Vivek Ramaswamy Leaves the Field
There were times when he seemed like the only person in the field willing to speak some impolitic truth. But he mixed those truths with some of the most godawful positions you could imagine.

Vivek Ramaswamy left the presidential race the way he effectively entered it: as a supporter of Donald Trump. The 38-year-old businessman endorsed the former president as he suspended his campaign last night, calling Trump "the best president of the 21st century." That may not sound like high praise—there have been only four presidents this century, unless you count not quite three weeks of a lame-duck Bill Clinton—but given that Ramaswamy was just 15 when the century started, I'm sure it was a sincere compliment.
Ramaswamy is an ex-libertarian—he voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, so that's at least one skeleton in both of our closets—and he thus had a better sense than most politicians of how to effectively address libertarian audiences. Maybe because of that, I sometimes heard from anti-statist sorts that they liked him best of the GOP options. And to give credit where it's due, there were times when Ramaswamy seemed like the only person in the field willing to speak some impolitic truth. It's just that he mixed those truths with some of the most godawful positions you could imagine. He had more anti-war impulses than the other Republican candidates, but he also was willing to send the military to Mexico. One moment he might defend the free speech of pro-Palestinian protesters; the next he might be ready to ban a whole internet platform. If a debate moderator asked the candidates what color the sky is, Ramaswamy might be the one person on the stage willing to declare it blue, but then he'd probably add that the sun has green and lavender stripes.
I never felt the pull of the Ramaswamy movement myself—besides the authoritarian and just plain kooky elements of his platform (did I mention that he wants a border wall with Canada?), his onstage manner was annoying, like someone had somehow crossed Tracy Flick with Wayne Allyn Root. If you liked him better than the available alternatives, that surely says more about how dispiriting these choices are than something good about Vivek Ramaswamy. Anyway, he often felt more like an unofficial Trump surrogate than a real candidate.
Well, now he can be an official surrogate if he wants. And if Trump returns to the White House, he can be the Secretary of Podcasts or something. The man clearly has a future, in the sense that we all do.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I like how Jesse criticizes his "onstage manner".
So, was your problem with him that he actually answered people's questions? Was it that he called out the corrupt warmongers/statists on their BS?
Or was it that he didn't bash Trump enough?
I’m pretty sure it was the desire to secure the borders. Mainline libertarians can live with a lot, from what I’ve read over the years. WWIII with Russia, mass surveillance states, hyper-regulated healthcare, COVID lockdowns and forever masking… but you even suggest getting control of the border and you’re dead to them.
I don't those libertarians are "mainline".
I think he's alluding to mainline Protestants, who still get called that even though they aren't the majority of protestants in the country by a long shot at this point.
Now I'm trying to figure out why someone would conflate mainline Protestants and mainline libertarians. The overlap is quite small ...or it was just a play on words, I suppose.
-A Protestant libertarian.
Well, you'll have to see if Paul will answer you. I'm just speculating as to why he chose the words he did.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and Wd received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by follow instructions
.
.
On This Website—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
"Mainline" doesn't mean "majority".
You sure not mainline junkies?
Either that or his criticizing the media. Nothing pisses of Reasoners more than criticizing far left media.
True, our One True Libertarian Sarc will tell you that.
It was when he kneecapped Reason’s favorite warmonger Nikki that Reason got upset.
I suspect it was the whole "not being a Democrat" thing that Jesse held against his positions. Sure, the border would be part of it, actually balancing the budget and cutting waste would also be a tragedy from the perspective of Liberteen Magazine.
He was running to cut 75% of Federal jobs.
That would be the most libertarian thing done by anyone in the US since 1776.
No chance of that happening, but I'll take someone who at least has that goal
He had more than a goal. He also had a plan. He talked about broad based staffing cuts and changing the OMB wording on appropriations from shall to can, so they don't have to spend every penny.
But, I would respond that anyone who actually attempted to implement that would be immediately JFKed.
This is why I’m always saying we have to get rid of the democrats. We can’t have a democrat party and a constitutional republic. So everyone better decide what they want.
Going a,king to get along has brought us to where we are now. No more.
my neighbor's mother-in-law makes $80/hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her paycheck was $25465 just working on the computer for a few hours. I was reading this … http://Www.worktoday7.co
My own worry about Ramaswamy was when he just threw out answers without thinking, and that's how I took Jesse's article. I was fine with him berating reporters for woke questions, but every once in a while he'd throw out easily misunderstood nonsense. Like his Canadian border wall -- I *think* he was trying to say that if Mexico deserves a wall, so does Canada, but memory says he didn't say it well. Like Trump saying he can grab women by the pussy -- only diehard never-Trumpers actually thought he meant that literally, but it sure sounded stupid. Same as saying guys think with their little head -- no one actually believes dicks have brains, but literal-minded fools can pretend they do just to signal some woke virtue.
He seemed to be the person who said the most well thought-out things running (for the Rs and Ds).
Also, I think he was more-or-less telling the truth rather than what was politically expedient.
Like Trump saying he can grab women by the pussy — only diehard never-Trumpers actually thought he meant that literally.
And saying it jokingly is okay?
Yes.
In your world, maybe. “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Substitute this:
“When you’re a star, they let you do it.” “Grab them by the dick. You can do anything.”
“When you’re a star, they let you do it.” “Punch them in the face. You can do anything.”
Are those okay jokes also? (To be honest, having seen and heard the tape, it didn’t sound like he was joking. But that is just my opinion.)
I don’t see anything funny in joking about sexually assaulting women, all why claiming that being a “star” means that you can get away with it. At best, it is a sick attempt at a joke that only an entitled rich-boy like Trump thinks would be funny. He may have gotten used to his own image-making that he was the ultimate ladies’ man, that all women wanted to be with him, and that is what was going through his mind. No rationalization of what he said does anything put him in categories of human beings that few people could stand to be around. The attitude behind his statement, in the most charitable version I have ever heard a Trump defender use, is misogynist and sexist. Great moral leader for the GOP that prides itself on family values.
The quote was from a private conversation you dumb fuck. Not a public address. It was a joke, and jokes are ok. I’m sure you’ve said things far worse.
So shove your disingenuous outrage up your ass.
The quote was from a private conversation you dumb fuck. Not a public address. It was a joke, and jokes are ok. I’m sure you’ve said things far worse.
When I was like 10 years old I told dead baby jokes. And dumb polack jokes. Is that what you're talking about? Humor is a matter of taste, no doubt. You can't argue with taste, my grandfather would say. It is just that some people have a taste for shit.
Take in the context of Trump's history with women (twice trading up for a newer model, literally), obviously valuing them primarily for their looks, and you end up with a man that can't tell a joke along those lines without it sounding like a confession instead. So, my outrage is not disingenuous.
Trump said a basic truth about human nature, and the undesirables began screeching. Of course beautiful women dig powerful men and are in awe of them, it's basic biology!
you should have added:
"Change my mind"
Dark humor is necessary, at times, to escape the microscope.
But it would still be true, there are enough gold-diggers out there.
I’m far away from being a billionaire, but even I’ve got enough money that a younger female acquaintance of mine propositioned me for an ‘arrangement ‘.
Women regularly trade sex for all kinds of things. Much like how Sarc blows drunks in exchange for more booze, in the back alley behind the bar where he spends his welfare checks.
I’m far away from being a billionaire, but even I’ve got enough money that a younger female acquaintance of mine propositioned me for an ‘arrangement ‘.
Do you take that to mean that you, or anyone else, can go up to a random woman you find attractive, grab her in the crotch, and think that she'll be okay with that as long as you give her some money?
Like I said, substitute punching someone in the face, and do you think simply throwing some cash at them will keep them from getting you arrested for assault? Some people might, but others would say fuck your money, I want to see you in jail. If you think women are different, especially when it comes to sexual assault, then I really have to wonder how you treat women in your life.
So you can’t joke in private about punching someone in the face now? Where are you going with this?
Is that something you would joke about? Is it even remotely funny to say that being a star allows you to get away with punching someone in the face? That is where I am going with this. It is apparently "funny" to Trump and maybe some of those replying to joke about sexually assaulting women and having them let you do it because you're a rich "star".
And it is the part about being able to do it because he's rich and famous that makes it unfunny. Sure, I've quoted movie lines or things like that which could seem really bad if wasn't clear that I wasn't speaking about myself. (Such as the "purdy mouth" line from Deliverance) But that's not what we're talking about here. If you haven't listened to the recording of it, Trump was using a normal voice. Nothing in the way he said it sounds like a joke to me. And as ObviouslyNotSpam points out, it is even harder to explain it away as a joke given that case. That makes it seem more likely that Trump was speaking from experience, not that he was joking.
Yes. I would. I have joked about way worse. So much worse.
Like I’m pretty sure the chick was *alive* in Trump’s joke…
He didn't mean it literally? Isn't "grabbing her by the pussy" literally what he was found by a judge to have done to E. Jean Carroll?
That's quite an unfortunate coincidence, if that's not what he meant...
If you can't go after their mean tweets, go after their "onstage manner".
This is why Hoppe discussed argumentation ethics. Worrying about properness and manner is a way to have your opponent set the rules of debates. It is forcing someone to give up ground at the outset. Caring about manner is useless.
You sound like one of those masculinity "influencers":
Take Jesse's ArgumentArtist MAGA Course, only $99.99 (plus $49.99 shipping and handling).
Respect the Jess!
Vivek has several positions I don't like. He has proposals he knows his supporters will hate. I like that he is willing to go in depth explaining his positions and proposals. He has reconsidered positions in real time when hearing good arguments. His debate performances had a lot of applause lines for libertarians.
Overall, Vivek was the most libertarian candidate for either major party. I hope he gets a position in a Trump administration and comes out in a strong position for a 2028 run.
Jesse seems to just be doing his usual thing of hating on anyone who is remotely conservative, right wing populist, or Republican
I'd be quite happy if Trump let Vivek run amok simply figuring out ways to fire people.
If Trump really wants to "drain the swamp" and get back at the Deep State that hates his guts, could he do much better?
A man can dream, can't he?
When you're 34 trillion in debt, you gotta start cutting spending somewhere.
Career bureaucrats with big pensions who support Democrat candidates seems like as good a place as any.
Yes, let's eviscerate the civil service, while keeping all the laws the civil service was hired to implement. What could possibly go wrong?
Agreed. Vivek actually had some good ideas about what to do once in office.
Many insinuate he's a Trump plant. I don't know if that's true, but if Trump kept Vivek around in a 2nd Term, Trump might end up being at least half as successful as his greatest supporters claim he was. Trump should keep Vivek close by and differ to him on everything, because he was better on every single issue and actually had a plan/understanding to get stuff done.
But he mixed those truths with some of the most godawful positions you could imagine.
First lesson of politics: Every politician will eventually take a godawful position. Just like the Libertarian candidate did in 2020. It's a balance of what you can live with and... um, what you're willing to strategically and reluctantly vote for.
Vivek's stance on Russia and his parroting of Bolshevik talking points sort of turned me off. Just because the US is corrupt doesn't mean that Russia is good and innocent and all that, it's extremely faulty reasoning or he was just being contrarian for the sake of it.
What specifically about Russia did he say that you object to? What part of his talking points were "Bolshevik"?
I don't think I ever heard him say Russia is "good and innocent." It sounded to me mostly like he was eager to see a peace deal and cessation of hostilities on grounds that wouldn't hasten Russia's allyship with China and the formation of new global economic order to challenge our own fiat-petrodollar unipolar system.
He repeated the false Kremlin claim that Ukraine is persecuting Orthodox Christians and closing their churches.
It's blatantly false, Ukraine moved only against churches harboring hostile Russian actors (like those installing listening devices, setting up sabotage cells, etc). It's no different than a Western country closing a Muslim mosque where known terrorists meet and conspire. Many Western countries had the same issues with Russian churches on their territory. France discovered an espionage cell in one. Norway also closed a Russian church down for the same reason. Vivek knows this or should know it.
He was running to be Trump’s VP.
Trump needs a life insurance policy and I can't think of a better one than Vivek Ramaswamy.
Kamal Harris
Joe Biden
Dan Quayle
Sarc
Just to name a few.
Trump is going to grab a pussy for his running mate this time. Kristi Noem.
Funny, Biden has actually done that. Even when the girl fights back.
^ This
Plethora of videos of Biden groping, kissing, and caressing children. But totes ok with 31% of the nation.
Don't be so obsessed, Biden has many faults but he's not a pedophile. He's from a different generation when people were not as roboticized and poorly socialized. The one who cry pedophilia about any human interaction that involves touching are the really creepy ones who sexualize children.
Maybe. But I wouldn’t bet too much money he’s not a pedophile.
Sarah Palin 2.0.
Ramaswamy was the kid who always told the teacher what they wanted to hear. We used to call that kid a “brown nose” having nothing to do with skin color but what happens when you kiss somebody’s ass.
He told his investors what they wanted to hear so he told them that a drug dropped by Glaxo-Smith-Kline was actually a wonder drug. It wasn’t and neither is Ramaswamy a wunderkind.
He tried to tell the voters what they wanted to hear, but he was up against the master of voter brown-nosing, Trump. Copying the “ideas” of Trump and adding a little insanity of his own (911 was an inside job…) without any proof he quickly regained the loser status of his pharmaceutical endeavors.
He bragged that he was the only candidate not bought and paid for, which only meant that no one was buying his plagiarized ideas when they could back the original.
Goodbye and good riddance to a second rate, brown-nosing, plagiarizing phony.
+1
SPB dislikes a dark-skinned candidate.
I am amazed at this shocking turn of events.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
"Copying the “ideas” of Trump and adding a little insanity of his own"
Cutting 75% of Federal jobs?
"911 was an inside job…"
1. He didn't say that. He said the government lied to us about it.
2. His statement is correct.
"He tried to tell the voters what they wanted to hear..."
So, at the very least, he moved the Overton window. More that most libertarians have done.
You don't move the Overton window by telling people what they want to hear. You do it by telling people things they don't want to hear and making them hear it.
I don’t believe that’s how the left moved the Overton window at all. You move the Overton window by controlling education and the media.
No disagreement here. Education and the media are the ways that people are told things they don't want to hear and making them hear it (by constant repetition of an idea and the censorship of opposing ideas)
Only 75%?
No, he didn't use the exact words, "911 was an inside job". But what could he possibly have meant?
“I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers”.
“I don’t believe the government has told us the truth,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m driven by evidence and data. What I’ve seen in the last several years is we have to be skeptical of what the government does tell us.”
“I explicitly said that the government absolutely lied to us. The 9/11 commission lied. The FBI lied. Now, is this a core point of my campaign? No, it’s not.”
You should feel proud OE, the guy who posted a link to CP likes you!
I’ll bet Pedo Jeffy is a fan of posts as well.
Vivek should be running in the Harvard Presidential primary as a life insurance policy for Claudine Gay.
the psyop was completed. The puppet masters WANT trump to be the candidate. Not because they think they can beat him, but rather because they think they can capitalize on the riots and strife that will follow.
the reaction to Trump has already generated a squeeze on our freedom from the deep state. They are politically targeting moms at school board meetings with FBI investigations. They are imprisoning a guy for 22 years who wasnt even AT the Jan 6 demonstration. They are currently in the process of removing enemies from the ballot with administrative kangaroo hearings.
This is all ratcheting towards Orwellian total police state, as a reaction to Trump. They want more Trump.
they can capitalize on the riots and strife that will follow.
Anarcho-tyranny.
I liked him better than the other candidates. I certainly didn't agree on everything he said, but I like how he deals with hostile press and tries to engage hecklers at his events. And I like that he actually thought about how to drastically reduce the size and power of federal government.
^What he said, especially the hostile press part.
^ well put
I loathe "ex-libertarians" from Robert Bork to Ramaswamy. Usually, they proclaim that their "idealism" was a youthful mistake that was corrected as they "matured" and came to realize that freedom needs restriction because people don't do "the right thing".
It's not maturing, it's the "Call of the Tribe", an almost irresistible pull to rejoin the group from whence they came. The pressure of individual thought proves too much and reverting to mindless adherence to group-think becomes an easy way out.
This is the same mentality as those who join cults to be relieved of the pressures of an independent existence.
I sincerely hope that ex-libertarians attain piece of mind by joining the remains of the Hare-Krishnas. ("Piece" is not a misspelling, it's whats left after chanting your brains out)
I listened to his reasoning one being a former libertarian. It wasn't that he no longer believed it, it was that he grew up and became more personally conservative.
By his definition of "conservative" and "libertarian", I'm a "conservative" even though I'm an An-Cap.
Also, by his definition, Ron Paul isn't "libertarian", but "conservative".
He also called himself a Constitutionalist.
Regardless, if he were to actually cut 75% of Federal jobs, that would be the most libertarian thing done by an American politician since 1776.
Just because he read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers doesn’t make him a constitutional expert. I thought that I knew the Constitution and then I read Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein and Ilya Shapiro. Ask Ramaswamy about the Slaughterhouse Cases, or Pierce v Society of Sisters or McDonald v Chicago. Hell, just let him follow the Volokh Conspiracy.
Ramaswamy is right about the brilliance of the authors of the Constitution but until he understands how this instrument was distorted and twisted by Progressives, he’s just farting in the wind.
You offer nothing value on what policy specifically is wrong, just the complaints I've come to expect from leftists demanding perfection from their enemies but nothing from their allies. Go back to Salon or whatever other proggy rock you crawled out from under
There's a reason that libertarians are often portrayed as young, single men. It's much easier to be one when you have no obligations to other people.
You know who else was a youthful libertarian?
Jack Parsons?
King Zog of Albania?
What happened to the claim that he needed to run to protect the country from Nikki Haley (War Mongering Champion of the Republican Establishment)?
Presumably the plan is to not drag primary votes away from Trump? Who knows. It's politics, so it's probably all bullshit anyway.
Neocon Barbie isn’t proving to be too popular. Given her bad campaigning and positions unpopular with republican voters. Taking money from big money democrat donors isn’t helping her case either.
I don’t trust that bitch for a second.
Haley's doing enough to take herself out of contention.
Good riddance. The guy's a creepshow.
I like him ok, but I don’t trust him. For a number of reasons.
As opposed to the pedo in the White House and the litany of depravity and incompetence that has been his administration?
Dang. I was looking forward to saying "Vive president Ramswam!"
Surely you mean
"Rama Krishna, Rama Swamy
Rama Swamy, Hare Hare !"
Rachel Maddow melts down over it
“If we’re worried about our democracy falling to an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government. The leader who is trying to do that is part of that equation… Is a much bigger part of that equation,” she added.
Everything they say is a projection. we are more fascist and authoritarian now than we were 3 years ago. It's amazing how much they project.
I mean, seriously, despite his many other defects, Trump has absolutely proven he isn't the stuff an authoritarian dictator is made of.
The summer of 2020 gave Trump every legal excuse he could have possibly needed to march soldiers in the streets, from a public health emergency, to nationwide rioting with deaths and property damage, to deliberate attacks on Federal facilities, to the declaration of an autonomous territory where government officials were unwelcome by insurrectionists in Seattle.
If Trump didn't exploit that opportunity, you can be goddamn certain he's never going to do it.
This. In fact, despite his flaws in handling the chinavirus, i remember the biggest media criticisms of him was that he wasnt authoritarian ENOUGH.
Leftists are living contradictions.
In other words, everything he's promised you he would do if re-elected in 2024 was just bullshit?
Oh, thanks.
They don’t call woke projection “the iron law” for nothing!
So much insight from Jesse the nutcase. So you don't like some of the form and that's good enough for you to toss your hat in with the pedos, marxists and MIC candidates like the good little bootlicker you for the State you've chosen to be.
Yet another in a long stretch of bonkers Republican private-sector Presidential candidates, all nuttier than the rest. Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Vivek whatshisnose, and of course, the Great Orange One.
Pat Buchanan seems like Seneca next to those other guys.
Good because he's not a natural born citizen. Now we just have to get rid of Nikki who isn't one either.
What do you mean? The Indians were here first.
One Trump is more than enough. All these wannabes (Vivek, Kari, MTG, etc.) are insufferable.
Don't forget Don Jr.
(Whatever happened to Don Jr., by the way?)
Didn't he kill a bunch of prostitutes and then try to feed a stray cat to an ATM?
The difference between Vivek and Kari/MTG, is that Vivek isn't retarded. Those women know how to align their commentary with that of Trump and to swim in his wake. Vivek had at least some temerity to think and articulate thoughts contrary to Trump's record in office or his 2024 campaign platform, even though he never challenged Trump directly on these issues.
That's a fair point.
I'll even give props to Vivek for being a better fighter against the fake news industrial complex than Trump ever has been.
One less annoying politician on TV, I'll take that as a win.
"His onstage manner was annoying"
His onstage manner was terrific. The biggest complaints about his stage manner came from neocon warhawks like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie whining after he'd call them out on their war mongering.
His method for answering any question from the debate moderators always started out by calling out the moderators' questions if they were leading or otherwise forcing the answerer to internalize a disingenuous/inaccurate premise to answer. To someone with poor listening comprehension, that might come off as complaining, but it is a necessary tactic for being forced to accept false dilemmas and other logical and historical fallacies asserted by biased news media. In that regard, his on-stage presence should be seen as a guide for how anti-establishment candidates should act.
I'll fully agree I did not like Ramaswamy's talk about sending the military to fight the cartels. It was a huge turn off. That said, it was rhetoric consistent with his leading Republican contenders, so I felt no greater need to ding him on it than I did anyone else in the Republican field.
What frustrated me about Ramaswamy is that on appearances with Dave Smith, Clint Russell, other libertarian podcasts, he spoke in a way that conveyed a deep understanding of the best libertarian philosophy, and yet that impeccable rhetoric often didn't carry over to anyone else he spoke with on the campaign trail.
How would you know? you’ve only just started posting here, Miss Not-a-Sock.