order to have a stable society, we need to be able to debate those issues and make collective, cooperative decisions about where to draw each line or lines, and then come back to those decisions & review/revise them, knowing that we may have gotten them wrong, weighted something more heavily or lightly than appropriate, or that new information has surfaced. Policy debate and voting to change policy is typically a feature of a functioning democratic republic, and I’m “fer it.”
It sounds like you’re dismissing my advocacy for the rights of a fetus as “religious.” Although I was raised Lutheran, I’m not a member of any organized church and I’ve tried hard to separate my “faith walk” from questions of public policy. I feel like the question of “right to life” for a … 39 week-old? 36? 34 (my daughter’s age when she was born)? 28? 20 week-old? you may pick … is NOT strictly one of religion, but that somewhere along there, again as Blackmun wrote and as the pro-choice universe defended for 49 years, a “right” (or at least the viable opportunity) to life EMERGES that has enough weight to be worth more than a question of convenience for a late-term pregnant woman. It DOESN’T go without saying, so I DO say, that any question of life or basic health of pregnant woman should supercede those emerging rights. It seems like most of Western Europe agrees with this basic position.
But again: the question of “the right to levy taxes” vs “the right to keep money I earned legitimately” is much more important, and has a much greater variety of reasonable answers than the question of “when do rights to life begin.” I am somewhat grumpy about having to make common cause with those who hold illiberal views on the latter, in order to work cooperatively for a better society by pushing the answer to the former in a more progressive direction. But it is what it is.
Sorry we live in a democracy and people get to vote, even ones who disagree with you. You can do politics, advocate for revolution, or do nothing. But what you can't do is pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that the things you care about aren't political issues because they're important to you. All political issues are life and death important to some people, or they wouldn't be political issues.
"And we need to make sure they are NOT defined as just differences of opinion. Rights are not debatable....America has no place for this."
The alternative to debating rights is murdering over them (see: "bleeding Kansas"). I, personally, would much rather have debates than murders.
And, looking historical, America does indeed have a "place for this." America saw vigorous debate during the ratification process prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and during the drafting of the Civil Rights Amendments. If you want to argue that debates over rights are a one-way ratchet, then there was also vigorous debate prior to the adoption and repeal of the Prohibition Amendment.
"Both candidates are pro-life but don’t support a federal abortion ban. They both plan to ban gender-affirming care for minors. On education, they both vehemently oppose affirmative action. Trump promised to “cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory or gender ideology on our children,” while Ramaswamy agrees America should “end unlawful DEI indoctrination.” They both support congressional term limits."
Most of those positions are supported by most voters. Even the ones that aren't supported by most are not particularly extreme. Mainstream opinions aren't extreme just because a Republican supports them.
A few of these had me confused, too. Opposing affirmative action isn't exactly an extreme position. I don't know anything about the term limit debate, but that doesn't sound extreme either. Gender-affirming care I know little about.
The rest are questions where poll results could probably shift 20-30 points or more depending on the specifics of the question being asked, and to me represent low-quality demagoguery more than anything "extreme" per se.
I was just saying that I had a lot of trouble following that section of the post. What was "supports term limits" supposed to tell me? When I read that affirmative action part, I thought "well that's popular...what's the definition of a wolf here?" There were some things that sounded like "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and other things that are probably only extreme if you go to Harvard, whether or not I personally disagree with them.
I vehemently disagree with what appears to be the unspoken premise of this piece: that the problem with Trump is his policies. I too disagree with 90% of those, but that’s not *the* issue with Trump. The issue first and foremost is that he is actively hostile to democracy and tried to steal the elections. Secondly that he appears to engage in consistent criminal conduct that seriously endangers national security. And overall that he seems *genuinely* unhinged. And now we can add to the list the fact that for the first time in history we have a presidential candidate indicted on many multiple and separate serious crimes, mostly involving his conduct in office! *That’s* what we mean when we say that Trump “isn’t normal”. Also, rhetoric isn’t just dressing to policy. It matters. Divisive rhetoric and incitement can and does lead to violence. It can and does damage social trust and weakens the social fabric. Having unifying, respectful rhetoric is a critical role for the president.
So for all these reasons, while I won’t support any Republican due to an ideological abyss between me and them, it does seem to me that most if not all alternatives to Trump over there would be hugely preferable. More importantly however since trump seems extremely likely to be the nominee, I think it’s crucial that we don’t inadvertently help “normalize” him. With Trump it’s not and never has been about the issues. Let’s not forget that.
Agree. Any presidential candidate who’s says Trump should receive an automatic pardon has in effect said that they don’t respect the rule of law in general and believe that the Presidency--not just Trump--should be above the law. And that makes any such candidate a threat to the nation’s constitutional order.
It isn't a surprise that someone running in the Republican primary is proposing standard-issue Republican policies. Ramaswamy's improved tone versus Trump is a welcome change and I hope Tim Scott or Nikki Haley adopt it also.
I think the best areas for defeating Republicans continue to be superior Democratic economic and redistribution policies. Give the Republicans credit for one thing though -- their primary has credible candidates who are not all white men.
Yes, I'm tiring of the rhetorical trick where "thing I don't like" is labeled "extreme". I think these guys are bad and wrong and probably agree with the author on most questions of policy, but nothing here is supported by less than maybe 30-40% of the public, so by what definition is it "extreme"? Journalists should let words have meaning and leave the slippery bullshit to politicians and activists.
It hasn't been defined at all, as far as I can tell. It's just an all-purpose cliche used to assert someone or something is outside the boundaries of respectable conversation.
I think this is generally a bad/confusing way to talk. Like, if I referred to everyone who refused to 10x the foreign aid budget, ban AI research worldwide, and devote billions to insect welfare (all much more important than almost all political questions IMO on consequentialist grounds) as "extreme"), despite ~100% of people agreeing with their stance, this would be a confusing and misleading way to speak.
I think that “extreme” in this article mostly means salient to liberals. It’s simply adopting the common rhetorical trick of trying to persuade people that certain positions are so awful that you can ignore the people who hold them. I happen to be liberal, but also don’t accept this concept of extreme.
For example, I don’t believe that wanting or not wanting trans women to compete in girls sports is an extreme position, and I don’t think it has really important impact on the vast majority of affected people. Competitive sports really aren’t important. The vast majority of Americans are not athletic enough to compete at high levels based on simple genetics, and it’s silly and arbitrary to get all worked up deciding which genetic advantages need to be accommodated. But people want to paint the other side as extreme mostly because they view the issue as about the legitimacy of a trans-person’s identity. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be about the legitimacy of identity.
Some of the positions he holds are indeed extreme. Some of them are not extreme, even if I feel they are wrong.
One extreme position is contributing to the Republican assault on the rule of law by promising to pardon Trump and by asking other Republican candidates to pledge to do so.
Republican candidates promising to pardon Trump sucks, but I also don't see how it could be avoidable. Getting away with the various crimes he committed is surely his top priority, and he can alway just threaten to run as an independent and sabotage the GOP campaign if he doesn't get that promise.
Isn’t almost everyone who applies for that job? I liked a lot of things proposed during the Democratic debates of 2020, and I have to admit that many of them would amount to objectively big changes. “Everything’s cool, just keep a steady hand on the plow” isn’t a campaign that you see from a non-incumbent all that often.
I do think some of his proposals are objectively extreme, but some rather standard Republican talking points (which usually are just that with no actual policy intent) are rather extreme. Eliminating the IRS and FBI entirely are very extreme positions if taken seriously! Taking away the right of millions of voters who happen to generally vote for the other party is very extreme! I do think this is watered down when every conservative position is thrown into the mix.
Those I would 100% agree are extreme positions. But most of what this article touched on...not really. I disagree with most of them, but they're pretty common positions and I wouldn't term them extreme.
It's also hard to imagine that those positions are taken with any hint of seriousness. Raising the voting age is not even remotely within his powers, and the other two would quickly result in bad consequences and a huge political backlash. It's kind of the right-wing version of "defund the police".
I mean, candidates should still be called out for making terrible campaign promises even if they are almost certainly just shit-talking, but it does mean those promises aren't very dangerous.
I mean they used too. Then Trump dominated the airwaves. Perhaps now we can finally let the adults in the room and talk some of our differences out and air out the polarization.
I guess I would question the premise of what are mainstream conservative economic ideas. If a plurality of the GOP base is the MAGA wing, then the GOP is an economically populist, anti-free trade party.
If we're talking "let's privatize social security!" then I think those ideas are dead to everyone. But you'll get Fox paying lip service to a few of the old goodies like union busting and excessive government spending.
Only about 1% of the population watches Fox News and the fast majority of them are boomers. Fox is catering to a dying cohort of cranky old people who aren't much interested in details of economic policy.
The article did not mention positions on how taxes should work, or if we should reform the big entitlements at all. Moderating on entitlements in 2016 was a big defining part of “Trumpism”, and it is unfortunate to not see this aspect of policy drawn out more for candidates.
I prefer a more respectful tone and less divisiveness. Even from those I disagree with. Plus I like seeing the other party (or at least some of them) support minority candidates.
I think the mentality you're expressing is a really bad one for the broader left. There's a very specific and terrible history when it comes to black Americans descended from slaves. As a result t's understandable that they've more or less voted as a bloc since they have been able to. But it's a huge, huge error to apply that experience to other non-white groups, particularly those that immigrated here after the 60s. There's no world where I'm voting for the Republican president, and while I hate to be thay guy, the attitude is kind of racist. Moreover Democrats aren't owed anyones vote based on race and it's crazy to act like they are.
I hear what you are saying, (I assuming you are not tagging me as a racist?) but I was responding to the idea that having a black man or woman in the field is not great in itself.
The policy positions they espouse are loud and clear. They are anti American and saying “But they are people of color, isn’t that great?” is likely offensive to people of color who don’t want to be patronized.
No, not tagging you as racist, and I agree, there can also be a cynicism to candidate selection based on racial identity (i.e. expecting people to vote for candidate for no reason other than being the same race).
Where I think we need to be careful is assuming that a candidate like Ramaswamy is making that play. I don't want to overstate the level of welcome Indian (or any Asian) immigrants and their descendants have gotten in the US but I think it's fair to say that their experience of this country is going to be way less wrapped up in the historical white/black divide.
Also, I’m reading your comment like you feel black folks tend to vote as a block because of their shared past history. Just to clarify, they vote in similar ways today because they face a similar reality today. Then they look to their influencers, people they relate to, to help them make decisions about voting, just like any person does, regardless of race.
So to the extent they vote as a block, why would we expect anything else. And that’s why folks like Clarence Thomas are so distrusted.
Far be it from me to speak for black Americans but I'm not sure that's quite the right way to look at it. After the battle against slavery was won there was still a need to unite against segregation and de facto (at best) second class citizenship, not to mention all the terrible things that went along with it, that overrode other interests and differences. That experience created political institutions designed to support that agenda and motivate voting and other activism, many of which still exist today.
Now, obviously they can't force anyone to go out and vote any particular way and there are still a lot of good reasons for black people to conclude it is in their best interest to vote for Democrats. However those institutions still exist and are influential, but there is nothing like them for other groups, nor are they likely to ever be established given the lack of really extreme circumstances that made them necessary.
Wow. Did you just call POC's travelers? This infantilization of minorities from the Democratic Party is what will drive POC's away in droves. We want to be in charge of our own destiny, as America promises.
I am going to brand you as a racist. Please reflect on where your rhetoric is coming from. Are you really only okay with POCs when they share your views?
No it's not made in bad faith. It was genuinely offensive to me. Traveler is another word for Gypsy. Gypsies, who left India and travelled west, back in the early AD's. They were never fully accepted by European society, and were/are victims of persecution and violence. Gypsies were murdered on mass in the holocaust as well. They are also viewed by some as aliens, and those who can never fully integrate or assimilate. Have you watched Peaky Blinders?
I think this notion is deeply offensive. I want the US to be my home. I am not a Traveler, neither is Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy.
Perhaps my reply was heavy handed, after all, I was offended by your rhetoric, and in my opinion hateful phrase. Especially as you feel so comfortable to dish it out with regards 2nd generation immigrants.
As a parent of young children, I think it’s important the President not be an asshole who is rewarded as such by his voters. Kids (and adults) need to see that respectful disagreement and compromise is key to a functional polity. We all know that the policy program espoused on the campaign trail tends to run headfirst into reality once they take office.
I go back and forth on this one. Trump being an open asshole is bad, but at least he makes it clearly known, and eventually we all have to learn that there are assholes in the world and we have to confront them. Compare to a covert asshole like Richard Nixon, who put on a great wolf in sheep's clothing routine on the scene, but did a lot of damage behind the season.
I would say Trump is *way* worse. Trump has continued to do his damnedest to make the country ungovernable by his successor in office (after scheming to hold onto that office).
I see your overall point, but Nixon was a freaking Boy Scout compared to Trump. (Nixon actually resigned, for starters. He jumped before he had to be pushed.)
I agree with others that candidates modeling civil discourse regardless of their views has positive value. People need to debate someone like Ramaswamy logically and his method leaves the possibility of doing so wide open. As others have noted, for the most part his positions don't seem different from Paul Ryan's. I wasn't a big fan of Ryan's. It's bad that Ramaswamy doesn't take the rule of law more seriously. His indulgence of 1/6 rioters deserves harsh criticism. But also have to say that some of the quotes used as evidence of his shrewd evil here were standard liberal positions until recently: civil rights laws have made things better for Black Americans (this has the benefit of obviously being true) and free speech should be protected. Loose rhetoric about how nothing has changed for African Americans over the years, or even "gender is a spectrum" is lazy and doesn't help progressive politics. I think progressives actually would benefit by refining their thinking through debate, something they do too little today, and Ramaswamy provides the opportunity.
Trump is so oxygen-suckingly awful that it has had the unfortunate side effect of shielding progressive positions from any scrutiny or debate. and progressives have gotten nuttier as a result.
I'm sceptical that "MAGA policies" is a useful or coherent category. MAGA/Trumpianism seems to be defined primarily by rhetoric, more than by policy. What unites these policies as distinctively "MAGA"? It seems more like a hodgepodge of GOP policies, some more moderate than what we might counterfactually expect from Republicans (e.g. pro-life, but oppose a federal ban on abortion).
The rhetorical implication seems to be: MAGA/Trumpianism = extreme and bad. But all that actually seems to be shown is that Ramswamy supports many generic Republican policies (as would be expected).
This article was extremely frustrating. He has policy positions and is willing to explain and defend him respectfully. The question is whether he’ll work with the other side to pursue compromise. Given his willingness to engage, I would assume yes. That is definitionally liberal.
Illiberalism is not policy positions I disagree with.
His idea to move up the voting age requirement is not really illiberal. Making the age 18 is a bit arbitrary. If he were proposing to impose the law change without going through the constitutional process that would be illiberal.
Having ideas is is what liberalism is all about and I can sort of see the logic behind this particular idea though it would never ever happen.
Maya, come on, restricting "affirming gender care" to minors isn't extremist, it's consistent with the policies of basically all of Western Europe's public health policy.
I definitely agree that Ramaswamy isn't someone who I'd want to be Pres, but there is something to be said about changing the tone of the GOP. Tump's "cruelty is the point" form of politics, which has been heartily adopted hy DeSantis and others, has been very bad for the country and the GOP turning away from it would be a good thing.
For whatever it’s worth, he clarified his 9/11 comments as thinking the Saudis knew more than they claimed at the time.
Honestly this article kinda made me want to vote for him. I hope he gains more traction- he’d be a considerable upgrade to Trump. He seems like a pretty good dude.
I would recommend reading the articles first, and then watching the videos for what he actually says and does. He does seem like a genuine guy (I won't vote for him because I can't vote).
Like other commenters here, I place more importance than the author does on simply "having a President who is not a complete asshole". That's the "sheep's clothing" part.
As for the "wolf" part, well a lot of his policies are standard GOP policies, yes? Unless you think any conservative is a "wolf" by definition.
Also like others here, I agree that Trump's assholery is a key part of his appeal, and a non-asshole Trump probably can't win.
I read articles like this from the perspective of learning what young elites like Maya think. I know she doesn’t have interesting takes on conservatives. This is the same young person who said one good reason for affirmative action is so there are blacks at Harvard so if a discussion of policing comes up the experts are in the room. In her circles saying this is apparently a compliment?
She says predicable things like Rama and DeSantis are to the right of Trump (unimaginable in her world) and they’re scary, oh and of course they lack compassion or are faking it.
Bari Weiss did good, mature interview with Rama. I do think he has some concerning views. For example, around foreign policy. And I am not convinced dismantling things is best but would agree we have a large administrative bureaucracy that does a lot of dumb things. Matt seems to agree in areas like local government planning departments.
He also appears to be quite bright and a true believer in the American experiment. Those are good things. There is zero chance Joe Biden would engage openly and in long form the way Rama has done over the last few months.
The boilerplate bias against conservatives is pretty boring. Maybe Matt had the intern write this story as a way to disrespect Rama? If so, that’s unfortunate because he is the candidate on the right most openly engaging in discussions around ideas.
What is the "sheep's clothing" here? He is running in the Republican primary, and the case against him seems to be that he has conservative policy positions.
It feels like the assumption is that people would find it strange that a "nice" or "respectful" person could be conservative. There are probably people that feel that way but they probably don't consider voting for the GOP if that is the case.
How is "Trumpism" or "MAGA" differentiated from standard GOP policies here?
Most polls seems to have him in the high single digits in either 3rd or 4th. Those are like peak Tom Steyer numbers. Trumps lead over Vivek is similar to Biden's over RFK.
I think that being civil is good for both sides. The whole basket of deplorables dynamic was that people spent a lot of energy saying “he’s a bad person, don’t vote for him.” That distracted people from actually talking about what’s good for the country. And if more than half of the country actually believes that making abortion, immigration, and trans medical treatment illegal is good for the country, you have to go convince some people. You can’t just call them bigots and hope to win.
Letting Putin keep his gains in Ukraine, requiring young people to pass a test to vote and spreading conspiracies about 9/11 is conservative?
It may not be traditionally conservative but it certainly not illiberal. Putting side the conspiracy theory that is.
Having policy differences and being willing to debate those differences is precisely what liberalism is about.
Restricting the franchise for groups that on average vote against your party and letting a homicidal nationalist dictator keep gains made invading another country is "certainly not illiberal"?
I'd say Isolationism is neither "liberal" or "illiberal", but it has long had a constituency in the US. It's not some fringe view.
Anti-anti-Trumpers during MTG's second term: "I don't condone throwing journalists out of helicopters, but keeping children in cages and imprisoning political opponents is supported by many Americans. You can't just label anything you don't like as "extreme""
9/11 conspiracies like the Saudis had more to do with the attacks than has been acknowledged?
I hate to break it to you, but that was a common belief in Democratic circles round about 2002. It’s even a major part of Fahrenheit 911.
I dislike this idea being branded as a conspiracy - it is literally true to an extent, but the branding is an attempt to make the idea seem on its face invalid, declassé, only conceivable by bad means. But greater Saudi involvement on 911 is a fair question to ask about
I dislike the habit of criticizing someone based on what you assume they “really” mean instead of what they actually said. Stick to the facts.
says a lot about conservativism is these days. Hard to believe we'd get to miss GWB.
I thought the analogy was pretty clear. Like Trump, he's a dangerous predator (wolf). Unlike Trump, he's pretending to be more docile and harmless (sheep). The "sheep's clothing" is the veneer of civility.
Is he pretending to be anything? Those policy positions in the piece aren't secret memos they are links to his website and public statements.
Is the idea that any right-wing person who is acting "civil" or "respectful" just pretending?
Did you read the part where he describes being against my bodily autonomy as just, respectfully, a difference of opinion, and wants to thank me for contributing babies to the world?
What would the non-sheep's clothing stance here be?
You're a woman, which means you exist to serve and I can grab you by the pussy if I feel like it and you'll let me do it coz I'm famous.
Nikki Haley seem to have similar views on abortion and that probably isn't her stance though right?
Yes. B/C when you want to tear people's lives apart, doing it with a smile isn't respectful, it's just pretending.
"Ramaswamy has deceptively packaged his rhetoric as respectful and empathetic" is an odd sentence . The rhetoric is respectful and empathetic. It's only "deceptive" if you think conservative is the opposite of respectful and empathetic. He believes standard soapbox conservative things (some with more vim than others, especially the social policy stuff, although the foreign policy stuff sounds crazy), but apparently not Trumpian election-denial, fraudulent ballot things -- which I don't know, seems like a huge improvement?
You're conflating "conservative" with "GOP policy", which until pretty recently was a pretty reasonable simplification for streamlining conversation. "Conservative" is not, by default, "the opposite of respectful and empathetic". And there are still influential people that that identify as "conservative" but reject the GOP. But today the bulk of active politicians willing to put an R next to their name are increasingly disrespectful and cruel - in both policy and rhetoric.
Note I don't claim this is true of the bulk of Republican *voters*. I think many conservative voters identify as Republican because that worked for a long time. They are basically respectful and empathetic, but now that their party isn't, they don't know what to do. Some are abandoning the GOP; some are "holding their nose"; some are finding satisfaction redefining as more radical and aggressive amongst new groups that are embracing it.
(democrats, Democrats, and liberals are having related schisms but that's a tangent on a tangent and I'll resist.)
Go on the tangent please.
If I believe that it would be administered fairly, I think a civics test in order to vote would be great! Make it be re-taken every decade. Our country's history with that is...not good, though.
I don’t see how he’s a dangerous predator.
The sheeps clothing is that he's a nonwhite person named Ramaswamy.
Well the author made no mention of race. If that's what we're supposed to take away: "non-white people (sheep) can be conservatives (wolves) too", she didn't say that.
That was the take away I got as an Indian dude haha!
He also murdered the Nerevar.
I was wondering if someone else would make that connection lol.
Such a good game.
I hate cliff racers.
He has extreme conservative positions (rather than just conservative ones), veering into fascism (when fascism means the type of social policies supported by Mussolini, Franco and Salazar).
Ok but what is the "sheep" part?
see above. Trump = wolf. "Oooh, I respect you" and "thank you for being a mother" = sheep.
You know your Bible, right?
I'm not sure but I think it's either that he's brown or not literally Trump, he seems very open about being awful (generic conservative)
I think he tries to come off as more moderate than Trump while actually supporting policies that are more conservative (plus some radical ideas like restricting voting).
I don’t believe Tom Steyer was ever in the top five candidates in the polls. Rama Swamy is regularly in the top three. His numbers are lower, but everyone other than Trump has lower numbers than most of the Democrats in 2019-20.
He got 3rd in SC.
It doesn't seem like Vivek is really doing anything that other rich candidates haven't done in the past.
I appreciate the analysis of his policy positions, and I'm sure that a Ramaswamy presidency would be very damaging to the country.
But on the other hand, I think this article incorrectly minimizes the importance of the tone politicians and leaders take. Leaders through their tone demonstrate to the country what appropriate behavior is, and show citizens whether or not they're valued.
Part of the unique problem of Trump is that he gave a large part of the country implicit permission to be vocal racists, xenophobes, and bigots; and made a lot of minorities believe that the government is against them in ways beyond policy. I don't think a Ramaswamy presidency would have those problems to the same extent.
Of course, that virulent hatred was part of the appeal of Trump, and I don't think it's possible to win over his supporters without that strain, even if you get all the policy positions right. The MAGA core doesn't really care about policy, anyway.
Exactly. This article itself is part of the problem, because the premise of the article is that Ramaswamy should be demonized rather than engaged with in civil, matter-of-fact discussion about the merits of the positions he advocates.
No thanks. Angry demonizing of your opponents is bad and corrosive to democracy no matter which side it's coming from.
I think the point of this article is to point out the gap between his rhetoric and policies
What gap? He's not hiding the substance of his policies. He's just not also being an ass***e in his rhetoric to boot. That's commendable, not a point to beat him over the head with.
"Wolf in sheep's clothing" would imply he is *lying* about his policies. But the article, if anything, said the opposite. He's being quite clear.
This doesn’t feel to me like the grab bag of policies that you would come up with if you were ONLY trying to manipulate Republican primary voters.
It is a grab bag of policies one would come up with if they are Bay-area VC tech bro, which Ramaswamy is.
He's from Ohio? Perhaps the policies could be attributed to growing up a minority in the Regan Era where he said anyone could be an American. My cousin is from Ohio (The same town as Vivek), and those policies are pretty common in the Indian community down there.
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. Some of this stuff is now unpopular enough with his primary voters that it tends to make me think he believes it, and isn’t wearing sheep’s clothing (at least on those issues).
I don’t think the article did that. I came away from the article believing his rhetoric is quite in line with his policies.
Yeah this is interesting because until pretty recently, it was *normal* (in the US) to have aggressive policies and deferential rhetoric - that gap was *expected*. Trump changed that (with help from people like Limbaugh, Ailes, whomever) so much that now it's actually noteworthy you can have a GOP candidate (albeit a longshot) who has very aggressive policies but uses the phrase "with due respect" on a regular basis.
Bodnick's article couldn't have been written in any prior election cycle.
I think you are confusing rhetoric for argument. Rhetoric is one tool among many when making an argument, but rhetoric is not an argument itself. Ramaswamy is being quite clear and straightforward about his policy positions (his argument) and he is using soft rhetoric, tone, and words.
Where does it say not to engage with him? I think it was a very civil description of his policy ideas and tonal differences. Not a hint of hyperbole in the whole thing, so I don't know how you could say it was "demonizing".
The unfathomability of him being elected aside, VR’s tone raises the possibility of compromise
It's not just about tone. It's about predictability and sane behavior. Trump's policies are not the worst, most threatening thing about Trump.
Ramaswamy is clearly not the sort of politician who would make something like January 6 happen. Electing Ramaswamy would not heighten the dangers in Ukraine and Taiwan in the way that electing Trump would.
Given his stated policy on Ukraine I think he might heighten those dangers specifically.
Maybe by a little but not Trump level. I suspect he's like most Rs who are afraid of Trump, pretending to favor Trump and his agenda while secretly hating him but considering him the lesser evil compared with Democrats
I'm inclined to agree with you, although the failure of any of them to repudiate Trump's efforts to steal the election really worries me that they are attempting to normalize these efforts in the future. For that reason I won't vote for Vivek, no matter how reasonable he sounds. If protecting democracy and the rule of law isn't priority number 1, then the other priorities don't matter.
My instinct is to agree, and if the election were held tomorrow between Ramaswamy and Trump, I would enthusiastically vote for Ramaswamy. But I caution that we have no direct evidence he wouldn't attempt a coup or take a cleaver to foreign policy. We have only the basic assumption that "that's crazy, and presidents aren't that crazy". I sure hope Trump is an outlier on this. But given how little we know, and how weird it's gotten, this is far from certain.
There's still something to be said about the Lee Atwater style southern strategy.
While outright bigotry and violent language is a particularly bad tone and enables all sorts of malicious folks, when Ramaswamy is proudly drafting on all of Trump's policies, but can wrap it up in softer, more academic language, it's worth noticing.
There's the similar issue with whatever's going on with Christopher Rufo.
The belief that gender dysphoria is s mental illness is not an “extremist ideology.” It is a perfectly normal belief in Peachtree City, Georgia, which is a highly educated light red city in a purple county in a swing state. Ramaswamy is also spot on when he says adult transsexuals should be treated with empathy and respect. It’s possible to be civil and decent to mentally ill people while honoring ancient truths about biology and human nature! This article does more to show that Maya lives in a liberal bubble than that Ramaswamy is “toxic.”
I think the writing is on the wall with this with the slow walk away from these interventions for children in the better healthcare systems in the world. The difference with ours is that it will be the tort system instead of experts that set the limits. Look out for the lawsuits over the next 10 years.
Sorry is the idea that gender dysphoria is a mental illness somehow offensive now? We prescribe things for it. You go to doctors when you experience it. It's written up in medical textbooks. It is by definition a mental illness.
Right, but in those textbooks the treatment isn't to tell them that they should stop wanting to be a different gender. When conservatives say, "it's a mental disorder", what they are trying to say is that these people are crazy and their sincerely held beliefs should be invalidated by their craziness. They are using the fact that it is considered a medical condition to invalidate the treatment prescribed by the medical establishment that wrote the textbooks in the first place.
It literally is a mental disorder. The fact that somebody somewhere says it's a mental disorder and also says other things that are false doesn't make the true fact any less true. This is a constant line of argument I see and it's absurd.
This can't really be what we are doing today.
I think you missed the part where his OPNION on things like a parent’s right to make healthcare decisions for their child, and a woman’s right to healthcare decisions for herself, are not up for debate.
That’s what makes him extreme. He can shove his ancient truths up your ass if you both consent. Anyone’s OPNION on that is not important nor should banning that be an acceptable policy.
You may not want them up for debate. But they most definitely are.
And we need to make sure they are NOT defined as just differences of opinion. Rights are not debatable.
They are removing rights in order to shape a fascist landscape.
America has no place for this.
Platitudes and exaggerations generally aren't persuasive. And politics is about persuasion.
It’s a losing argument to let people debate my core rights as a parent or as a woman.
You don’t get to continue to distrust half the population.
That not a platitude.
And that is why this guy wants to change the voting age to 25. The younger voters are absolutely coming out to end that discussion.
“It’s a losing argument to let people debate my core rights as a parent or as a woman.”
I think this is not a winning strategy. Pro-Choicers should continue to attempt to persuade people to become pro-choice. Trying to deem the topic not up for debate may feel nice, but I think in practice will not have the desired end effect.
"It’s a losing argument to let people debate my core rights as a parent."
I hate to break it to you, but people *are* going to debate those rights, whether you "let them" or not. The State already restricts parental rights in many ways. For example, you can't abuse your children or refuse to have them educated.
Every election cycle the youngest voters are by far the most liberal, but every election cycle each voter cohort slides right as it ages. A little of that is vote switching, but more of it is the fact that the most educated voters tend to start voting youngest. The independents, moderates and non-college voters only start voting in their late 20s and 30s, at which time the age group balances out.
Meanwhile, because of the baby boomers and long life expectancies, over 65 voters are growing as a share of the population, and because of low birth rates in the early 2000s, younger voters are declining as a share of the population. The point being that you can't count on demographics or younger voters to swing politics all that much.
“Christine, I respectfully disagree.” (sorry, couldn’t resist.) Specifically, CONFLICTING rights ARE debatable, and to the extent that, as Harry Blackmun wrote, a growing fetus acquires the rights of a live human at some point during a pregnancy, those rights MAY conflict with the right of a pregnant woman to fully control all health care decisions.
More germane to more citizens is the RIGHT to economic self-determination and access to success in the marketplace, versus the RIGHT of the citizenry (“all of us, working together”, or “government in a democratic republic”) to tax the income obtained from that success, and to do so progressively.
I submit that WHERE YOU STAND on the continuum of either question is something about which “reasonable people may differ,” and in order to have a stable society, we need to be able to debate those issues and make collective, cooperative decisions about where to draw each line or lines, and then come back to those decisions & review/revise them, knowing that we may have gotten them wrong, weighted something more heavily or lightly than appropriate, or that new information has surfaced. Policy debate and voting to change policy is typically a feature of a functioning democratic republic, and I’m “fer it.”
These are inalienable rights.
Government has no business making religious decisions for a woman based on any one group’s opinion.
There are already plenty of real life situations where a woman’s health was at risk due to the intrusive nature of bad, unconstitutional legislation.
1. A woman has a right to self defense. Even the most consistently pro-life dogma of the Catholic Church supports killing life in self defense.
2. This is a core right to
privacy. There is no such thing as a forced major medical decision for a man, right?
When questions of faith are left to government, we all lose.
It sounds like you’re dismissing my advocacy for the rights of a fetus as “religious.” Although I was raised Lutheran, I’m not a member of any organized church and I’ve tried hard to separate my “faith walk” from questions of public policy. I feel like the question of “right to life” for a … 39 week-old? 36? 34 (my daughter’s age when she was born)? 28? 20 week-old? you may pick … is NOT strictly one of religion, but that somewhere along there, again as Blackmun wrote and as the pro-choice universe defended for 49 years, a “right” (or at least the viable opportunity) to life EMERGES that has enough weight to be worth more than a question of convenience for a late-term pregnant woman. It DOESN’T go without saying, so I DO say, that any question of life or basic health of pregnant woman should supercede those emerging rights. It seems like most of Western Europe agrees with this basic position.
But again: the question of “the right to levy taxes” vs “the right to keep money I earned legitimately” is much more important, and has a much greater variety of reasonable answers than the question of “when do rights to life begin.” I am somewhat grumpy about having to make common cause with those who hold illiberal views on the latter, in order to work cooperatively for a better society by pushing the answer to the former in a more progressive direction. But it is what it is.
Sorry we live in a democracy and people get to vote, even ones who disagree with you. You can do politics, advocate for revolution, or do nothing. But what you can't do is pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that the things you care about aren't political issues because they're important to you. All political issues are life and death important to some people, or they wouldn't be political issues.
"And we need to make sure they are NOT defined as just differences of opinion. Rights are not debatable....America has no place for this."
The alternative to debating rights is murdering over them (see: "bleeding Kansas"). I, personally, would much rather have debates than murders.
And, looking historical, America does indeed have a "place for this." America saw vigorous debate during the ratification process prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and during the drafting of the Civil Rights Amendments. If you want to argue that debates over rights are a one-way ratchet, then there was also vigorous debate prior to the adoption and repeal of the Prohibition Amendment.
"ancient truths" is a fun phrase.
"Both candidates are pro-life but don’t support a federal abortion ban. They both plan to ban gender-affirming care for minors. On education, they both vehemently oppose affirmative action. Trump promised to “cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory or gender ideology on our children,” while Ramaswamy agrees America should “end unlawful DEI indoctrination.” They both support congressional term limits."
Most of those positions are supported by most voters. Even the ones that aren't supported by most are not particularly extreme. Mainstream opinions aren't extreme just because a Republican supports them.
A few of these had me confused, too. Opposing affirmative action isn't exactly an extreme position. I don't know anything about the term limit debate, but that doesn't sound extreme either. Gender-affirming care I know little about.
The rest are questions where poll results could probably shift 20-30 points or more depending on the specifics of the question being asked, and to me represent low-quality demagoguery more than anything "extreme" per se.
I was just saying that I had a lot of trouble following that section of the post. What was "supports term limits" supposed to tell me? When I read that affirmative action part, I thought "well that's popular...what's the definition of a wolf here?" There were some things that sounded like "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and other things that are probably only extreme if you go to Harvard, whether or not I personally disagree with them.
I vehemently disagree with what appears to be the unspoken premise of this piece: that the problem with Trump is his policies. I too disagree with 90% of those, but that’s not *the* issue with Trump. The issue first and foremost is that he is actively hostile to democracy and tried to steal the elections. Secondly that he appears to engage in consistent criminal conduct that seriously endangers national security. And overall that he seems *genuinely* unhinged. And now we can add to the list the fact that for the first time in history we have a presidential candidate indicted on many multiple and separate serious crimes, mostly involving his conduct in office! *That’s* what we mean when we say that Trump “isn’t normal”. Also, rhetoric isn’t just dressing to policy. It matters. Divisive rhetoric and incitement can and does lead to violence. It can and does damage social trust and weakens the social fabric. Having unifying, respectful rhetoric is a critical role for the president.
So for all these reasons, while I won’t support any Republican due to an ideological abyss between me and them, it does seem to me that most if not all alternatives to Trump over there would be hugely preferable. More importantly however since trump seems extremely likely to be the nominee, I think it’s crucial that we don’t inadvertently help “normalize” him. With Trump it’s not and never has been about the issues. Let’s not forget that.
Vivek has promised to pardon Trump and asked other Republican candidates to do the same. Case closed.
What case is closed? Was Ford a fascist for pardoning Nixon?
What case? That he’s as bad as trump? Are you arguing that pardoning a criminal in the same as being one?
Flyover West understands the case perfectly. it is odd that so few people here do.
Agree. Any presidential candidate who’s says Trump should receive an automatic pardon has in effect said that they don’t respect the rule of law in general and believe that the Presidency--not just Trump--should be above the law. And that makes any such candidate a threat to the nation’s constitutional order.
I honestly don't get why, if rhetoric matters, so few people here seem to think this particular rhetoric matters.
"I can't handle 4 more years of him"
You gonna move to Canada?
I think you'd have to move farther than that.
Poutine as patriotism would make me grumpy, too.
It isn't a surprise that someone running in the Republican primary is proposing standard-issue Republican policies. Ramaswamy's improved tone versus Trump is a welcome change and I hope Tim Scott or Nikki Haley adopt it also.
I think the best areas for defeating Republicans continue to be superior Democratic economic and redistribution policies. Give the Republicans credit for one thing though -- their primary has credible candidates who are not all white men.
Yes, I'm tiring of the rhetorical trick where "thing I don't like" is labeled "extreme". I think these guys are bad and wrong and probably agree with the author on most questions of policy, but nothing here is supported by less than maybe 30-40% of the public, so by what definition is it "extreme"? Journalists should let words have meaning and leave the slippery bullshit to politicians and activists.
Isn’t “extreme” being defined in terms of the impact on the affected people, rather than based on the percentage of people who endorse it?
It hasn't been defined at all, as far as I can tell. It's just an all-purpose cliche used to assert someone or something is outside the boundaries of respectable conversation.
(Edit: "tell", not "yell".)
I think this is generally a bad/confusing way to talk. Like, if I referred to everyone who refused to 10x the foreign aid budget, ban AI research worldwide, and devote billions to insect welfare (all much more important than almost all political questions IMO on consequentialist grounds) as "extreme"), despite ~100% of people agreeing with their stance, this would be a confusing and misleading way to speak.
I think that “extreme” in this article mostly means salient to liberals. It’s simply adopting the common rhetorical trick of trying to persuade people that certain positions are so awful that you can ignore the people who hold them. I happen to be liberal, but also don’t accept this concept of extreme.
For example, I don’t believe that wanting or not wanting trans women to compete in girls sports is an extreme position, and I don’t think it has really important impact on the vast majority of affected people. Competitive sports really aren’t important. The vast majority of Americans are not athletic enough to compete at high levels based on simple genetics, and it’s silly and arbitrary to get all worked up deciding which genetic advantages need to be accommodated. But people want to paint the other side as extreme mostly because they view the issue as about the legitimacy of a trans-person’s identity. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be about the legitimacy of identity.
Some of the positions he holds are indeed extreme. Some of them are not extreme, even if I feel they are wrong.
That seems to conflate "extreme" with "important" doesn't it?
Yea I think it's more of a consequentialist argument about the policy. Would be hard to incorporate all of that writing into a small blog post.
One extreme position is contributing to the Republican assault on the rule of law by promising to pardon Trump and by asking other Republican candidates to pledge to do so.
Republican candidates promising to pardon Trump sucks, but I also don't see how it could be avoidable. Getting away with the various crimes he committed is surely his top priority, and he can alway just threaten to run as an independent and sabotage the GOP campaign if he doesn't get that promise.
Pardon power is perfectly legal.
Ramaswamy's advocating for some objectively big changes to American society
Isn’t almost everyone who applies for that job? I liked a lot of things proposed during the Democratic debates of 2020, and I have to admit that many of them would amount to objectively big changes. “Everything’s cool, just keep a steady hand on the plow” isn’t a campaign that you see from a non-incumbent all that often.
I do think some of his proposals are objectively extreme, but some rather standard Republican talking points (which usually are just that with no actual policy intent) are rather extreme. Eliminating the IRS and FBI entirely are very extreme positions if taken seriously! Taking away the right of millions of voters who happen to generally vote for the other party is very extreme! I do think this is watered down when every conservative position is thrown into the mix.
Those I would 100% agree are extreme positions. But most of what this article touched on...not really. I disagree with most of them, but they're pretty common positions and I wouldn't term them extreme.
It's also hard to imagine that those positions are taken with any hint of seriousness. Raising the voting age is not even remotely within his powers, and the other two would quickly result in bad consequences and a huge political backlash. It's kind of the right-wing version of "defund the police".
I mean, candidates should still be called out for making terrible campaign promises even if they are almost certainly just shit-talking, but it does mean those promises aren't very dangerous.
People don't talk about how wild standard-issue Republican policies are very often!
Wild to whom? College educated city dwellers, upon which a majority does not make!
Ask yourself why Fox News never talks about mainstream conservative economic ideas
I mean they used too. Then Trump dominated the airwaves. Perhaps now we can finally let the adults in the room and talk some of our differences out and air out the polarization.
I guess I would question the premise of what are mainstream conservative economic ideas. If a plurality of the GOP base is the MAGA wing, then the GOP is an economically populist, anti-free trade party.
If we're talking "let's privatize social security!" then I think those ideas are dead to everyone. But you'll get Fox paying lip service to a few of the old goodies like union busting and excessive government spending.
Only about 1% of the population watches Fox News and the fast majority of them are boomers. Fox is catering to a dying cohort of cranky old people who aren't much interested in details of economic policy.
I mean Hillary Clinton is not a white man
I was contrasting their current primary versus their previous ones, not versus Democratic slates.
Rubio, Cruz, Carson and Fiorina from 2016 say hi.
There was some concern that that might have been a flash in the pan. But it seems to be sustained.
The article did not mention positions on how taxes should work, or if we should reform the big entitlements at all. Moderating on entitlements in 2016 was a big defining part of “Trumpism”, and it is unfortunate to not see this aspect of policy drawn out more for candidates.
Nikki and Tim are just a politely patronizing as this guy.
He not a welcome change because he cloaks his propaganda in the niceties of a sophisticate.
I prefer a more respectful tone and less divisiveness. Even from those I disagree with. Plus I like seeing the other party (or at least some of them) support minority candidates.
The color of a person has no meaning when they use it to attempt to negate the experiences of their fellow travelers.
We should not celebrate that. Folks find that offensive, as they should.
I think the mentality you're expressing is a really bad one for the broader left. There's a very specific and terrible history when it comes to black Americans descended from slaves. As a result t's understandable that they've more or less voted as a bloc since they have been able to. But it's a huge, huge error to apply that experience to other non-white groups, particularly those that immigrated here after the 60s. There's no world where I'm voting for the Republican president, and while I hate to be thay guy, the attitude is kind of racist. Moreover Democrats aren't owed anyones vote based on race and it's crazy to act like they are.
I hear what you are saying, (I assuming you are not tagging me as a racist?) but I was responding to the idea that having a black man or woman in the field is not great in itself.
The policy positions they espouse are loud and clear. They are anti American and saying “But they are people of color, isn’t that great?” is likely offensive to people of color who don’t want to be patronized.
No, not tagging you as racist, and I agree, there can also be a cynicism to candidate selection based on racial identity (i.e. expecting people to vote for candidate for no reason other than being the same race).
Where I think we need to be careful is assuming that a candidate like Ramaswamy is making that play. I don't want to overstate the level of welcome Indian (or any Asian) immigrants and their descendants have gotten in the US but I think it's fair to say that their experience of this country is going to be way less wrapped up in the historical white/black divide.
Also, I’m reading your comment like you feel black folks tend to vote as a block because of their shared past history. Just to clarify, they vote in similar ways today because they face a similar reality today. Then they look to their influencers, people they relate to, to help them make decisions about voting, just like any person does, regardless of race.
So to the extent they vote as a block, why would we expect anything else. And that’s why folks like Clarence Thomas are so distrusted.
Far be it from me to speak for black Americans but I'm not sure that's quite the right way to look at it. After the battle against slavery was won there was still a need to unite against segregation and de facto (at best) second class citizenship, not to mention all the terrible things that went along with it, that overrode other interests and differences. That experience created political institutions designed to support that agenda and motivate voting and other activism, many of which still exist today.
Now, obviously they can't force anyone to go out and vote any particular way and there are still a lot of good reasons for black people to conclude it is in their best interest to vote for Democrats. However those institutions still exist and are influential, but there is nothing like them for other groups, nor are they likely to ever be established given the lack of really extreme circumstances that made them necessary.
"The color of a person has no meaning when they use it to attempt to negate the experiences of their fellow travelers."
Wow. Maybe you meant something else but that's pretty messed up.
"The color of a person has no meaning when they use it to attempt to negate the experiences of their fellow travelers."
Indeed! It's terrible when people-of-color try to negate the lived experiences of Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott.
Consensus is overrated.
Wow. Did you just call POC's travelers? This infantilization of minorities from the Democratic Party is what will drive POC's away in droves. We want to be in charge of our own destiny, as America promises.
I am going to brand you as a racist. Please reflect on where your rhetoric is coming from. Are you really only okay with POCs when they share your views?
WTF are you on about? I’m not going to explain the literary use of this word to you.
I’ll just consider your comment made in bad faith. SMH
No it's not made in bad faith. It was genuinely offensive to me. Traveler is another word for Gypsy. Gypsies, who left India and travelled west, back in the early AD's. They were never fully accepted by European society, and were/are victims of persecution and violence. Gypsies were murdered on mass in the holocaust as well. They are also viewed by some as aliens, and those who can never fully integrate or assimilate. Have you watched Peaky Blinders?
I think this notion is deeply offensive. I want the US to be my home. I am not a Traveler, neither is Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy.
Perhaps my reply was heavy handed, after all, I was offended by your rhetoric, and in my opinion hateful phrase. Especially as you feel so comfortable to dish it out with regards 2nd generation immigrants.
You know, you seem to have your heart in the right place, but refusal to elaborate is getting you nowhere.
As a parent of young children, I think it’s important the President not be an asshole who is rewarded as such by his voters. Kids (and adults) need to see that respectful disagreement and compromise is key to a functional polity. We all know that the policy program espoused on the campaign trail tends to run headfirst into reality once they take office.
I go back and forth on this one. Trump being an open asshole is bad, but at least he makes it clearly known, and eventually we all have to learn that there are assholes in the world and we have to confront them. Compare to a covert asshole like Richard Nixon, who put on a great wolf in sheep's clothing routine on the scene, but did a lot of damage behind the season.
I would say Trump is *way* worse. Trump has continued to do his damnedest to make the country ungovernable by his successor in office (after scheming to hold onto that office).
And he's done it openly the whole way.
I see your overall point, but Nixon was a freaking Boy Scout compared to Trump. (Nixon actually resigned, for starters. He jumped before he had to be pushed.)
I agree with others that candidates modeling civil discourse regardless of their views has positive value. People need to debate someone like Ramaswamy logically and his method leaves the possibility of doing so wide open. As others have noted, for the most part his positions don't seem different from Paul Ryan's. I wasn't a big fan of Ryan's. It's bad that Ramaswamy doesn't take the rule of law more seriously. His indulgence of 1/6 rioters deserves harsh criticism. But also have to say that some of the quotes used as evidence of his shrewd evil here were standard liberal positions until recently: civil rights laws have made things better for Black Americans (this has the benefit of obviously being true) and free speech should be protected. Loose rhetoric about how nothing has changed for African Americans over the years, or even "gender is a spectrum" is lazy and doesn't help progressive politics. I think progressives actually would benefit by refining their thinking through debate, something they do too little today, and Ramaswamy provides the opportunity.
Trump is so oxygen-suckingly awful that it has had the unfortunate side effect of shielding progressive positions from any scrutiny or debate. and progressives have gotten nuttier as a result.
"It's bad that Ramaswamy doesn't take the rule of law more seriously."
This is the key point.
I'm sceptical that "MAGA policies" is a useful or coherent category. MAGA/Trumpianism seems to be defined primarily by rhetoric, more than by policy. What unites these policies as distinctively "MAGA"? It seems more like a hodgepodge of GOP policies, some more moderate than what we might counterfactually expect from Republicans (e.g. pro-life, but oppose a federal ban on abortion).
The rhetorical implication seems to be: MAGA/Trumpianism = extreme and bad. But all that actually seems to be shown is that Ramswamy supports many generic Republican policies (as would be expected).
This article was extremely frustrating. He has policy positions and is willing to explain and defend him respectfully. The question is whether he’ll work with the other side to pursue compromise. Given his willingness to engage, I would assume yes. That is definitionally liberal.
Illiberalism is not policy positions I disagree with.
Removing voting rights from those who already have them is definitely a policy position I would say is illiberal, to be fair to the article.
Also totally vacuous. That requires a constitutional amendment.
His idea to move up the voting age requirement is not really illiberal. Making the age 18 is a bit arbitrary. If he were proposing to impose the law change without going through the constitutional process that would be illiberal.
Having ideas is is what liberalism is all about and I can sort of see the logic behind this particular idea though it would never ever happen.
Maya, come on, restricting "affirming gender care" to minors isn't extremist, it's consistent with the policies of basically all of Western Europe's public health policy.
I thought I subscribed to this substack to escape the usual "THE OTHER SIDE IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT!!!" hyperbole.
meh.
I definitely agree that Ramaswamy isn't someone who I'd want to be Pres, but there is something to be said about changing the tone of the GOP. Tump's "cruelty is the point" form of politics, which has been heartily adopted hy DeSantis and others, has been very bad for the country and the GOP turning away from it would be a good thing.
For whatever it’s worth, he clarified his 9/11 comments as thinking the Saudis knew more than they claimed at the time.
Honestly this article kinda made me want to vote for him. I hope he gains more traction- he’d be a considerable upgrade to Trump. He seems like a pretty good dude.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/vivek-ramaswamy-praises-protester-interrupted-campaign-event-comments-rcna93574
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vivek-ramaswamy-calls-juneteenth-useless-rcna98428
I would recommend reading the articles first, and then watching the videos for what he actually says and does. He does seem like a genuine guy (I won't vote for him because I can't vote).
Far from a good dude, but a considerable upgrade to Trump.
Like other commenters here, I place more importance than the author does on simply "having a President who is not a complete asshole". That's the "sheep's clothing" part.
As for the "wolf" part, well a lot of his policies are standard GOP policies, yes? Unless you think any conservative is a "wolf" by definition.
Also like others here, I agree that Trump's assholery is a key part of his appeal, and a non-asshole Trump probably can't win.
I read articles like this from the perspective of learning what young elites like Maya think. I know she doesn’t have interesting takes on conservatives. This is the same young person who said one good reason for affirmative action is so there are blacks at Harvard so if a discussion of policing comes up the experts are in the room. In her circles saying this is apparently a compliment?
She says predicable things like Rama and DeSantis are to the right of Trump (unimaginable in her world) and they’re scary, oh and of course they lack compassion or are faking it.
Bari Weiss did good, mature interview with Rama. I do think he has some concerning views. For example, around foreign policy. And I am not convinced dismantling things is best but would agree we have a large administrative bureaucracy that does a lot of dumb things. Matt seems to agree in areas like local government planning departments.
He also appears to be quite bright and a true believer in the American experiment. Those are good things. There is zero chance Joe Biden would engage openly and in long form the way Rama has done over the last few months.
The boilerplate bias against conservatives is pretty boring. Maybe Matt had the intern write this story as a way to disrespect Rama? If so, that’s unfortunate because he is the candidate on the right most openly engaging in discussions around ideas.