What most of us predicted is now fact: Donald Trump is the last man standing in the Republican field. He will face President Joe Biden for a rematch this November. Yet despite the fact that this match will include the same team captains, only one of them is set to bring another big player to his team roster. That is Trump, and that player is his running mate.
Who will that person be? Only Trump currently knows. But out of all of the names being brought up, there is one in particular that has been getting lots of attention. That's pharma billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
When orthodoxy dictates that selecting a VP is nothing more than a balancing act, going for Ramaswamy may seem like a heterodox choice. Still, there's a logic here and it must be taken seriously.
Naturally, picking the energetic entrepreneur who repeatedly called Trump the "best president in the 21st century" sounds mellifluous to America First enthusiasts. Comparatively speaking, he is not only sharper and younger than most alternatives, but he is aligned and expressedly loyal.
If the goal is pushing the America First agenda, Ramaswamy sounds appealing. During his campaign, he displayed the competency that attracted many to the Ron DeSantis camp, but without sacrificing many loyalty tokens—the currency Trump values most.
The case for Ramaswamy, though, is not just one based on loyalty and MAGA ideological purity. There is a strategic component to this equation too.
Ramaswamy is not a woman, neither is he black or Hispanic. He is an Indian-American, which is not a particularly sizable demographic. Most Americans, especially those who already voted Trump, don't want an affirmative action hire. Still, strategy-wise, it does make some sense to consider demographic realities. It is these two, simultaneously existing truths, that make picking Ramaswamy reasonable. It would be hard for anyone to claim that he was picked for his appearance, considering that there were better choices if we think that way, but he would nonetheless be a minority, so the effects of his selection wouldn't be negligible.
More importantly, Ramaswamy adds balance in a way that most strategists are overlooking. Just listen to the guy, and tell me that his vibes are not starkly distinct from Trump's—and not in a boring way.
The idea that in balancing things out, it's best to go for a small personality is just plain ridiculous. You can have big personalities; the issue is having them clash, and if there is one guy who has demonstrated that he wants no clashes with Trump, it's this one. In fact, Trump and Ramaswamy could use their energy to target distinct groups. That is what strengthens the case for Ramaswamy the most.
Trump's numbers with racial and ethnic minorities have been improving—even without any minority running mates by his side. A less-discussed challenge that Trump faces is with the youth. This time around, the vote of Generation Z in particular will matter more than ever before. In fact, the number of Gen Z voters who will be eligible to vote in 2024 is roughly equal that of the entire black population in the United States, at 41 million. Thinking generationally is crucial, yet strategists seem stuck on race.
If we think generationally, something fascinating comes to light. Back in the Iowa caucuses, according to Washington Post exit polls, Ramaswamy performed more than five times better with younger Americans (17-29) than with those older than 65. Meanwhile, Trump performed three times worse with younger Americans than with the oldest voting bloc. In other words, they complement each other's generational strengths.
Iowa is not the entire country, but this realization is what made me think about Ramaswamy as a potential running mate seriously. After all, he demonstrated that there is a way for America First Republicans to appeal to the youth without sacrificing the political priorities of the movement writ large. Simply put, the disparity in attention, not the content itself, is the big problem. By talking about the issues America's youngest face, and doing so in the spaces they find themselves in, Ramaswamy penetrated the young voters' market.
Some may oppose picking Ramaswamy, claiming that selecting a woman would make all the difference. But evidence suggests that having a woman on the ticket doesn't make all that much of a difference. Trump made gains with women in 2020, and he did about as well among women voters when he ran against Hillary Clinton (a woman) as Mitt Romney and John McCain did against Barack Obama (a man).
Recent trends that worry the Trump campaign regarding women voters have a very specific culprit: abortion. The former president has already began tackling the issue, presenting himself as the candidate that wants to reach a middle ground. Would a female running mate make much of a difference? It doesn't seem so. It's the policy, not representation per se, that would address this concern the best.
Of all the arguments against Ramaswamy, the one that makes most sense is the ideological moderation one. Technically speaking, it is true: selecting the likes of Nikki Haley casts a wider ideological net. Yet that's simply not gonna happen, not only due to loyalty or policy, but because the ideological component of the net is not all that matters. How many more palatable, less abrasive ideological nets have Republicans cast before? Many. Additionally, Trump's net is already quite wide—just look at any swing state poll. If anything, widening the net too much could yield some dangers, particularly a decline in enthusiasm.
Current conditions indicate that Republicans' priority should be to maximize their outreach, and if you spent any time on the podcasts and social media during the GOP primary process, you know who is the best one for the job.
Whether it's Ramaswamy or not, there is a good case to be made. Even if it's not him, whoever Trump selects should replicate what the former candidate started. Sadly, despite all of the throat-clearing about the woke Left, many on the Right are looking at the veepstakes quite superficially. Thinking about demographics and letting demographics control your thoughts are different things. Doing more of the former and less of the latter makes the other prominent entrepreneur-turned-politician in the Republican Party sound like an intelligent choice.
Juan P. Villasmil is an Intercollegiate Studies Institute editorial fellow at The Spectator World.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
