Vivek Ramaswamy: How To Beat An Ideologue

A masterclass in handling dishonest activists.

I spend a great deal of time thinking about why radical activists are so good at browbeating any person or organisation standing in opposition to their worldview, such that they usually fall in line. Any student of the ‘woke’ left will observe that a number of devious strategies are employed to suppress dissent. One of these is is to aggressively frame any discussion in terms advantageous to themselves.

In recent years, there has been a tendency of ‘mainstream’ public figures to fold under even the mildest line of woke questioning, even when they are expressing reasonable opinions shared by the vast majority of people. ‘Populist’ types on the other hand do not seem to struggle as much.

While I have argued that the ‘cancel culture’ trend is diminishing, let us examine a strategy that has been employed to create a culture of silence, and how to beat it.

Framing: A Rhetorical Trap

In short, leftist ideologues realise that by dishonestly framing their argument in terms no one could disagree with, they can force their opponent onto the back foot without them even realising it.

This usually takes one of two forms:

1. A baseless, yet extreme accusation

2. A false choice between two bad options

The result is generally that the target becomes defensive, appears weak or digs a hole for themself.

It works because most people are decent and would not expect such strong accusations be made if they were not sincere. It works especially well on left-liberal types, who tend to be more susceptible to woke causes, but ‘conservatives’ are not immune either.

The Wrong Way: Priti Patel

Let’s take an example of how not to respond to woke framing.

During the mostly peaceful summer of 2020, the British Home Secretary at the time, Conservative MP Priti Patel, was responsible for the UK Government’s response to the various outbursts of violence and looting on Britain’s streets. Naturally, the government was accused of being uncompassionate and all the worst kinds of ‘-ist’ and ‘-phobic’. She could not bring herself to respond to obviously insincere identitarian criticisms without first playing the identity game herself. She too, was a victim of racial bigotry.

Priti Patel MP - Former British Home Secretary

By doing so, she bought into the notion that one’s ethnicity is the most important thing about them and validated her critics’ stance. Whether or not her testimony is true (and there is no reason to doubt it), she accepted the terms of the argument set out by the her opponents.

You’ve probably seen many a politician, celebrity or organisation accused of being something that they obviously aren’t, and capitulating to the mob. They apologise for the thing they didn’t do, promise to ‘do better’ and hope that the problem will go away. It never does. The braver among them argue back, trying in vain to prove that they are good people in the terms set by their accusers (and humiliate themselves).

Radical leftists do not care if you attempt to hold them to their own standards. They will simply move on to something else and you will be back on the defensive.

The Right Way: Vivek Ramaswamy

Perhaps more than any other politician (or political candidate in this case), Vivek Ramaswamy understands how the woke game is played and how it has gained so much institutional power (DEI and ESG, primarily). He even wrote a book about it, Woke Inc., which I recommend.

He recently made waves when a Washington Post ‘journalist’ attempted to a ‘gotcha’ moment with the intention of making Ramaswamy appear as if he endorsed racial bigotry. His response is a masterclass in how to deal with woke framing.

Vivek Ramaswamy - Republican US Presidential Candidate and Entrepreneur

To summarise, after receiving an endorsement from former Republican Congressman Steve King (known for controversial comments around racial topics), the reporter asks him whether or not he will ‘condemn white supremacy’. Ramaswamy correctly recognises this for what it is - by responding within the framework of the question, he would give the reporter the hit piece she wanted whichever way he goes. If he condemns, he implicitly agrees to her position, advancing her agenda and alienating potential supporters. If he refuses to condemn, then she can print her headline. This is the case regardless of what King may or may not be.

What he does instead is to flip over the table. Understanding what is going on, he clearly explains how and why the reporter is framing her question in such a way, and draws attention to the underlying assumptions. By exposing the trick, it loses its power.

There are other ways to do this. The Trumpian way is to go on the offensive or plain dismiss the question, as he did so memorably when being questioned about former Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s DNA results. Who cares!

A higher risk strategy can be to accept the framing but dismiss the moral position, as exhibited when British left-wing agitator Owen Jones attempted a ‘gotcha’ on a young Tory at last year’s UK Conservative Party Conference. Jones opened with a line of questioning about controversial politician Enoch Powell, known for his anti-immigration position and inflammatory speeches. With Powell being in his grave for more than two decades, the question can only be to get a sensationalist headline.

Realising this, the young man was able to perform a rhetorical judo flip on Jones, along the lines of, ‘yes Powell may have been controversial or even offensive, but he was right and here is why’. The reason this clip went viral is because the Tory broke with tradition by sticking to his guns and was able to support his position, rather than meekly acquiescing and backing down.

Takeaway

So what can we learn from this?

It is important to recognise dishonest framing and be equipped to understand the intent of a question, as well as how to expose it. Being defensive does not work when you are dealing with people not acting in good faith.

In this sense, we need fewer Patels and more Ramaswamys.

Let me know what you think in the comments.