The Realignment: Last Friday edition of The Realignment's newsletter & Vivek Ramaswamy Transcript
Check back this upcoming Monday for the full newsletter
Welcome Back to The Realignment
Thanks for checking out The Realignment’s Substack newsletter.
If you’re new, hit subscribe to get future issues in your inbox every *Monday*.
Note: The Realignment’s Substack newsletter is moving to Mondays. This is the final Friday edition of the podcast.
Monday’s edition will have all of the bells and whistles, but today I’ll share the full transcript of yesterday’s recording. More to come after the weekend.
Vivek Ramaswamy Transcript
[00:00:00]
Saagar Enjeti: Vivek Ramaswamy, welcome to the realignment.
Vivek Ramaswamy: Good to be on guys.
Saagar Enjeti: Absolutely. So Vivek , I think it's important just to put this out at the top. One of the ways I became prominent, honestly, was just by interviewing newer candidates to the field, unconventional candidates, and kind of treating them seriously.
So at the top, I just wanna say you, to the audience, I'm gonna treat you the same way that I treated Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump, Mike Pompeo, any of the people that we've interviewed here. So I think at the top, number one, what is the case for your candidacy?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yeah. The case for my candidacy is I'm not advancing somebody else's vision.
I'm advancing my own, and it is a vision for national identity at a point where we lack one. I think America's in the middle of this identity crisis where if you ask most people my age, most people, your guys' age for that matter, what does it mean to be an American in the year 2023? You get a blank stare in response.
And I think that's a problem. And I think much of what the Republican party's focused on attacking from wokism to gender ideology, to climatism, to covidism for that matter, which I've also been a critic of, fierce critic of, [00:01:00] is just a symptom of that deeper identity crisis. And I don't see another candidate in this field stepping up to actually offer an affirmative vision of national identity that can dilute that vision to irrelevance.
And as part of that, I'm also willing to take on issues that other candidates in this field, bluntly, seem unwilling, frightened, or unable to take on.
Marshall Kosloff: Like what?
Vivek Ramaswamy: I've committed to end affirmative action in America. I Would love for another Republican candidate, all of whom behind closed doors say they agree with me on this.
To say that out loud, that could be done by executive order. Most affirmative action in America. Not a lot of people know this. The original sin, the head of the snake was a Lyndon Johnson era executive order. Every Republican president since then could have crossed it out. Instead, they complain about affirmative action without actually doing something.
Same thing with respect to climate...
Marshall Kosloff: Isn't part of the reason why Republicans don't do that is Republicans are doing terribly in the center adjacent suburbs. I think the last thing a Republican would want to convey is that they're gonna start a racial battle with the Supreme Court.
Isn't that why they're not doing it?
Vivek Ramaswamy: I mean, [00:02:00] maybe it's political calculus. I don't do the political calculation. I ask the question. This is why I make this about American identity from the standpoint of what it means to be an American. What are the values that define being an American?
Part of that to me is getting ahead, not on the color of your skin, but in the content of your character and your contributions. That's what it means to put merit back in America, and I. There's actually broad bipartisan consensus around that. More than most people appreciate California. You'll remember, what was it, prop 16 a couple of years ago that a liberal state still voted down on the back of saying that, no, no, no, we don't want to amend the state constitution to allow this form of discrimination.
So I think actually this meek attitude to think that actually we got a compromise and somehow we take these two sides as. That's not my theory of national unity. My theory of national unity is we achieve national unity in this country, not by showing up in some proverbial middle and say, can't we all hold hands guys and sing Kumbaya and get along?
No. We achieve national unity in America by embracing the extremism, the radicalism of the ideas [00:03:00] that set this nation into motion. And you wanna know the case for my candidacy? I'm willing to embrace the extremism and the radicalism of those American ideas, even without regard to simple partisan labels or political calculations.
And my bet is the American people are gonna be able to tell the difference between a foot soldier in the fight against wokism, who's spouting off talking points that he might have read in a book or in a binder given to you by a political consult. Versus somebody whose actual original bone deep conviction it is that drives this agenda.
And in my case, it's definitely the latter from affirmative action to the climate religion in this country, to willingness to use the military to solve the fentanyl crisis by going after cartels in Mexico and using our military to protect the southern border. Basic ideas that actually transcend, I would say partisan lines, but which other Republican candidates appear too fearful bluntly to be able to say out loud.
I'm taking on those sacred cows. And you know, I say this as a vegetarian, Hindu- American myself. Take those cows to the slaughterhouse because that's what it's gonna take to spawn a national revival. That's unapologetic.
Marshall Kosloff: [00:04:00] Here's something I wonder too. You kind of had a Barry Goldwater adjacent moment when you were talking about extremism.
He had the famous extremism in the defense of liberties is no vice .You're saying we need the extremism of the ideals that you're describing. Do you get the sense that the American people are asking for extremism right now? I mean, look at the 2022 midterms. That was the definition of a moment where the right thought there was all this populous energy.
There's all this aggression and it actually just turned out people don't like stop the steal and want things to be pretty normal. That's the Joe Biden case. What's the response to that? .
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yeah, so I don't think people are looking for partisan extremism because partisan extremism is A unproductive, but B, boring, it's not even coherent.
I mean, what does it mean to be a Republican today? What does it mean to be a Democrat today? These questions are on the table, they're circular, whereas I think what people are hungry for is a sense of purpose and meaning and identity and cause. I mean, I think our generation, all generations in this country today are so hungry for purpose at a moment in our.
When the things that used to fill that [00:05:00] void from faith to patriotism, to hard work, to family, those things have disappeared and that's what creates this moral vacuum in its wake. So are people hungry for it now? I think people are starved for it, a sense of what it means to be American, a revival of a national identity that we long for hungering to be part of a bigger nation, filling that hunger with something greater than transgenderism or wokeism or climateism.
Yes, people are hungry for it. Here's my problem though, is the Republican party so far has not been stepping up to deliver an affirmative inspiring vision to fill that void. Reviving ideas like merit, like free speech and open debate as our mechanism to settle political questions rather than censorship. Reviving the idea that who've ever thought the people we elect to run the government are the ones who actually run the government rather than this cancerous federal bureaucracy.
These are basic American ideas, and in fairness, I'll tell this...Those are extreme ideas. For most of human history, it was not done this way. All the way up to 1776 on the other side of the [00:06:00] pond, in Old World Europe, it was not done this way. So we're the weirdos here on the American side of the Atlantic in the post 1776 version of our country.
But that is part of what makes us who we are. And we've obsessed so much over, you know, our different... Hey, we have similar shades of melanin and on this particular call, but across the country. Different shades of melanin, who cares whether we look different, whether we're diverse, if there's nothing greater that binds us together across that diversity.
And if there's one thing that I think our citizenry is hungering for, it is a revival of that commonality, those basic ideals. And there I say yes, embracing the extremism of those ideas. I will not apologize for it because that's what it means to be.
Saagar Enjeti: One of the talks about extremism right now, Vivek here in Washington is a Republican standoff with the Biden administration over the debt ceiling and cutting Medicare and Social Security.
This isn't something I've heard you yet weigh on. Where do you stand on entitlement programs? Should they be untouchable in any sort of deal? If you were the president of the United States, what would you plan to do so [00:07:00] with those programs?
Vivek Ramaswamy: So the first observation I'd make is, this is, again, another one of these strawman partisan struggles.
I mean, one of the things that Republicans ought to be honest about was that spending was high under President Trump. I'm actually an unapologetic America first conservative. I think in order to put America first, we have to actually redefine and rediscover what America is now, Donald Trump, he had a lot of things right.
One of the things he didn't have right, was the amount of money he's spent. So I think that this is far from a partisan struggle. So I generally, Spending less money as the federal government.
Saagar Enjeti: What about entitlement programs?
Vivek Ramaswamy: I just wanna look, give you the broad backdrop.
So look, I think that there are easier ways to solve this than sort of dig trenches and then pretend like we have some sort of disagreement about it. Take somebody who's earned over 10 million over their life. Should they be eligible for Medicare in the same way as somebody who hasn't earned over a million dollars in their life?
I think we have to be able to have that discussion rationally without using toxic code words like means testing. I think if you get it really specific, I mean, that's a line that I would draw. Okay. I think that somebody,
Saagar Enjeti: 10 million?
Vivek Ramaswamy: 10 [00:08:00] million and that's a lot of people in this country.
And I think that, you know, we have a full policy team, early days, first week of the campaign. This is not one of my campaign priorities. Rock solid on on the 20 or so things that I do plan to deliver. This is not, admittedly, entitlement reform is not part of my case for the presidency.
You asked me what was I'll tell you about it. This isn't on the list, but it is something that, that a leader of the United States is gonna have to consider. And the way I think about this is that, there are reasonable incremental steps we can take to get the country back on the right track. The way I saw for it, what is on my agenda is shutting down many swaths of the federal government because part of where you get spending bloated the way it is, is if you put people in a job, they think they're supposed to do the job.
And all jobs in the federal government involves not only spending money on their own employment, but spending on money on behalf of the federal government itself. And so when I say shut down the Department of Education, Part of that is because the Department of Education has no reason to exist. But part of that at the federal level, but also part of that is because it's a step towards creating a culture in the federal government of not only spending less money, [00:09:00] but returning it to the people to whom it belongs.
So that's gonna be my main contribution, and I've laid out the fact that I'm gonna shut down government agencies. I'm gonna actually fire employees pursuant to Article Two of the Constitution, which says that actually the US president runs the executive branch of the government no matter what civil service protections and statutes say, those are the kinds of issues I'm most focused on.
But if you're gonna ask me directly, I'll tell you where I am on those entitlement reform programs.
Marshall Kosloff: Well, here's the thing, I'm not a huge fan of like 2000 George W. Bush, like " name the president of like Taiwan," gotcha Journalism. The reason why we're asking you, I think this actually matters beyond what you're saying though, is we could say whatever we want. What matters is what the voters actually think. And I could tell you the Donald Trump 2016 voters actually did not like how Jeb Bush was not aligned with their vision of how entitlements to social security actually worked. So what I want you to reckon with here, right? So talk about like you're saying these values of like merit and like individualism relate how that vision translates into how we treat old people in this country, cuz this is frankly a debate with Obamacare not being [00:10:00] overturned, with social security privatization failing, that the left has broadly won. So express that entitlement debate through the values you said at the top of the episode?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yeah. So look, I think that we have to start with the lower hanging fruit to a spawn a cultural revival that gets us, so here's, you know, my theory of the case philosophically, and then I can get to the specifics as much as you want on policy.
So my view is a lot of the things we're gonna have to do in this American moment will demand sacrifice. The one I've been most explicit about is decoupling from China. I've called for a declaration of independence from China. Sounds great on paper. In practice, a lot harder than it sounds. Why? Because it's gonna involve some trade-offs.
We got addicted to buying cheap stuff for a long time. That was a purposeful bargain we entered, but it got us into the precarious geopolitical position we're in, where we're in this co-dependent relationship with an enemy that's different than anything we ever experienced with the Soviet Union in the last Cold War.
Marshall Kosloff: Make people understand this then. So what you're saying is under your presidency, assume you could get this passed or whatever, or you could make this happen. We cannot do business with anyone. A small [00:11:00] business like garage cannot source its goods from China. That's what you're saying?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Well, I'm gonna be explicit about a couple of things of what decoupling means, but at the limit we have to be prepared to tell us businesses that you cannot do business in China unless and until the CCP reforms its behaviors or the CCP falls. And then for reasons I can explain to you, because I think China's in a very precarious position right now.
And we're working within a short window. We pull the rug out from under them that delivers that reform and possibly the fall of the modern CCP as we know it. Xi Jinping shot China's economy in the foot to take his third term last October. So there's a complex geopolitical view here that informs my view that this is actually leverage.
We exercise to defeat them economically so that we never have to militarily. I could go on for hours about that, but I bring that back as an example to say that yes, we have to be willing, as you pointed out, to make some short-term sacrifices in order to achieve long run. But I think the American moment right now calls not for Chamberlain.
It calls for Churchill. It calls for thinking on the time scales. Yes, I'm not shy to say it time scales of history rather than on the time [00:12:00] scales of an electoral cycle. And if we're able to do that, okay, then I think our kids and grandkids are gonna be a good place. But we can only do it if we know what we're sacrificing for.
And that's why it comes back to this case for national identity. You know, entering a family think about values I inherited from my parents, right? Entering a marriage, having kids, raising a family. These things involve a sacrifice in trade-offs too. But you can make those trade-offs if you know what you're sacrificing for.
I think it's the same thing in your capacity, not just as a family member or a parent, but as a citizen of this nation too. And that's why my focus and the next president of the United States, no successful president, no successful successful president in history, has been able to take on everything at once.
You pick the few things you're gonna. Clearly pledge what you're gonna do, go deliver and accomplish it. In my case, it's going to be to fill that void of a missing national identity by setting in place, setting into motion a set of policies that help us revive that sense of natural national culture and pride.
Start to declare independence from China and begin to demonstrate how we're [00:13:00] able to make the short run sacrifices in order to do what actually needs to be done. in the long run on the scales of history. And so, so you're calling this trial, I think about my priorities there.
Saagar Enjeti: You're calling this America First 2.0 and it really raises a question.
I know a lot of Trump people here in Washington. I've interviewed the president several times. What was wrong with America 1.0? And, there was a quite a bit of a discussion, you know, on the platform that you laid out. We didn't see immigration there at the top. Is there a reason that you didn't put immigration in your formulation of America First 2.0, you talked about climatism...
Vivek Ramaswamy: It's in there. Immigration's in there. And I chose to do something that most candidates don't do. As I launched my campaign, both on television and with a simultaneously published op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, laying about, I think the most specific campaign launched that, at least in modern history of candidates launched with immigration, was on there.
I believe in merit in immigration. Meritocratic immigration is the cornerstone for me. I divide this in terms of accidental immigration versus. Versus intentional.
Saagar Enjeti: What about overall levels though Vivek? So the Jared Kushner plan?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yeah. Wrong discussion, right, I'm not [00:14:00] rejecting your premise cuz other people talk about this too.
But look, I think that we should ask ourselves what are the right kinds of immigrants we want Right now we're getting the wrong kinds of immigrants. People whose first act of entering this country is a law breaking one should not be permitted to end this co enter this country. I say that unapologetically as the kid of immigrant.
I'm about a hard liner on that. I believe in using the military to secure the southern border if necessary, rather than protecting somebody else's border abroad. This is a higher priority here, however, and by the way, even in the legal immigration system, we have this hair-brained idea of lottery based immigration.
Cool on Earth would want America to pursue a lottery when you could just pick the best ones instead, right? Best ones as defined by loyalty to this country by willingness to make contributions to this country on the basis of economic and otherwise career-based track record, to predict who's gonna make the biggest contributions to this country.
So I think merit-based immigration ought to be the right answer. And so these people who wanna get this into discussion about this many immigrants are not, I say there's two problems with that. One is, let's say you just pick level X, whatever that number. , it may be that there are not enough immigrants [00:15:00] who even meet that bar.
Why should we let that many immigrants in? Conversely, if we have immigrants who are really willing to serve this country as citizens, make contributions, assimilate, be part of America and be proud of it, even more proud than people who actually inherit their status as American citizens. Great, let's have more of them.
But that's so far from where we are today. The problem today is that we actually have an accidental immigration policy. Starting with a disastrous, illegal immigration influx starting at the southern border. It's a straw man that, that otherwise exists in this numerical debate that some people like to have.
Saagar Enjeti: I understand but what was wrong with America First 1.0?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Nothing was wrong with America First 1.0 , but I wouldn't borrow the lingo America First if I thought something was wrong with it. I just think we need to take it to the next level.
Saagar Enjeti: So but then to follow up on that, right, president Trump is in the race. He was in the race whenever you announced your candidacy 2.0 is gonna be juxtaposed then with 1.0. So why is 2.0 then better than 1.0? The original version is on the ticket right now.
Couple of things here so I can get specific on the policies. I think I'm just willing to do certain things that President Trump, if he was gonna do them, [00:16:00] would've done them already.
Right. Eliminating affirmative action. Okay. Is the easiest example. Cause that can be done by executive order, but that's small ball. Okay. Compare small, not small ball, but small picture compared to the deeper answer to your question. I think in order to put America first, we need to rediscover what America is.
Okay. I care a lot about national unity and I know President Trump, he's, he's a friend. He, he's misunderstood on us. He cares about national unity too. I know he does, but he, I don't think is capable in the same way of delivering it. Cuz if he was, we wouldn't be where we are right now. And so, to me, I think the thing.
I care about many of your listeners care about many conservatives in this country care about what Donald Trump cares about is having not a national divorce. And one of the things about this conversation about a national divorce is the more you talk about it, the more it speaks itself into existence. I care about having one nation left at the end of it, e pluribus unum from many one.
That is the vision that set this nation into motion 250 years ago, and [00:17:00] I think we need a leader who is capable of actually delivering on that, both by going further than Donald Trump ever did. On questions from affirmative action to dismantling this climate religion that shackles the United States without shackling China.
That's going further on putting America first cast. Your question also has a clear North star on, on the ideals that set American motion and speak to that with national unity as an express objective on the other side of it.
Marshall Kosloff: There is a contradiction here. Your talk about national unity, but you say something like, climate religion that basically flips the bird at half the country.
How do you get national unity through polarization?
Vivek Ramaswamy: I disagree with you on that premise, and respectfully disagree with you. I Think that most people in this country agree with everything I've said so far. Okay. That there is a climate, religion that shackles the United States.
Without laying a finger on China, that the United States should be producing more fossil fuels. And it's completely hypocritical to tell companies like Exxon and Chevron that they can't, to only shift that oil production to places like Petro China in China, last time I checked it was global climate change.
And even if you subscribe to the tenants of this religion, methane [00:18:00] leakage is far worse over there than it is here, and methane's 80 times worse for global warming even than a unit of carbon dioxide. So a lot of this is a farce. I mean, even the E S G movements. And the climate movement's hostility to nuclear energy, befuddles, belies reality.
Because even if you cared about carbon production or or carbon emissions, you would be embracing nuclear energy production. So I think a lot of people see through that hypocrisy. A lot of people understand that, as I've joked around, this has about as much to do with the climate as the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Christ.
Okay, so you're not flipping the bird on Christians by saying that you actually. Oppose the, the Spanish Inquisition at the height in the 15th century. I think the same thing is true in America today. People recognize that these religious movements aren't even about the gods that they propose to care about from racial equality to the climate.
They've really become vehicles for aggregating power for the people who wield these magic words as a way of exercising dominion and control, and even punishment, self punishment on the back of it. And I think that goes for the racial equity agenda to climate change in a. [00:19:00] By the way, the calls I've gotten, I've been surprised even from Democrat friends or otherwise after they watch my opening video and, you know, only been one week on the campaign trail, but saying that, you know what, I'm afraid to say this to my friends, but actually a lot of them like what you're saying.
What did I say in my opening video? I don't care if you're black or white or Democrat or Republican, if you're on board with these basic principles, these basic rules then we're on the same team and we can disagree on whether Ivermectin treats covid or whether corporate tax rates should be high or low.
But if we're on board with the unapologetic pursuit of excellence of free speech and open debate of self-governance over aristocracy, of recognizing that China is indeed our number one long run, threat that it's worth making some sacrifices to address. That's what it means to be American today. And that's a pro-American movement that transcends these, I would say, somewhat boring, partisan boundaries that we've somehow become a prisoner of, in part because of modern media and a bunch of other reasons.
Marshall Kosloff: We've got less than five minutes left, so I will be quick about these ones. So you had an interesting interview with [00:20:00] Hugh Hewitt earlier in the week, you didn't know, what the nuclear triad meant. We'll put that to the side. You can learn what that term means. I know you know what it is now. That said, I think the significance behind the question though is the president is in charge of the means to end the earth. You can definitely train to learn what acronyms mean. I'm not convinced that you could learn in a year and a half during Partisan Fox News hits podcasts like this, how to like actually sit down with Xi or Vladimir Putin. Convince me otherwise?
Vivek Ramaswamy: So you make great point and thank you for taking the superficiality out of it cuz anyone can learn a term, right? So this is a word, okay? I understand that there's layer, land, air, and sea but I'm approaching this with humility.
I think one of the things that's different is, yes, I'm I fast study. Yes. Have I taken on other complicated problems before and learned them fast? Sure. But. I gotta approach this, and I am approaching this with humility. So I'll just tell you where I came from. Earlier today. I was having lunch upstairs in my house.
I'm in the basement now with a former cabinet level secretary from the Trump administration who was over here visiting me. We spent two hours training on, on the relevant issues, you know, [00:21:00] training.
Marshall Kosloff: I have to be precise what does training mean? Does train Because? Lemme tell you a quick story.
Berlin 1961, incredibly important. FJK , he's in the presidency. He meets in Vienna with Khrushchev. He looks like a fool in front of Khrushchev because JFK is a very smart guy, but he was not really ready for it. Khrushchev builds the Berlin Wall, then the Cuban missile crisis. That is the definition of an example of how in the presidency, there was no training for that, that JFK could have done between 1959 and 1960. So what does training mean in that context?
Vivek Ramaswamy: At least understanding the history and the status quo. But you can't, you have to analyze a future situation. You can never do it by analogizing as a substitute. But one of the things that we're gonna do that's different on this campaign, and I haven't talked about this, so I'll mention this to you guys, is we're gonna tape that we're gonna do it daily.
We got two hours at least daily, where there's somebody coming. Flying here, spending time with me in Columbus, Ohio. We're gonna actually let the world watch how I learn. Okay? Nobody any, by the way, many of the governors who are running, they're utterly unprepared on foreign policy as well. Not because it's their fault, it's just not in the [00:22:00] nature of what it means to be a governor.
So nobody is really prepared to...
Wait, wait. Quick pause. It's important. I would not debate that you being incredibly educated and smart may know more information at the end of this campaign than a governor does. But the issue of George W. Bush wasn't that he didn't know enough facts. It's that when 9/11 happened, he had terrible judgment.
He had terrible judgment. He was emotionally immature. He wasn't intellectually suited for the job he was foisted upon. I'm just concerned if we reduce this to an SAT quiz that's playing to your strengths.
It shouldn't be.
Marshall Kosloff: It's not playing to the actual job.
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yeah. There's a difference between smart and being wise and you know, in the nature of this conversation, there's nothing I can say that would convince you or should convince you of the answer to your question.
Right. But I think that what you want is somebody who approaches it with humility. This is a long process for a reason. I think the early states in Iowa and New Hampshire play a really important role here, where people actually... I spent a little bit of time their last, because really impressed. I mean, people have a sixth sense for who's real, who's not what to ask. I mean, the questions and the exchanges, the parts that they were picking up on. We have an all [00:23:00] right process. It's not a perfect process, but we have an all right process for vetting who gets to run the free world. I'm entering this ring pretty early to go through that.
People should be skeptical of me or anybody else, but maybe especially somebody who's young, who's never held political office, who has the hubris to think he can run for president of the United States, and you know what? We will leave that to the voters next year. I think that this year should be about defining the agenda.
So for a second, my ask to you and everyone watching this is forget the question about the who in the primary for a little bit. Let's first define the what and the why. What do we stand for? Why do we stand for it? I think that's what's missing in the Republican party. I expect, you know, bluntly for, I'm not trying to be humble here, as you can tell.
I think I have already this last week, and will continue to lead the way in specifically defining an agenda and offering specific policy solutions. I invite the other candidates to join me. That's what this year should be about. Sure. Next year should be about the question of the who. Okay. And I will be very transparent and open about this.
People have a chance to watch how I learn. I will approach this with humility. And you're right, there's a temperament question to this too. It's [00:24:00] not just about who has the right. , though I think this year's emphasis should be on that. But next year, let the voters decide who they think that right standard bearer is gonna be and, and I hope that I'll learn the trust of the people who vote for me.
Saagar Enjeti: I have faith in the democratic process as well. So, last two questions. I know you gotta get outta here. Number one, on the election of 2020, was it stolen or not? Yes or no question?
Vivek Ramaswamy: Yes, but not in the way that you mean that question.
Saagar Enjeti: So what do you mean by that?
I think the technology companies tilted the scales of public debate.
Okay. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story epitomizes what was wrong with the lead up to that election cycle. Okay. There was a true story that was censored in the name of misinformation, actually created more misinformation that somehow this was Russian disinformation. Guess what?
This was American disinformation, that actually wasn't a true story by the way. The same lesson we've learned this last week as it relates to the Covid Lab League. And so I think that, you know, if I had to pick one election that was stolen from Trump, though it was actually the 2016 election, the one that he won, not the one that he lost, cuz he had to actually deal with two years of a fraudulently based inquiry that was [00:25:00] based on completely false and politicized premises. But I also think that we should stop using these retroactive. We're not gonna move forward by adjudicating the past. We're gonna have to understand. Going forward, how are we going to fix the democratic process?
And it's not just about the ballots we cast every November. It's about a democratic culture of free speech and open debate. And I think the litmus test for the health of a d process is actually the percentage of people who feel free to say and are free to say what they actually think in public.
I think over the last eight years we've done poorly in that regard. I think we have an opportunity to do better. Such that the 2024 election can put that dirty past behind us.
No disagreement on much of what you said, but I do have to get specific because it's an important thing. I'm talking about mass voter fraud. There was no mass voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Vivek Ramaswamy: I have not seen any evidence of mass voter fraud. I distinguished that from micro examples. Sure. That have clearly been reported undocumented. Okay. I have not seen evidence of mass voter fraud.
Saagar Enjeti: And final question here is on abortion.
One of the Vice President Pence and big [00:26:00] disagreements between him and President Trump is on a national abortion ban. Where do you stand on national abortion ban?
Vivek Ramaswamy: So I am pro-life. However, I think that for years on constitutional grounds, we have correctly argued that this is a state's issue and I think it should remain a state issue.
I think overturning Roe in the Dobbs decision, I think it was the right decision on hard constitutional grounds. Full stop. I'm hard line on that. Crystal clear. I think that we constitutionally finally got it right. That's where I'm at for years. It was argued to be a state's rights issue, and both for constitutional as well as public policy reasons.
I think that's where it should rest. So
would you sign any federal abortion legislation? 15 week ban, 22 week ban as proposed in the congress.
As somebody who is staunchly pro-life and unapologetic about that fact. I think that the states should get to that answer. That's
my answer.
Saagar Enjeti: Okay. All right. Vivek Ramaswamy, we really appreciate you taking the time to join us.
We know that you took some time outta the schedule. I look forward to some of the videos that you're talking about, the two hour videos, the education session, and you're welcome back on the show anytime. Thanks very much.
Vivek Ramaswamy: Appreciate it guys.
The Realignment Bookshop
We’ve created a Realignment Bookshop affiliate store showcasing books by guests, what we’re actively reading this year, and deeper dives into the featured topic of an episode.
If you purchase a book using our link, the show gets a 10% commission, a local, independent bookseller gets support, and you get an awesome book!
What We’re Reading: 2023 Edition
If you’ve made it this far, you really should subscribe to support our show : )
Subscribed
Let us know what you think about this or any other week’s episodes. Please share The Realignment with anyone who’d enjoy the podcast.
Hi Marshall waiting to hear from you concerning subscription.
bw