Vivek Ramaswamy’s Braindead Attempts at Pandering to the Little People Reach New Depths

Vivek Ramaswamy, the smarmy candidate to be Donald Trump’s running mate playacting as a presidential hopeful, issued perhaps the worst of his typically cynical, ill-conceived, and far too cocksure statements yet over the weekend.

Agitated by a story about a competitor’s recent trip to Ukraine, Ramaswamy lamented that “Ukraine-ism is now a new religion.”

“Kyiv is the Vatican, Zelensky is the pope, and career politicians in both parties are the new faithful,” continued Ramaswamy. “It’s sad that they’ll make a pilgrimage halfway around the world while ignoring the invasion across our own southern border right here at home.”

It’s hard to imagine a declaration that could reflect less self-awareness about the candidate or understanding of his would-be constituents.

Republican voters are overwhelmingly religious, majority Christian, and increasingly Catholic. So it’s unlikely that such a comparison would have the negative connotation and effect that Ramaswamy hoped it might.

Of course, Ramaswamy’s inartful point was likely that idol worship, not religion, is something to be condemned. But on that count, Ramaswamy’s guilt is more readily apparent than proponents of aiding Ukraine in its defensive war against Russia.

Indeed, while Ramaswamy was quick to mock a visit to a war-torn ally by a prospective commander-in-chief, he himself is prone to ceremonial pilgrimages accompanied by somber pronouncements of faith and grave prophecies.

After the first federal indictment of Trump — a near ironclad case — was unsealed in June, Ramaswamy summoned the masses to call on his competitors with the flaw of not sharing the former president’s surname to promise to pardon Trump.

“I have challenged, I have demanded that every other candidate in this race either sign this commitment to pardon on January 20, 2025 or else to explain why they are not!” shouted Ramaswamy, barely withholding a threat of fire and brimstone.

The scene was similar after Trump was indicted last week for his attempts to nullify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“Today I’m in front of the courthouse in Washington, D.C. where the 45th president of the United States, my competitor in this race, will be arraigned later today,” stated the gloomy candidate, before decrying the “persecution through prosecution” of the almost divinely described former president.

How could such a devoted and unconditionally loyal servant be so quick to condemn Ukraine’s friends as irrational?

Proponents of aiding Ukraine can at least articulate a reasonable case. Russia’s instinct for brutal expansionism should be curbed and the United States must send an unmistakable message to China over Taiwan. Opponents such as Ramaswamy might profess to have more compelling countervailing arguments, but they cannot deny the basic validity of their interlocutors’ perspectives.

Can Ramaswamy provide a similarly logical explanation for why former presidents should stand above the law? If so, we haven’t seen it.

Eliding the actual facts of the two federal cases against Trump, Ramaswamy has sought to capitalize on voters’ partisanship by railing against the unfairness of it all and implying — though not proving — that Trump’s prosecutors have ulterior and sinister motives apart from enforcing the law.

In the meantime, he’s castigated his opponents for being insufficiently supportive of Trump while casting himself as a man of singular courage for his promise to pardon him.

“It’s gonna be difficult for those other candidates to sign this letter,” declared Ramaswamy of his pardon pledge in June. “The reason it’s gonna be difficult for them, is the same reason it’s difficult for me,” he continued, citing the “donor class” as an obstacle to justice for Trump.

The political courage it took for the longshot candidate to promise to pardon the Republican frontrunner is comparable only to that of a fan who dares to wear a jersey with “JETER” emblazoned on its back into Yankee Stadium.

Ramaswamy, who had his Wikipedia scrubbed of innocent biographical details for fear of the electorate’s wrath and condemned Trump over January 6 before stating with a straight face that he was “not responsible” for it, deplored that the “the government doesn’t trust the people” last week.

He’d fit right in.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.