Ramaswamy, Vivek (1985- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Is Confused

      by

      The theatrically combative presidential candidacy of Vivek Ramaswamy seems to be premised on two messages. One is his disdain for identity politics, which he argues creates a citizenry obsessed with victimhood and a corporate sector in thrall to trendy left-wing obsessions, leaving America trapped in a “cold cultural civil war,” as he put it last month in the first Republican debate. The other is his devotion to Donald Trump, whom Ramaswamy relentlessly defended in the debate, promising to support the former president, if Trump wins the Republican nomination, or to pardon him, if Ramaswamy wins the White House. He called Trump “the best president of the twenty-first century.”Both these stances, however, are complicated or contradicted by Ramaswamy’s literary trilogy: “Woke, Inc.” (2021), “Nation of Victims” (2022) and “Capitalist Punishment” (2023). In these works, Ramaswamy is more thoughtful, but also more confused, than his smiling, trolly, rapid-fire campaign persona. He can’t seem to decide if woke capitalism is a public-relations ploy or a mortal threat to the republic. And even as he lionizes Trump among his conservative heroes, he writes that Trump’s calls for American greatness degenerated into “just another tale of grievance, a persecution complex that swallowed much of the Republican Party whole.” (Swallowing much of something whole is a typical Ramaswamy hedge, one of several categorical assertions in these books that find room for a little wiggle.)In “Woke, Inc.,” published some seven months into Joe Biden’s presidency, Ramaswamy assails the rise of so-called stakeholder capitalism, the notion that companies should not solely serve the interests of shareholders but should also serve the interests of workers, the environment or society writ vague. The traditional principle of maximizing shareholder value is not just about encouraging corporate greed, he argues, but about keeping capitalists in their lane, making sure that their business judgments do not lapse into moral ones. Yet that is precisely what happens, Ramaswamy complains, when chief executives and investors conspire with activists to push for, say, racial equity audits or socially responsible investing.Here, Ramaswamy struggles to make up his mind. Stakeholder capitalism is a “farce,” he writes, an example of “corporate opportunism” and “self-interest masquerading as morality,” a “do-good smoke screen” through which businesses distract the public from their perfidy. “The social causes simply serve as a form of reputational laundering for those same companies’ profit-seeking,” Ramaswamy maintains, with businesses “performatively one-upping each other to show that they’re the good guys.”But if the whole thing is just a lucrative P.R. scam, then it is hard to see how it is also “the greatest long-run threat of all to American democracy itself,” as Ramaswamy warns readers. On one page, businesses are pushing radical agendas and imposing their elite progressive values on our democratic process; on another, they are just “feigning wokeness” to win favor with consumers, “pretending to care about justice in order to make money.” So, is stakeholder capitalism a punch in the mouth to our nation’s principles or just lip service to justice? In Ramaswamy’s writing, the answer is never quite clear.Even when he is certain that something nefarious is underway, Ramaswamy doesn’t seem quite sure who the bad guys are. He warns that Facebook and Google “have effectively assumed the role of the state itself,” censoring public discourse under the guise of fighting hate speech and misinformation. “The rise of Wokenomics consummates Silicon Valley’s coup over our democracy,” he writes ominously. Yet just a few pages later, readers learn that it is Congress that has “co-opted Silicon Valley” to restrict speech for its own purposes. So, is the tech industry the puppet or the master? Consistency seems irrelevant to Ramaswamy’s scattershot populism. In “Woke, Inc.” there are enough culprits to satisfy everyone.Ramaswamy can be hazy about his own basic tenets. “I don’t believe in ‘systemic racism,’” he declares in the third chapter of “Woke, Inc.” Yet in chapter 14, he acknowledges its reality. “My problem with woke complaints about ‘systemic racism’ isn’t that it doesn’t exist,” he writes. “It’s that too often it’s used as a vague, judgmental catchall phrase for all of America’s woes.” An author’s views can evolve over time, of course, and a politician’s are almost required to do so. It is less common to see them contradicted across the pages of the same book.I don’t know if Ramaswamy has an underlying philosophy or just an underlying shtick, but if one of these books captures it, it is probably “Nation of Victims.” In this book, Ramaswamy laments that Americans have lost their scrappy, underdog attitude and defaulted to a mentality of group identity and collective grievance — an outlook that becomes self-fulfilling. “If we divide the world into black and white, virtuous victims and evil oppressors with no shades of gray, we will create the nation that we see,” he writes.This is not a novel argument, and Ramaswamy highlights the post-Civil War Lost Cause narrative as an early example of the country’s enduring cultural resentments. “Modern America’s victim complex began as a tale of conservative white victimhood after the Civil War,” he writes, only to mutate into “an ongoing story of liberal white victimhood.”Ramaswamy concedes that “the Constitution brought justice to black Americans with the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education,” but since then virtually every possible identity group has been battling for a perch on what he derides as the “victimhood podium.” The result, he concludes, is a nation that has lost confidence in itself — a culture in decline, a less productive economy, a society that produces activists rather than engineers, a country so weakened that it “would almost certainly lose” a naval war with China over Taiwan.This could be the core of Ramaswamy’s political message: He marries anti-woke messages to pro-growth ones and links culture wars at home to shooting wars abroad. If Ramaswamy makes any contribution to the long-term electoral prospects of the Republican Party, it will be in broadening the case against identity politics from the realm of book bans and bathrooms to that of economics and national security.In “Nation of Victims,” Ramaswamy privileges the misdeeds of the progressive left, which he says is so taken by its own fantasies and slogans that it “replaces the voices of black people themselves” who, he suggests, may want more police presence in their communities rather than less. But his critique encompasses the right as well. “The worst victimhood narrative that afflicts modern conservatives,” he writes, “is their budding belief that any election they lose must have been stolen.” Aside from policy differences with Trump over tariffs and spending, Ramaswamy blasts the former president as a “sore loser,” even likening him to Stacey Abrams, the former candidate for governor of Georgia who refused to concede her 2018 defeat — and to be clear, in conservative politics, that’s a serious burn. Ramaswamy also writes that the events of Jan. 6 shook his faith in the United States: “Rome fell to invading barbarians, but us Americans have become our own barbarians, sacking ourselves.”These books are not the sanitized autobiographies one usually gets from self-congratulatory business executives or aspirants to high office. Ramaswamy offers some family background to animate his political and cultural awakenings — he was drawn to the expansiveness of capitalism, he reports, in contrast to the rigidity of caste he witnessed in his parents’ India, and his youthful conservatism was in part an “emotive choice” to counter the liberal convictions of his father — but these volumes are far more about principled arguments than personal stories, and he includes an eclectic mix of policy wonkery and moral maxims.Ramaswamy proposes mandatory national service for American high schoolers — he cites Pete Buttigieg’s similar call during his 2020 presidential campaign — and calls for “a hefty inheritance tax with no gaping loopholes” to prevent America’s meritocratic winners from morphing into aristocratic ones. He emphasizes the need for stronger job retraining programs for displaced blue-collar workers, the deregulation of housing markets and the easing of professional licensing requirements. He urges companies to prioritize “diversity of thought” among their employees rather than a diversity “crudely measured by appearance or accent.” And he longs for a “Manhattan Project” (an obligatory reference for policy mavens) for the national semiconductor industry to raise America’s economic and military competitiveness.Particularly striking are Ramaswamy’s thoughts on how to move the country beyond the identity conflicts that, in his view, erode our sense of nationhood. “The only way to break free of this vicious cycle is to find a way to forgive each other instead of trying to win at the game of playing the victim,” he writes. Our true selves do not equal our superficial identities, Ramaswamy insists, and we become better people when we see ourselves and others as individuals with the power to direct their own lives. “When you free yourself from the illusion that you’re a mere victim, you simultaneously free yourself from seeing others as mere oppressors,” he writes. This plea for collective forgiveness is a welcome break from the hyper-pugilism of Ramaswamy’s campaign appearances, even if his harsh exchanges on the Republican debate stage suggest that his conciliatory side has not yet taken hold.“Capitalist Punishment,” the latest and slimmest of his books, is something of an outlier in the Ramaswamy canon. It is narrowly cast, focusing on his criticism of investment funds that adopt E.S.G. (environmental, social and governance) principles to guide their strategies. Here, Ramaswamy’s transgressors are the investment firms BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. “The Big Three are becoming a threat to democracy,” he contends, because they impose social-activist values onto the industries in which they hold significant positions, including the oil and banking sectors, and because pension fund managers adopt E.S.G. investing even if individual pensioners may be ignorant of (or hostile to) such principles. “When elites force their values onto everyone else,” he writes, ordinary people lose trust in important institutions. “And that, in turn, makes society fall apart.”As in his other works, some tensions emerge in “Capitalist Punishment.” When Ramaswamy complains that E.S.G. investing is radically transforming corporate America but also revels in the fact that E.S.G. funds are “underperforming” and “dropping like flies,” it’s hard to tell if E.S.G. investing is pervasive or in decline. Yet, near the end of the book, readers gain some clarity on Ramaswamy’s own interests and motives.He calls for antitrust lawsuits against the big three and suggests that Black Rock break itself into two smaller firms. Ever helpful, he also offers an alternative for investors — an investment firm called Strive, co-founded in 2022 by Ramaswamy himself. And here the book reads almost like a fund prospectus:Strive’s mandate to underlying companies is simple: focus on excellence over politics; provide excellent products and services to your customers; and maximize value for your shareholders by doing that rather than advancing any particular social or political agenda.Though he retains a multimillion-dollar stake in the company, Ramaswamy resigned from the board and relinquished his day-to-day responsibilities at Strive earlier this year because he was running for president. Even so, depending on the standards to which one holds politicians, Ramaswamy’s self-serving approach in “Capitalist Punishment” may be disheartening or pedestrian. At the very least, encountering it does persuade me, as Ramaswamy argues in these books, that there are plenty of business people out there “pretending to care about justice in order to make money.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Fashion Watch: The Hottest Trend for 2024 Candidates

      by

      Ron DeSantis wears a “Ron DeSantis” shirt. Tim Scott sports a “Tim Scott” hat. Self-branding is all the rage for presidential candidates. To find out why, we asked Vanessa Friedman.Some politicians need no introduction. The rest are running for the Republican nomination for president.Ron DeSantis has the words “Ron DeSantis” plastered across the breast of his fishing-style shirts. On sunny days, Tim Scott wears a white baseball cap that says “Tim Scott.” Vivek Ramaswamy’s polo shirts read “Vivek,” and Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson wear hats and shirts with their names on them.Even Donald J. Trump — so recognizable that he didn’t need a mug shot after his first three indictments — wears the famous red hat emblazoned with his name, along with his Make America Great Again slogan.On the 2024 trail, nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates have turned themselves into human billboards for their campaigns. It’s a fashion choice that would be more typical for a state legislator, and it hasn’t been seen before on such a broad scale during a national campaign.Why are the candidates doing this? For the relative unknowns, it may be a necessity. For others, it may be yet another reflection of the trickle-down influence of Mr. Trump, the branding impresario leading the polls by a mile.To be sure, this batch of presidential candidates is hardly the first to don easily identifiable uniforms. Four years ago, Democratic primary candidates wore the same clothes all the time. You might vaguely remember Pete Buttigieg’s white shirt and blue tie, Elizabeth Warren’s black pants and cardigan or blazer, or Beto O’Rourke’s jeans and sweat-stained button-up shirt.To get a sense of what these Republican candidates are telling us with their stump-speech outfits, I checked in with Vanessa Friedman, the chief fashion critic at The New York Times. Our sartorial chat has been lightly edited.Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke each developed a signature look during the 2020 Democratic primary race — but that did not include garb emblazoned with their names.New York Times photographs by Tamir Kalifa, Ruth Fremson and Allison V. SmithReid Epstein: Hi, Vanessa. Why do you think these candidates feel it is necessary to wear shirts and hats with their names on them? If people come to see you when you’re running for president, shouldn’t you expect them to know who you are?Vanessa Friedman: They all understand that what they are selling at this point, more than any specific policy platform, is the brand that is them. Four years ago, the branding was slightly more abstract. Now, in our social-media-everything moment, it’s totally literal.They are using their clothes to frame themselves as relatable: You like a slogan tee? Me too! Especially when it is my slogan on the tee.Nikki Haley, along with Mr. Christie, has tended to shy from the trend. But like other Republicans, she sells branded merchandise.John Tully for The New York TimesReid: When Donald Trump ran for the first time, he made the red MAGA hats a ubiquitous best seller. Now his 2024 competitors are taking the self-branding a step further. Ron DeSantis hardly goes anywhere without a fishing shirt or vest that says “DeSantis for president.” At an ice cream shop in Iowa, even his 3-year-old daughter wore a T-shirt that said “DeSantis for president.” Don’t we know who DeSantis is by now?Mr. DeSantis often wears fishing shirts and vests with his name on them. His family has sometimes followed suit.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesVanessa: Everyone has to emoji-fy themselves. That is one of the legacies of Trump. He was doing it even before the hat — with the hair, the tan, the too-long ties — but at this point, the hat causes an almost Pavlovian reaction in anyone seeing it. It’s instant semiology, and that is worth its weight in votes. The rest of the Republicans have to distinguish themselves from the pack any way they can.I was struck by the fact that at the first Republican debate, every candidate except for Nikki Haley was in the Trump uniform of red tie, white shirt, blue suit — which made them all look like Mini-Me versions of the guy who wasn’t there. The DeSantis gear is probably an attempt to stand out. I don’t think it’s an accident that he has stuck his name on fishing shirts and fleece vests. Those are uniforms of two very specific constituencies.Whether it was telepathy or that they all called one another to coordinate beforehand, the male Republican candidates matched their wardrobes at the first debate.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesReid: Right, there are plenty of Republican men who spend a lot of time fishing and doing whatever people do in fleece vests. I must admit here that I do not own any fleece vests.It must make it harder for DeSantis to stand out by wearing his name on his shirt when everyone else is doing it, too. That may be a metaphor for his larger problem in taking on Trump in a crowded Republican field.Vanessa: You know who famously wears fleece vests? The Sun Valley crowd. Many of whom fled to … Florida during Covid. Many of whom DeSantis wants to woo for their deep pockets and connections. All of these clothes are attempts at camouflage, ways to communicate subconsciously to specific groups that you share their values because you share their outfits. It sounds silly, but it’s true.The risk in doing so, I think, is that you look inauthentic — that you are literally trying something on. John Fetterman is fine in his Carhartt and Dickies because they are clearly his clothes. But imagine Mike Pence? It would be ridiculous.Reid: OK, let’s talk about Mike Pence.Vanessa: And the leather biker vest?Reid: At the Iowa State Fair, he wore a blue-and-white striped shirt. No name! But on an earlier trip to Iowa for Senator Joni Ernst’s motorcycle-ride fund-raiser, he wore a leather vest with too many patches to count. Including one with his name on it.Mike Pence showed off his biker bona fides at a fund-raiser hosted by Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesVanessa: It was the most incongruous garment-person combination I have seen in this campaign — though a photograph of Mike Pence riding with the Hell’s Angels might do interesting things for his image. To me, the Pence signature is the perfect head of immovable white hair. Also, if we don’t know his name by now, he has a bigger problem.Which brings me to … Vivek! What do you think of his branding?Reid: Nobody in this campaign has tried to copy the Trump model more than Vivek. He’s got signature hats — they say TRUTH, rather than MAGA — and wears shirts that say “VIVEK 2024.” It fits with his broader attempt to cast himself as a millennial Trump.His branding uses his first name, Vivek, which is easier for people to spell (if not to pronounce — it rhymes with “cake”) than his last name, Ramaswamy.Mr. Ramaswamy has often pitched himself as a millennial version of Mr. Trump. Sophie Park for The New York TimesVanessa: Definitely. Also, he has made good use of the “V” in terms of design, which is pretty catchy (even if I am partisan when it comes to Vs). It reminds me a bit of Andrew Yang’s “Yang Gang,” the same way Vivek’s “TRUTH” reminds me of Yang’s “MATH.” And it’s effective. Whatever happens to him in this primary, people are going to remember the symbols.Interestingly, the one candidate who refuses to play this game, as far as I can tell, is Chris Christie.Reid: I’m not sure that Christie has changed his wardrobe much over the years. He still wears shirts with his initials — C.J.C. — monogrammed over the chest pocket and on his cuffs. In my conversations with Christie before he entered the race, he was very proud of the idea that he was better known than anyone in the field except Trump.Vanessa: Christie is indeed recognizable because of his reputation, and his slightly rumpled self (“I’m a real person, not a media-trained bot!”). Also, his campaign website doesn’t sell any merch, which is interesting. He doesn’t have any “Christie 2024” shirts close at hand.Mr. Christie prefers subtly monogrammed shirts. Sophie Park for The New York TimesReid: The lesser-known candidates have a lot more work to do in introducing themselves to voters. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas have been doubling up — wearing both a hat and a polo shirt with their names on them. Outside the Iowa State Fair, Burgum, who is very rich, had his campaign handing out free T-shirts that said “Who is Doug?”Vanessa: Yes, he’s making a joke about his anonymity, which is a good idea. Humor is always a boon in politics, though I am not sure it’s going to be enough, in this case.Reid: Also, Doug is a fun name to say. Doug!Asa Hutchinson has doubled down on his self-branding.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesSo has Doug Burgum, who like Mr. Hutchinson trails far behind in the polls.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesVanessa: Remember … Jeb!?Reid: We should talk about Trump.Vanessa: One of the problems with the name merch is that it all seems a little flimflam. A little cheaply made (even though it is all Made in the U.S.A., according to the candidates’ online stores).Reid: Trump’s look remains enduring and, like so much of his political enterprise, just about impossible for anyone else to pull off. The power ties, the hats that declare him both the 45th president (true) and the 47th president (false … for now). The man who slapped his name on buildings around the world seems to be above putting it on his own shirt.Vanessa: He’s just doubling down on his look. Everyone made fun of it, but he got the last laugh, because, whether we like it or not, no one can forget it.Mr. Trump’s face is everywhere at Republican events, including on merchandise not sold by his campaign.Rachel Mummey for The New York Times More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Candidates Focus on China to Demonstrate Foreign Policy Credentials

      by

      The 2024 hopefuls are rolling out plans to counter Beijing, criticizing President Biden while largely sidestepping topics more divisive among Republican voters.Republican presidential hopefuls eager to demonstrate their foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail have homed in on China, a topic that allows them to assail President Biden while focusing less on global issues more divisive with primary voters.While the candidates are in near-unanimous agreement that Beijing is the United States’ foremost foreign adversary, their remarks and policy prescriptions reveal significant divides within their party on how to approach it.Former Vice President Mike Pence used a China-focused speech on Monday at the Hudson Institute in Washington to criticize Donald J. Trump, his former running mate and the race’s front-runner, and other competitors as being isolationist. Nikki Haley, who was one of Mr. Trump’s ambassadors to the United Nations, has suggested he was not aggressive enough on China.Vivek Ramaswamy, in a policy speech on Thursday at a packaging plant in New Albany, Ohio, attacked the protectionist trade policies that have been promoted by some in the party, including Mr. Trump.Still, to a large extent, the Republican contenders have all raced to see who can be the most hawkish toward Beijing, following a path set by Mr. Trump in 2016 when he made attacking China a central policy plank and then sharply hardened America’s trade policy toward the country. By focusing on China, the candidates can make detailed policy pronouncements and play up their credentials, yet avoid discussion of Russia or Ukraine, an increasingly divisive topic among Republicans.All of the candidates have blasted President Biden’s attitude toward China. Mr. Biden has sought to stabilize relations after escalating espionage accusations inflamed tensions. But he has also tried to counter Beijing’s growing global influence with a multilateral approach, aiming to shore up economic and diplomatic ties with regional allies.One of the Biden administration’s focal points has been targeting China’s semiconductor industry. The administration has enacted export controls and helped push the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan law that provided billions of dollars toward fostering a homegrown semiconductor industry that could make America less dependent on foreign suppliers.But even that bipartisan effort has come in for criticism. On Thursday, as Mr. Ramaswamy stood miles away from the site of a new Intel chip manufacturing complex that will be assisted by the CHIPS Act, he attacked the law for including provisions related to addressing climate change.“I am opposed to the CHIPS Act,” he said, “because it is really the Green New Deal masquerading in CHIPS masquerade clothing.”He also claimed without evidence that China had propagated the “climate change agenda” in order to hamper American industry.Mr. Ramaswamy also said he would focus on job training programs to develop a stronger work force for a robust chip industry. Doing so, he added, would make the United States less reliant on Taiwan, the world’s biggest chip producer, and reduce the threat that a Chinese attack on Taiwan might pose on American interests.Mr. Ramaswamy has previously suggested he would be less committed to defending Taiwan if the United States were less reliant on its semiconductors. That view, and his suggestion that Ukraine concede territory to Russia, have drawn fire from Mr. Pence and Ms. Haley.In his speech on Monday, Mr. Pence, who emphasized his role in crafting the Trump administration’s China policy, did not single out Mr. Ramaswamy. But he used the threat of Beijing as a lens through which he could posit his larger view of foreign policy: that America could not retrench from decades of global leadership.He accused some candidates of “abandoning the traditional conservative position of American leadership on the world stage, and embracing a new and dangerous form of isolationism.”Mr. Pence also criticized President Biden over the U.S. military’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, suggesting it had shown weakness on the world stage to China. (The Biden administration has said it was constrained in its options for ending the nation’s longest war by decisions made during the Trump-Pence administration.)During his term, Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, initiating a protracted trade war that eased somewhat when the United States and China signed a trade deal in early 2020. Seeking the nomination, his talk on economic issues has been combative even as he has praised China’s president, Xi Jinping, for his “iron fist” leadership.He has vowed to “completely eliminate U.S. dependence on China,” in part by reducing imports, restricting American companies’ ability to invest there and revoking the “most favored nation” trade status.Ms. Haley said earlier this year that she believed Mr. Trump had been so focused on trade that he ignored other Chinese threats.At town halls in New Hampshire on Thursday, she warned that China was outpacing the United States in shipbuilding and developing “neuro-strike weapons” that she said could be engineered to change brain activity and be used to target military commanders and segments of the population.China was more than just an economic rival, she suggested.“They don’t see us as a competitor,” Ms. Haley said. “They see us as an enemy.”Jazmine Ulloa More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson May Not Make the Next GOP Debate

      by

      Low poll numbers could keep the long-shot Republicans off the stage next Wednesday in the second presidential primary debate.After eking their way into the first Republican presidential debate last month, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, long-shot candidates, appear to be in jeopardy of failing to qualify for the party’s second debate next week.Both have been registering support in the low single digits in national polls and in the polls from early nominating states that the Republican National Committee uses to determine eligibility.The threshold is higher for this debate, happening on Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. Several better-known G.O.P. rivals are expected to make the cut — but the candidate who is perhaps best known, former President Donald J. Trump, is again planning to skip the debate.Mr. Trump, who remains the overwhelming front-runner for the party’s nomination despite a maelstrom of indictments against him, will instead give a speech to striking union autoworkers in Michigan.Who Has Qualified for the Second Republican Presidential Debate?Six candidates appear to have made the cut for the next debate. Donald J. Trump is not expected to attend.Some of Mr. Trump’s harshest critics in the G.O.P. have stepped up calls for the party’s bottom-tier candidates to leave the crowded race, consolidating support for a more viable alternative to the former president.Lance Trover, a spokesman for the Burgum campaign, contended in an email on Wednesday that Mr. Burgum was still positioned to qualify for the debate. Mr. Hutchinson’s campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Emma Vaughn, a spokeswoman for the R.N.C., said in an email on Wednesday that candidates have until 48 hours before the debate to qualify. She declined to comment further about which ones had already done so.Before the first debate on Aug. 23, the R.N.C. announced it was raising its polling and fund-raising thresholds to qualify for the second debate, which will be televised by Fox Business. Candidates must now register at least 3 percent support in a minimum of two national polls accepted by the R.N.C. The threshold for the first debate was 1 percent.Debate organizers will also recognize a combination of one national poll and polls from at least two of the following early nominating states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.“While debate stages are nice, we know there is no such thing as a national primary,” Mr. Trover said in a statement, adding, “Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are the real people that narrow the field.”Mr. Burgum’s campaign has a plan to give him a boost just before the debate, Mr. Trover added, targeting certain Republicans and conservative-leaning independents through video text messages. A super PAC supporting Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is running a distant second to Mr. Trump in Republican polls, has used a similar text messaging strategy.Mr. Burgum, a former software executive, is also harnessing his wealth to introduce himself to Republicans through television — and at considerable expense. Since the first debate, a super PAC aligned with him has booked about $8 million in national broadcast, live sports and radio advertising, including a $2 million infusion last week, according to Mr. Burgum’s campaign, which is a separate entity. His TV ads appeared during Monday Night Football on ESPN.As of Wednesday, there were six Republicans who appeared to be meeting the national polling requirement, according to FiveThirtyEight, a polling aggregation site.That list was led by Mr. Trump, who is ahead of Mr. DeSantis by an average of more than 40 percentage points. The list also includes the multimillionaire entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy; Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador; former Vice President Mike Pence; and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.And while Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina was averaging only 2.4 percent support nationally as of Wednesday, he is also expected to make the debate stage by relying on a combination of national and early nominating state polls to qualify.Mr. Scott has performed better in places like Iowa and his home state than in national polls, and his campaign has pressed the R.N.C. to place more emphasis on early nominating states.The R.N.C. also lifted its fund-raising benchmarks for the second debate. Only candidates who have received financial support from 50,000 donors will make the debate stage — 10,000 more than they needed for the first debate. They must also have at least 200 donors in 20 or more states or territories.While Mr. Burgum’s campaign said that it had reached the fund-raising threshold, it was not immediately clear whether Mr. Hutchinson had.Both candidates resorted to some unusual tactics to qualify for the first debate.Mr. Burgum offered $20 gift cards to anyone who gave at least $1 to his campaign, while Politico reported that Mr. Hutchinson had paid college students for each person they could persuade to contribute to his campaign.Candidates will still be required to sign a loyalty pledge promising to support the eventual Republican nominee, something that Mr. Trump refused to do before skipping the first debate.Shane Goldmacher More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Why Does the Republican Field All Sound the Same?

      by

      There’s a late-summer-fade quality to the Republican primary contest, as if the candidates are passively sliding into the inevitability of a Biden-Trump rematch.Donald Trump and a variety of other people see the animating factor here as the indictments against him. “We need one more indictment to close out this election,” Mr. Trump joked last month. This is also the prism through which the other candidates get discussed: that they don’t criticize Mr. Trump much, especially over his indictments.But there’s a bigger and more claustrophobic reality to the fading quality of Ron DeSantis and all these other Republicans: It’s as if they constructed their identities as Trump alternatives and ended up all the same.Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote this summer that Mr. DeSantis can sound generic next to Vivek Ramaswamy: They talk the same way about China and TikTok, about how they will use military force against the cartels in Mexico (even though this really sounds as if we will be going to war with Mexico), about the F.B.I.Two weeks before Mr. Wallace-Wells was in Iowa watching Mr. Ramaswamy make Mr. DeSantis sound generic, I heard Mr. DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott use a similar metaphor about the border — houses, which are being broken into — in events 18 hours apart. If we don’t control the border, it might not be our country, Mr. Scott said. We will repel the intrusion with force, Mr. DeSantis said. We will finish the wall, they said.“That’s why you see these things like weaponization of agencies, because nobody’s held them accountable,” Mr. DeSantis said. “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired watching the weaponization of the D.O.J. against their political opponents, against pro-life activists,” Mr. Scott said. On Day 1, Mr. DeSantis said, we’ll have a new F.B.I. director. The first three things we have to do, Mr. Scott said, are fire Joe Biden, Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray. “You’re going to have housecleaning at the Department of Justice,” Mr. DeSantis said. “We should actually eliminate every single political appointee in all the Department of Justice,” said Mr. Scott, who wants to “purge” the politicization of the department for the benefit of all Americans. They walked off the stage to the same song (Darius Rucker’s cover of “Wagon Wheel”).It can be hard to remember what made Mr. Trump distinct eight years ago, because it has become the texture of our lives. The 1980s tabloid dimension of his language — weeping mothers, blood and carnage, rot and disease in institutions, brutal action — crushed the antiseptic piety and euphemisms of the post-Bush Republican Party. The lurid, fallen vision of American life that implicitly casts critics as naïve chumps or in on the corruption is the one we still occupy.Now they all sound kind of like that. Politicians’ impulse to shorthand and flatten major policies and controversies is eternal, but it’s not just that they use similar words. The way these politicians talk takes the old, once-novel Trump themes, aggressive energy and promises and packages them into indoctrination and the administrative state.At the event in July where Mr. DeSantis sounded so like Mr. Scott did the evening before, he was midway through a period that the campaign had signaled would be a reset. At first, speaking to a midday crowd in Iowa, Mr. DeSantis ventured onto different ground, talking about economic concerns, the cost of things, debt. But he ended up talking about woke ideology, the administrative state, Disney and all the rest. If you spend a few days in New Hampshire, seeing Mr. Ramaswamy here and Mr. DeSantis there, or the full field at something like Iowa’s Lincoln Dinner, you can imagine nearly the entire Republican presidential field, hands joined, heads turning at once and saying with one voice, “End the weaponization of the Justice Department.”This dynamic might be on display in its purest form on the subject of voting and elections, in the way what Mr. Trump cares about flows through the base and becomes the starting premise of what the other candidates talk about. Mr. DeSantis runs a state with well-regarded early voting and ballot-counting practices — one where Mr. Trump won twice, along with a bunch of down-ballot Republicans. He transformed widespread voter fraud, an (illusory) concern of Mr. Trump’s, into a unit that would address (rare) instances of voter fraud and arrested a handful of people, some of whom have said they had no reason to believe they couldn’t vote, to prove the point that he takes Mr. Trump’s fake concerns seriously.Practically every candidacy right now is about Mr. Trump: The protest candidates exist to oppose Mr. Trump; the alternatives basically seem constructed in the negative (Trump but nice, Trump but we’ve got to win the suburbs again, Trump but competent) and grown inside the Trump concerns lab. Here and there, the candidates talk about health care, education costs, the economic changes with artificial intelligence or anything that might be kitchen table — things that exist beyond Mr. Trump’s reach — but it’s amazing how little some of this stuff is emphasized beyond inflation and energy costs.During the August debate, the Fox News moderators put something Nikki Haley said — that trans kids playing girls’ sports is “the women’s issue of our time” — to a few candidates. When they asked Ms. Haley, she barely registered her own line and led with, in what seems to be her real voice: “There’s a lot of crazy, woke things happening in schools, but we’ve got to get these kids reading. If a child can’t read by third grade, they’re four times less likely to graduate high school.” She can oscillate a bit, in and out of past and present iterations of the G.O.P., but as David Weigel wrote this spring, she accepts the premise of the Trump era: “I am very aware of a deep state,” she told a voter who asked about her plans to dismantle it this spring. “It’s not just in D.C.; it’s in every one of our states.”And none of them are winning! It might be the indictments that have firmed up Mr. Trump’s support, but the inescapable sameness of the candidates, especially when they should sound and seem different, is real.The idea some conservatives had for Mr. DeSantis — including Mr. DeSantis — was that he would be a singular figure, uniting the people attracted to the statist aggression of Mr. Trump and the people looking to move beyond Mr. Trump. Fundamentally, this depended on the idea that Mr. DeSantis is distinct from Mr. Trump, which seems like a misunderstanding. His appeal for certain kinds of conservatives, particularly donors, depended then on a subtle trust that he would not go too far and could shift into some other plane of political operation.But they were never distinct figures; Mr. DeSantis’s rise in the party as a competent aggressor exists because of the Trump era and the things that Mr. Trump is and isn’t. He makes happen what Mr. Trump talks about. And, like all the others who have defined themselves by being an alternative to an individual who is still always present, he has ended up talking about the same things and sounding the same as most of the others. Mr. Trump created the air that everyone now breathes.Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The 2024 Executive Power Survey

      by

      The Candidates Biden Kennedy Jr. Williamson Hutchinson Pence Ramaswamy Suarez Did not respond to questions. Burgum Did not respond to questions. Christie Did not respond to questions. DeSantis Did not respond to questions. Haley Did not respond to questions. Hurd Did not respond to questions. Scott Did not respond to questions. Trump More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy Says He Would Fire 75 Percent of the Federal Work Force if Elected

      by

      Vivek Ramaswamy, whose campaign for the Republican nomination has gained attention in recent months, has vowed to dismantle much of the federal government and shutter key agencies.Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican presidential candidate whose strident and sometimes unrealistic proposals have helped him stand out in the crowded primary field, said in a policy speech on Wednesday that he would fire more than 75 percent of the federal work force and shutter several major agencies.Among the government organizations that Mr. Ramaswamy vowed to disband are the Department of Education, the F.B.I., the Food and Nutrition Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He said he would move some of their functions to other agencies and departments.Mr. Ramaswamy, 38, also claimed he could make the changes unilaterally if he were to be elected president, putting forward a sweeping theory that the executive wields the power to restructure the federal government on his own and does not need to submit such proposals to Congress for approval.His pitch was another echo of former President Donald J. Trump, whom he has modeled himself after and who sought to expand political control over the federal work force near the end of his term. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Ramaswamy has also attacked parts of the federal government as a “deep state.” “We will use executive authority to shut down the deep state,” Mr. Ramaswamy said on Wednesday at the America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. He flipped through posters displaying government organizational charts as well as what he claimed were common “myths” about the limitations of presidential authority.But legal experts on the separation of powers and administrative law said the legal theories behind his proposal — detailed in an accompanying campaign white paper — were wrong and would not stand up to a court challenge.Peter M. Shane, a scholar in residence at New York University and a specialist in separation-of-powers law, said the paper was “fantastical.” Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University, said it took bits of statutory law “out of context” while “totally ignoring the Constitution,” which mandates that the U.S. Congress create the government departments and agencies that the president then supervises.Mr. Ramaswamy’s vow to shutter large parts of the government and fire most of its workers would also unravel significant parts of the civil service and disrupt government services that are central to the operation of modern American society, including law enforcement, background checks for firearm purchases, student financial aid and special education programs.About 2.25 million people work for the federal government in civilian roles. Cutting more than 75 percent of that work force would result in more than 1.6 million people being fired, saving billions of dollars in the federal budget but also shutting down critical functions of the government.Mr. Ramaswamy did not make clear where all those eliminated jobs could come from.The Congressional Budget Office has said that nearly 60 percent of federal civilian workers are in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security — but Mr. Ramaswamy did not mention cuts for any of them in his remarks on Wednesday or in additional materials from his campaign discussing the proposals.And while Mr. Ramaswamy named several agencies he said he would abolish, he added that he would move many of their functions to other organizations — suggesting that many of the same jobs would still exist elsewhere.Mr. Ramaswamy also said he would abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which became a frequent target of Trump-style Republicans after it investigated ties between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.Mr. Ramaswamy, who has less than 10 percent support in primary polls, has pitched himself as the future of the Republican Party — a radical conservative in the image of Mr. Trump.His proposals on Wednesday reinforced the similarities between the former president and the political newcomer. They have both previously attacked specific agencies like the F.B.I. and large swaths of the civil service. Mr. Trump had also planned in a hypothetical second term to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, bring independent agencies under direct presidential control and purge officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”But Mr. Ramaswamy’s proposals went even further, envisioning a wholesale dismantling. He took a moment during his speech to revel in the incendiary nature of his proposals.“We’re going to get a lot of pushback to this speech,” he said. “I have no doubt about it.” More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Second G.O.P Debate: Who Has Qualified So Far?

      by

      At least six candidates appear to have made the cut so far for the second Republican presidential debate on Sept. 27. Former President Donald J. Trump, the clear front-runner in polling, did not attend the first debate. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump will take part in the second, in part because he has not […] More