Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, two absolute legends, have been by far the two biggest influences on my political thought over the past three decades. So much so that when considering an issue, I often run an intellectual exercise to consider what both those men would think about it, then weigh that heavily into my own calculation before weighing in myself.
So far, being correct on positions with the aid of those two men has been pretty easy. Being against the Iraq war and other interventions in the Middle East, like both Buchanan and Paul, is an obvious choice that has been proven right time and time again. Having a proper understanding of how the wrong monetary policies can destroy economies and nations, as Paul has taught for decades, is integral to beginning to address the current debt crisis. The fact that demography equals destiny and that the left has been purposefully shifting the demographics of this country away from what used to be a solid white majority is perhaps the most important issue of the last hundred years, and Buchanan has been sounding the alarm since the early 90s.
You might scoff at this, but the fact is, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and these two giants have been through the fire and have been proven right far more than they have been proven wrong over the years. In my opinion, they have earned that respect and then some. That doesn’t mean I automatically take their position on something without researching further (they wouldn’t always agree with each other!), but it does mean their opinions carry far more weight with me than most.
However, when it came to President Donald Trump’s ordered capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this month, I will openly admit I was torn. On the one hand, attempts at regime change tend to end in disaster, and despite the early ‘easy’ victory, Paul fully expects this one to end up the same. Buchanan, though sadly no longer commentating because of his age and health, warned in 2019 that a regime change attempt could be a strategic blunder that turns Maduro into a martyr and that Venezuela's future "is not ours to decide."
On the other hand, I’m not ashamed to say that my “we’re America, b***h!” reflexes were fully in action after that incredible display, and even more so after reading about the overwhelming capacities our military used to accomplish a difficult and tricky extraction mission, killing potentially hundreds and getting Maduro and his wife out of there without losing a single life or piece of equipment. I was even more proud and happy to be an American, and especially proud to be part of a political coalition that unapologetically wields American military strength when justified and in our strategic interests.
If you think all that sounds like something a neocon would say, I understand where you’re coming from, but I also would argue that you’re wrong. First of all, a key concept is “when justified and in our strategic interests,” and most U.S. interventions over the past several decades haven’t fit either parameter. This one, however, fits both. Secondly, the Venezuelan people have far more in common with traditional concepts of Western civilization than an Islamic state with all its religious insanity and competing factions ever could. Something that would never work over there could easily work here, just as regime changes in Germany and Japan worked in 1945 (and this isn't nearly on that level).
It also fits a broader concept of the Monroe Doctrine, the idea that the United States should be the dominant regime in our own hemisphere (one consequence of this, though, is that we should understand and recognize Russia’s and China’s right to have their own spheres of influence). Venezuela, situated directly to our south, besides being a failed socialist state that couldn’t feed its own people, had become a narco-terrorist tool of our enemies. We had every right to go in there and extract the man behind it all, who had been under indictment for drug trafficking for almost six years and two presidents, and bring him to justice.
But, contrary to what a neocon would argue for, it’s not a regime change, at least not yet. Trump wisely left the rest of the government intact, headed by a vice president who now firmly understands what the stakes are and what she needs to do to keep from finding herself in a prison cell right beside her former boss. While a neocon might have wanted to directly install opposition leader María Corina Machado into the presidency, Trump and the people around him seem to firmly understand that the worst possible outcome from our direct actions would be chaos, and seem to have taken steps to mitigate that.
Ultimately, I want both Buchanan’s and Paul’s opinion on this matter, as well as the opinions of many of my friends on the noninterventionist side, to be wrong, and I desperately want Trump’s to be correct. As of now, however, none of us have any idea how things will play out.
Are things getting better in the short term? It doesn’t seem like it, although it’s only been a few days. Reports of armed militias on the lookout for U.S. citizens and supporters aren’t heartening and give fodder to Democrats looking for an opening to criticize. It’s hard to imagine us “running” Venezuela or at least extracting some oil for our troubles if we can’t even protect our own people there. Long-term, though, it’s hard to imagine things being worse than they already were with Maduro at the helm.
It’s also, thankfully, hard to imagine the United States under Trump taking any guff from anyone in our hemisphere anymore, not if they have any interest in remaining free and, for that matter, alive. And regardless of any misgivings I have about what we did and may do in the future over there, I'd be lying if I said that wasn't a good feeling.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member