Interventionism, War and Socialism.

The idea that caring about freedom in foreign countries is indistinguishable from advocating military intervention is a common argument used by interventionists. Granting that premise is a singularly counterproductive way to sell non-interventionism.

That’s what John Quincy Adams was talking about when he said of his non-interventionist America, “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

The quickest way to discredit opposition to war is to conflate it with sycophantic boot-licking for every tinpot dictator and blood-soaked brute who doesn’t want to be overthrown in a well-justified revolt by his own countrymen.

If what you want is both peace and freedom, you shouldn’t want to give people the false choice between dropping the 101st on Caracas and parroting every mealy-mouthed excuse for a hyper-inflationary socialist usurper who’s trying to impose a single-party dictatorship.

Venezuala’s economic and humanitarian catastrophe is not the product of American sanctions, which came late and long after the death spiral had begun. Nor was it CIA saboteurs or the global neoliberal cabal who pushed Maduro to tear up the constitution, start holding rigged elections, and appoint himself a fake president with a fake legislature.

It’s a tragic case study in the failures of socialism, the breakdown of the price system, and runaway inflation all leading to the violent collapse of constitutional order and the rule of law. A point that should be particularly salient if you also claim to promote hardcore Austrian economics.

Yes, the hawks in Washington often seek to abuse and exploit our sympathy for the oppressed by conflating it with their case for war. That’s a reason to reject that conflation, not embrace it and then try to argue against having sympathy for the oppressed.