The Democratic Party and Venezuela

Columnist Josh Rogin writes that Bernie Sanders poses a risk for Democrats in a general election against Donald Trump. The reason tells us a lot about how the country has internalized the idea that the U.S. has inalienable right to invade whoever the hell it wants to for any reason.

In a September primary debate, Sanders came under criticism for not backing the U.S. policy supporting the overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicholás Maduro in favor of interim president Juan Guaidó. Sanders called Maduro a “vicious tyrant” and rejected the comparison of “democratic socialism” in Venezuela to the milder form of socialism he supports. But, he said, “what must not happen is that the United States must not use military force and intervene again as it has done in the past in Latin America.” 

Some Democrats say stances like this would pose a problem against Trump in the general election campaign. 

Think about that for a second. All Bernie said was that we shouldn't invade Venezuela, which is the only sensible stance to take. Lots of Latin Americanists, including me, wrote a lot last year about how invasion was a horrible idea that was doomed to failure.

Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg wouldn't rule out using force in Mexico and Elizabeth Warren wanted to use humanitarian aid as a way to entice Venezuelans to emigrate. These are not policies I would ever want a U.S. president to follow. Other candidates, like Joe Biden, just say they "stand with" democracy in Venezuela, which has no meaning.

It troubles me that the Democratic Party is afraid to say, hmm, maybe all those invasions haven't worked out so well. Instead, they should be talking loud and often about Temporary Protected Status, confronting and/or cajoling Russia, bringing together a diverse coalition of countries together to push for elections, and other measures that might actually lead to positive outcomes.