Fighting Ideas, Not Identity: How Vivek Ramaswamy and Harmeet Dhillon are Navigating the Mamdani Debate

When Vivek Ramaswamy posted a photo of his family dressed in red, white, and blue at an Independence Day parade, he expected patriotic celebration. Instead, he received a barrage of racially charged attacks from supposed allies on the right. “They wear our identity like a skin suit,” read one comment. “We didn’t invite you. Get the fuk out of our home, RamaAnchorBaby,” came another. “GO HOME NON-WHITE INVADER . . . GO HOME!” the messages continued.

These attacks weren’t coming from the left, where Ramaswamy had long expected such rhetoric. They were emerging from what he calls “an online fringe of the ‘right’ developing a fresh obsession with race that mirrors the worst impulses of the woke left.” The catalyst for this latest wave of racial grievance politics on the right has been the rise of Zohran Mamdani, the self-described socialist who won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor.

The emergence of Mamdani has created a complex challenge for conservative Indian Americans like Ramaswamy and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who find themselves navigating between principled opposition to his policies and pushback against racial attacks from their own political allies. Their responses reveal a strategic approach that emphasizes policy critique over identity politics, even as they face pressure from both sides of the political spectrum.

Anti-capitalist Worldview

Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur and Ohio gubernatorial candidate, has taken perhaps the most direct stance on this dilemma. In a recent op-ed, he argued that conservatives must “resist the left’s Mamdani trap” by focusing on policy rather than ethnicity. “The real problem with Mamdani isn’t his race or religion,” Ramaswamy wrote. “It’s his anti-capitalist worldview and his policies that risk destroying our nation’s largest city.”

The trap, as Ramaswamy sees it, is that racial attacks on Mamdani validate the left’s worldview and shift the conversation away from substantive policy debates. When conservatives engage in racial grievance politics, he argues, they “unhelpfully validate the left’s worldview” and give progressives an opportunity to call on Republicans to “denounce” the racism, effectively changing the subject from Mamdani’s radical policies to a pointless debate about race.

Mamdani’s policy positions provide ample material for conservative opposition without resorting to racial rhetoric. He has pledged to target “whiter neighborhoods” with higher taxes, supports race-based reparations for black New Yorkers, and advocates for socialist policies that critics argue will bankrupt the city and worsen its housing crisis. These positions, Ramaswamy contends, “are unhinged and will hurt everyone in New York, including the very citizens he purports to help.”

The Mamdani debate has revealed significant tensions within conservative ranks about how to effectively oppose progressive politicians without abandoning stated principles.

Harmeet Dhillon, serving as Assistant Attorney General, has approached the Mamdani situation from a legal perspective that demonstrates how conservative Indian Americans can use their positions in government to challenge progressive policies through institutional channels rather than racial rhetoric. Dhillon responded to Mamdani’s housing plan by warning that “Racial discrimination is illegal in the United States – period,” specifically addressing his pledge to target “whiter neighborhoods” with higher taxes.

“The illegal discriminatory scheme described by Mamdani would violate federal constitutional and statutory norms, and might even violate New York law,” Dhillon stated, demonstrating how legal challenges to discriminatory policies can be more effective than rhetorical attacks based on identity.

The approach taken by both Ramaswamy and Dhillon serves multiple strategic purposes. By focusing on Mamdani’s socialist policies rather than his background, they avoid legitimizing racial essentialism that could ultimately be used against them as well. This is particularly important given that both have faced their own racial attacks from within conservative circles.

The strategy also maintains their credibility on issues of merit and character over race, principles that have long been central to conservative opposition to affirmative action and DEI programs. As Ramaswamy notes, adopting racial essentialist thinking “lends credence to the left’s charges” and represents “wokeness with a fake new conservative veneer.”

‘These are not Americans’

The Mamdani debate has revealed significant tensions within conservative ranks about how to effectively oppose progressive politicians without abandoning stated principles. Some prominent conservative influencers have focused on Mamdani’s ethnicity rather than his policies, posting side-by-side photos of Mamdani and Ramaswamy with comments like “These are not Americans.” Others have called for conservatives to “keep the same energy” when criticizing both Mamdani and figures like Ramaswamy and Usha Vance.

These attacks have put conservative Indian Americans in a particularly difficult position. They face criticism from the left for their conservative positions, while simultaneously dealing with racial attacks from supposed allies on the right. Ramaswamy experienced this firsthand during his presidential campaign, where he faced racially charged attacks from both sides of the political spectrum.

The media coverage of Mamdani has added another layer of complexity to the situation. For months, various outlets have highlighted Mamdani’s heritage, noting that he could be New York’s “first Muslim mayor” or “first mayor of South Asian descent.” This focus on identity rather than policy has contributed to the polarization of the debate, making it more difficult for conservatives to maintain focus on substantive policy critiques.

The challenge is further complicated by reports that Mamdani himself has engaged in identity politics, identifying as “Black or African American” on certain applications while being described as South Asian in media coverage. This adds complexity to discussions about his background and identity, though Ramaswamy argues that such details are ultimately irrelevant to evaluating his fitness for office.

For conservative Indian Americans, the Mamdani debate represents a test of their political principles and their ability to maintain intellectual consistency while effectively challenging progressive policies. The approach taken by Ramaswamy and Dhillon suggests a path forward that avoids the trap of validating identity politics while building substantive cases against policies that many New Yorkers across racial lines may find concerning.

Ramaswamy’s conclusion in his op-ed captures this strategic approach: “Our country’s strength isn’t really our diversity, but what unites us across that diversity — a commitment to meritocracy, free speech, open debate and resolution of disagreements at the ballot box. That’s what e pluribus unum is about. We’re all Americans first.”

This philosophy, tested by the Mamdani controversy, may prove more effective in the long run than racial grievance politics. By maintaining focus on policy and character over identity, conservative Indian Americans like Ramaswamy and Dhillon demonstrate how opposition to progressive politicians can be both principled and effective, avoiding the trap of legitimizing the very identity politics they claim to oppose.

The stakes extend beyond New York City politics. How conservatives handle the Mamdani debate may set precedents for future political battles, particularly as the country becomes increasingly diverse and identity politics continues to play a prominent role in American political discourse. The response from conservative Indian Americans suggests that the most effective opposition may come not from embracing racial essentialism, but from consistently applying principles of merit and character evaluation across all political candidates, regardless of their background.