Quixotic GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is an entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking feature of the primary season because, whatever you may think of his positions, he’s unusually articulate and adept at spontaneous responses. His outburst in Scott County, Iowa, when a Washington Post reporter asked him to “condemn white supremacy and white nationalism” is a classic.
He was asked the “gotcha!” question following the endorsement of his candidacy by former Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King, who was punished by the party after repeatedly appearing to embrace white supremacists and their rhetoric. Ramaswamy took off like Harold Hill telling the crowd about the dangers of a pool table in River City:
“I’m not going to recite some catechism for you. I’m against vicious racial discrimination in this country. I’m not pledging allegiance to your new religion of modern wokeism, which absolutely fits the test. I’m not going to bend the knee to your religion; I’m not going to ask you to bend to mine, and I’m not going to bend the knee to yours. But, do I condemn vicious racial discrimination? Yes, I do. Am I gonna play your silly game of gotcha? No, I’m not. And, frankly, this is why people have lost trust. And I know you’re going to go print the headline tomorrow. I already know this, we already know how your game works. “Vivek Ramaswamy Refuses to Condemn Racism,” because you asked a stupid question. The reality is, I condemn vicious racism in this country, but the kind of vicious and systematic racism we see today is discrimination based on race on a very different direction. You want to know the best way to end discrimination based on race? Stop discriminating on the basis of race. Do that and we’re gonna move this country forward. I don’t care whether you’re black or white or brown, or anything in between. That’s how we’re going to unite this country. You people have been responsible for driving this country to a breaking point, creating a projection of national division. I meet people on the Southside of Chicago, to meetings like this one, of every shade of melanin, multiple, from man to woman, doesn’t make a difference, who are hungry for reviving unity in this country. And you, with this catechism, trying to get just politicians to whatever fake headline you’re going to print based on this conversation tomorrow, that’s what’s dividing this country to a breaking point. Shame on you! Look people in the eye and tell people what you’ve failed to tell them for the last five years. Own the accountability for your own failures as the media. That’s how we rebuild trust in this country. And until then, I don’t have a lot of patience to play the games.
Well all righty then!
1. I appreciate any politician telling a reporter who tries the moldy “Will you condemn [X ]at my command because if you don’t everyone will think you approve of it” ploy to stick the question where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s a cheap, manipulative trick, unethical journalism, and should be routinely treated as unfair as “When did you stop beating your wife?” Trump fell into the trap when he was asked to condemn the demonstrators in Charlottesville. Vivek wins ethics points for his response, and also for later calling the question “stupid.” Now if everyone would respond that way, we might make some progress…
2. Also to be scorned is the game of making a candidate accountable for the character and conduct of someone who endorses him or her. It is the essence of guilt by association, and the standard answer should be, “I welcome all supporters. Their endorsement of me doesn’t mean I necessarily endorse them.”
3. Ramaswamy’s statement that he rejects “vicious racism” sets off my ethics alarms. What distinction is he making? It is obviously intentional, because he uses the odd term “vicious racial discrimination” twice. “Vicious” as opposed to what? Gentle racial discrimination? Nice racial discrimination? What kind of racial discrimination does he not condemn? He’s being too cute, and it makes me suspicious of his motives and transparency.
4. Of course the candidate is correct about the insidious rise of anti-white racism, so why describe it in code: “discrimination based on race on a very different direction”? Ramaswamy’s trademark is supposed to be boldly telling it like it is: why does he choke on “anti-white racism”?
5. The news media is peddling societal conflict and division. Bingo.
6. I wonder what he was talking about when he told the reporter that journalists should tell the public “what you’ve failed to tell them for the last five years.” Why five years? Why not three years? Or ten years?
7. Mediaite’s Jennifer Bowers Bahney calls “You want to know the best way to end discrimination based on race? Stop discriminating on the basis of race” Ramaswamy’s “nebulous solution to racism in America.” What’s nebulous about it? It is almost an exact quote from Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), in which he stated in his opinion, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Ethics Alarms 
That was a pretty good rant, speaking as someone who has done his share ranting, some of it here. In fact you once said you could see the veins standing out in my neck and head as I ranted. That’s okay, ranting has its time and place, and this time as we go into this election we’re going to see plenty of ranting.
Kudos to Vivek for telling the reporters he was not going to recite his lessons to them. That’s the problem with the press these days, they think they get to teach everyone else what to say and then have us recite our lessons back to them on command, just like old style schoolteachers with severe hairstyles and rulers close at hand. I’d have been perfectly okay if he’d use a little bit more forceful and foul language to tell them exactly what they could do. Maybe the Republican party needs its own Rahm Emanuel. That said, no one wants to elect someone who sounds like a stereotypical Tourette’s patient, and cursing loses its impact if it’s done too much.
I think woke has finally crested and is going to start falling from here on. We’ve had almost 4 years to see what the almighty woke can do to this nation, and is anyone here happy with it? That’s probably where he gets the figure of 5 years counting 4 years for the disastrous fighting first term and one for the chaos of 2020.
Nebulous solution? Does this reporter have a specific plan for dealing with the problem of racism in america? I’d love to hear what her plan is. I’d be willing to bet you that it includes hefty reparations payment and reeducation of white people in the same catechism that Vivek just condemned. I grew up in a country where the school day started with the pledge of allegiance. That was ultimately found to be something that no one could be forced to do. People like the reporter who wrote that want to create a nation where the school day begins with some kind of pledge of allegiance to woke. I’m not sure what form that would take, and I’m frankly not eager to hear any attempts at it.
3. My guess here is that Ramaswamy is talking about real racism not the mantra of so-called systemic racism, microaggressions and presumed racist motivations behind everything from math to National Parks that have seized the brain cells of too many people.
His rant, of course, could have been more clear, but I’m supposing he spoke off the cuff and there is room for phrases like “discrimination based on race on a very different direction” and taking media malfeasance back five years instead of 10 or 20.
Unfortunately, because of phrases like those, it will be easier for the media to come up with editorializing headlines. But he knew that’s what they would do anyway.
That’s exactly how I took it- he’s opposed to racism as it was understood back when the term ‘racist’ actually conveyed something truly nasty about a person.
You know, before people like Ibram X. Kendi decided that you could only be ‘anti-racist’ or ‘racist’- no such thing as just being plain old ‘not racist.’ And that you are inherently racist if you benefit from ‘white privilege.’
And we have to guess at the video because presumably unfair media editorialization is present in the clip… He appears slightly unhinged without the context of the reporter’s line of questioning.
Regarding point 3, I wonder if Vivek used the word merely as an adjective for “racism”, classifying all forms of discrimination as “vicious”, as opposed to varying degrees of it.
That might be the case, given his later statement regarding “…black or white or brown, or anything in between…”. He is sending a message: to those of you who think discrimination against lighter-skinned people as a form of payback is alright?…you’re just as vicious as those who discriminate against you.
On “vicious racial discrimination,” I don’t know what Vivek is thinking, but I know how I would characterize it. It is discrimination based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. I discriminated against race, sex, and religion when I was looking for a spouse. I discriminated against men, because I wanted a woman. I discriminated against sexual preference, because I wanted a heterosexual mate. I discriminated against race, because I would prefer someone who meets a particular beauty profile, and in general, I’m not attracted to members of certain races. I discriminated against religion, because I concluded I wanted a wife who is Catholic. (Fortunately, my wife was instrumental in leading me back to the Catholic church, at which point I didn’t have to look any further for someone who shared the same religion.)
We could probably generate a thousand examples where most people would grudgingly agree that such discrimination is acceptable or even good. Those who would look at my considerations above and be horrified at how narrow minded I am about qualifications for a spouse are thankfully few, regardless of how outspoken they are. But those are the people who would delight in a gotcha where, once someone says he is opposed to racial discrimination, they would follow up and ask if he discriminated in one of these harmless matters, hoping to embarrass him with an apparent contradiction.
Great comment. I’d imagine Jack is fine with a director choosing to limit a certain role in a play or movie to certain races or genders.
Hollywood certainly is okay with that, but ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION.