In the realm of today’s media landscape, liberal mainstream news sites are often criticized for their selective focus and disregard for what they consider to be inconsequential matters. This pattern was evident during the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election when the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop surfaced. It is within this context that Vivek Ramaswamy, a notable figure known for his intelligence and articulation, finds himself targeted for seemingly trivial information removed from his Wikipedia page.
The catalyst for the recent scrutiny was an article published by the leftist website Mediaite, which led the charge against Ramaswamy. The focus of their criticism was a perceived attempt to sever an association between Ramaswamy and the controversial figure George Soros. Understandably, as a potential Republican candidate for the 2024 election, Ramaswamy would not want to provide the left with any ammunition to connect him to Soros. However, is this truly the motive behind the edits made to his page?
In 2011, Ramaswamy received a grant from the Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans Foundation. This grant supported his pursuit of a Juris Doctor degree at Yale University. It is important to note that the foundation, established by Hungarian immigrants Paul and Daisy Soros, exclusively provides merit-based fellowships of $90,000 for immigrants and children of immigrants pursuing graduate degrees in the United States. Despite the philanthropic intentions behind the fellowship, the removal of this association became a focal point of the critical piece. Additionally, the article mentioned the elimination of references to Ramaswamy’s role in Ohio’s pandemic response team, a position that drew criticism from Republicans due to the state’s strict lockdown measures.
Another article published by The National Review, which identifies itself as a Libertarian/Conservative news source, further fueled the attacks on Ramaswamy. The piece was authored by Charles C.W. Cooke, a British-born writer who coined the term “Conservatarian” to describe himself. Interestingly, the article questioned Ramaswamy’s character and demeanor, recalling an encounter at an event in 2021 where Cooke described him as “simpering and smirking” and accused him of speaking in vague terms. The overlap between the authors of these critical pieces, Isaac Schorr of Mediaite and Cooke of The National Review, raises questions about their true conservative credentials.
As the controversy unfolds, it is crucial to separate fact from political smear tactics. The motivations behind the edits made to Ramaswamy’s Wikipedia page are subject to interpretation and speculation. In a world where political narratives dominate, it becomes increasingly important to delve deeper into the backgrounds and intentions of those involved. Perhaps it is those who perpetuate such controversies that warrant scrutiny of their own histories and affiliations.