39 Comments

I hate to say it, because it's going to make me look like someone who just disses younger generations. (I don't. I believe there is always a learning curve to aging! They have lots of promise.) But I honestly think the reason you've never encountered this in all your elections is because it is a product of a reality TV/social platforms generation coming of age. There will always be "that guy," and always has been in the past. The difference is this insatiable need to be seen that gets fostered in *some* (not all) folks these days. He's similar to a Trump, but without all the old guy influences Trump has. Trump is TV. Vivek is internet. They both are awful with no substance.

Expand full comment

Very true. Social media allows people like Vivek to become a sort of folk hero -- for all the wrong reasons.

Expand full comment

I opened the Comments section to say something similar but slightly different: it FEELS to me that Vivek is (and means to be) the human embodiment of an online avatar. His particular form of smugness is a very short form kind of smugness; I can’t even imagine him doing a Tucker-style “full essay” kind of rant. However smart he may actually be, his chosen performative style is essentially the live tweet.

Expand full comment

That is a great concept. "The live tweet." I think you are onto it.

Expand full comment

I would find him pathetic if I had any desire to assign him a human characteristic.

Expand full comment

Agree!

Expand full comment

If you look back over your years in school and the various jobs you have had and you probably had someone like Smarmy Rice-a-Roni.

I grew up 20 miles from Manhattan. We had two expressions that seem applicable:

'ATNA" All talk no action. This is absolutely applies to Trump policies and perhaps Smarmy.

And this certainly applies to them both: "If you say something loud enough, it has to be true."

Expand full comment

Hi Chris!

I feel that what you say also applies to Trump. And I feel how you wrote about Vikek's candidacy in this article is the same way people were writting about Trump's in 2016.

Do you think they are any different in any way? Because the way I see it the only major difference is that Trump was already very super famous before politics unlike Vivek..

Expand full comment

He was more famous for sure. I also think there is a rogue's charm to Trump for the people who support him. He is brash and says whatever he thinks -- and people respond to that. I don't see that same trait in Vivek.

Expand full comment

Maybe because Trump is/was older and already commanded or heavily influenced society, government, and large groups of fans. But I definitely see your point! It could just come down to Trump is schmooze and Vivek is shock. One goes down easier?

Expand full comment

Vivek is the Tucker Carlson (or Lee Atwater for those of us of a certain age) of Republican candidates. Maybe he is auditioning for Fox? Like you said, he doesn't need the money, but he would be in his glory if he got on Fox every night, bloviating.

Expand full comment

He would LOVE to have a regular gig on Fox. Validation!

Expand full comment

Or a cabinet position.

Expand full comment

I think Vivek's cabinet position would be the one high up, over the refrigerator. It's a pain to deal with, so it's only for unnecessary and rarely used stuff.

Expand full comment

NUYCE!!!! ;-)

Expand full comment

Vivek, possessor of The Face Most In Need Of Meeting A Fist - Repeatedly, always manages to remind me of a quote from Clarence Darrow: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great relish." Reading Vivek's will get that response from me. Great relish.

Expand full comment

he was the most hateable only because Lyin' Ted wasn't there

Expand full comment

Chris, as I was reading your last few paragraphs...if he wins, great, but he mostly wants to BE somebody, to get attention...he's very wealthy...just wants to stand in front of crowds and be adored (obviosuly, I'm not quoting you word for word, but that's what I was "hearing" as I read you). Then, you conclude with the notion that in all your years you've never come across anyone like him. Couldn't you substitute "Trump" for "Ramaswamy" and still write nearly the identical concluding paragraphs? I have come to believe that initially...on the golden escalator...Trump didn't care if he won, he just wanted the publicity and attention. Now that he's had a taste of power, he wants the power, but isn't 2023 Ramaswamy almost a 2015 Trump 2.0?

Expand full comment

Sort of. As I said above though, I do think Trump has a sort of charm to him. I think he is more self aware than Vivek too. Which, of course, makes him more dangerous.

Expand full comment

Ah, smarm vs. charm...a fair (if scary) difference...not sure which is more dangerous...people tend to see smarm coming, where as charm sneaks up on you.

Expand full comment

Yes! Smarm vs charm!

Expand full comment

Trump's "self-awareness" - the possession of which is debatable - has certainly never led to any self-knowledge. His cringeworthy ignorance (which was most obvious with everything he said about COVID), of which he is proud to display, is the thing about him that leads to most of my thoughts concerning him being filed under "if my thought dreams could be seen, they'd put my head in a guillotine."

Expand full comment

But doesn’t Ramaswamy follow so many of the others that are following this GOP playbook. Gaetz, Boebert, Taylor Greene. None of them care about governing (sound familiar Donny?). They simply want to disrupt. “Look at me” seems to be the current GOP mantra.

Expand full comment

Ramaswamy wanting to be famous or infamous but not serious about the job is, like you said, a pattern in the GOP. The list is getting long for the Lust for Attention. The US House has been infested with them since 2016. The Senate is just as infected like Cruz, Hawley, Paul, Vance, Grassley, Cotton, Mace. How can any real representation for voters happen with these kind of celebrity wannabes?

Expand full comment

As I said in the chat last night, you couldn’t PAY me to watch those debates: seeing your’s and everyone’s comments were more than enough for me! I have zero patience for assholes and I would have been yelling at the Vivek on the screen, making the rest of my family highly uncomfortable.

A number of folks have asked this, Chris, but I’d really like to explore it more deeply: what do you think his intention was in running for President on the Republican ticket? As you’ve pointed out, he’s wealthy and doesn’t need the office to make money or promote a “product”, and as the self-avowed “smartest-guy-in-the-room”, he’s got to be fully aware that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the Republican nominee, when MAGA is still thoroughly enthralled with Trump (and even if Trump is behind bars or face down, dead, in his Big Mac, Vivek STILL doesn’t have a chance). Is he another “damaged personality”, like Trump, always seeking approval or validation? Does he simply want to be famous, maybe even a Fox personality, as others have mentioned?

I’m fascinated with what his motivation(s) is/are and what his ultimate goal is, as it’s very clear as an entrepreneur, he sets a goal and works out a plan to achieve it...

Expand full comment

"The honest truth is that Ramaswamy hasn’t really been relevant in the race for a while now. He peaked in the immediate aftermath of the first debate when his smartest-guy-in-the-room schtick drew him a bunch of attention and interest."

The real honest truth is that Ramaswamy has NEVER been relevant in the race. He was never going to win...anywhere. He was never going to come in 2nd or 3rd...anywhere. And the smartest guy in the room would be smart enough to be better behaved, in any room. For example, see Obama, Barack; former president and usually the smartest guy in the room.

BTW, Chris, you have insulted college debaters. I speak as a former college debater, albeit from 60 years ago. Nonetheless, I have a lot of respect for people good enough, smart enough and logical enough to do it!

Expand full comment

Ha, no offense was meant! I should have said the caricature of a college debater.

Expand full comment

Indeed, no offense taken. College debaters are surely easy to make into a caricature. That was true 60 years ago, also. Don't quote me, but I suspect most of us thought we were the smartest person in the room. We then learned that we were smart enough to realize that we really weren't as smart as we thought we were.

Expand full comment

Yes, and realizing you're not as smart as you thought you were is what turned you into a mature, thoughtful adult. That's a realization probably 60% of the population never has.

Expand full comment

"Vivek Ramaswamy is remarkably hateable".

But he works so hard at it, and succeeds very well....

Expand full comment

I agree with your assessment of Mr. Ramaswamy.

You also wrote, "Donald Trump, who wasn’t there, is still almost certain to be the GOP nominee...."

I would drop the word "almost".

Expand full comment

Almost (HA) certainly right.

Expand full comment

Is it possible Ramaswamy is a Trump understudy?

Expand full comment

Pablo Torre (formerly of ESPN) went to Harvard with him and talked about it on his podcast maybe a month ago. Apparently he hasn’t changed a bit since college.

Expand full comment