Recently Ramaswamy went on the David Pakman Show, where he not only reframed the question surrounding the legitimacy around the 2020 election but also called out host David Pakman for framing the question about the election in such a divisive way. As you can see at the start of the interview, Pakman attempts to pose the question as a “sanity check” and asks Ramaswamy if he could see any way that Trump might have won the 2020 election. Ramaswamy answered the question brilliantly.

Immediately, Ramaswamy answers that Trump’s path to victory was indeed screwed with thanks to the inexcusable censorship around the Hunter Biden laptop story, which saw “systematic suppression” by Silicon Valley and the media. He then mentioned the polls that indicated that if people had been exposed to that information prior to the election, they would have changed their vote from Joe Biden to Trump.

“The fact is, that was systematically suppressed in what was probably the single greatest form of election interference in American history,” said Ramaswamy.

He further drilled home the point that much of the left openly declared Trump’s 2016 victory illegitimate over the idea that Russia had somehow influenced the election, a fact that ended up being a much smaller ordeal than many thought. However, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was a much more egregious example of election interference and one that happened on our own soil.

Vivek Ramaswamy: Is There Any Way to Interpret that Donald Trump Won the 2020 Election? #vivekramaswamy #davidpakman pic.twitter.com/PusbtNGQcK

— David Pakman Show (@davidpakmanshow) August 1, 2023

While the facts have been kept in the fog surrounding the fraud that may or may not have happened during the 2020 election, one thing that can’t be denied is the story surrounding that laptop and the contents it contained. As Ramaswamy notes, hardly anyone denies the legitimacy of the laptop story now despite originally being painted as Russian disinformation as well. For all the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing over the “Russian disinformation” problem, few are acknowledging that very real interference came from the very people screeching the loudest about it in 2016.

While the entire interview is interesting to watch, it was near the end when Ramaswamy circled back to this initial question by Pakman and called out the “lazy” way in which Pakman posed the question of the 2020 election. The way in which Ramaswamy broached the subject was respectful, but he zeroed in on how Pakman was purposefully asking the question a certain way in order to get a caricature of an answer that can then be used to reinforce a narrative.

Despite Ramaswamy’s tough but fair approach, Pakman did seem annoyed to be called out for this. It left him little wiggle room to defend himself.

But if there’s one thing this moment highlights, it’s that the left’s power lies in narratives. Any question has to be phrased in a certain way in order to get a certain kind of answer. That answer can be utilized, often unfairly, to reinforce the leftist narrative in play. To his credit, Ramaswamy outmaneuvered Pakman in this attempt and ended up making Pakman look foolish.

More importantly, this should be something every Republican and conservative learns from. Stopping the left from defining the conversation is step one to having a much better one. Using their language or their positioning from the start of any debate or conversation will most likely lead to a breakdown in the conversation as the left’s intent isn’t to reach a better understanding but to reinforce their agreed-upon narrative. Take control early, and they struggle.

Again, whether you plan to support Ramaswamy or not in the primary, this is a teachable moment on how to deal with leftist narrative pushing.