For years, Nicolás Maduro has been an easily vilified figure. While Maduro's critics easily described him as an authoritarian, brutal and illegitimate leader who destroyed his country's economy and drove millions of Venezuelans into exile, they had no trouble doing so. The descriptions of the characters were not especially provocative. They were accurate.
The moment Maduro's government learned that Donald Trump had ordered an operation that resulted in the Venezuelan president being taken into custody, everything changed.
Suddenly, the problem wasn’t Maduro. This process was one of congressional notification. The matter involved a constitutional nicety. The reputation of the United States around the globe was the issue. Former Maduro critics have swiftly transitioned from their adamant claims about the Venezuelan President's misdeeds to a worrying of the executive powers and foreign interventions of their own leader. The change in policy regarding the country ought to be questioned.
It wasn't overnight that a reputation like Maduro's was established. A leader widely regarded as authoritarian, he has been perceived by his political opponents as well as other groups as a ruler whose tenure has been marked by repression and economic downturn. There have been allegations of corruption and links to the drug trade. The charges that federal prosecutors have brought to attention were actually on file for a long time. Those allegations, the U.S. said, were the reason for its actions, along with the earlier indictments.
The words that justified this move proved acceptable until it came to putting them into practice.
The mood here changed overnight, and nowhere was the shift in tone more evident than among state Democratic leaders in Washington state.
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said that she regards the military operation as being unconstitutional. She added that the U.S. could soon find itself in another conflict if the situation is not closely monitored. She argued that Congress had been marginalised. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell said that this action raised a lot more questions than it answered regarding U.S. involvement in South America. She notably omitted any reference to the records of the Venezuelan president Maduro. Members of the House Armed Services Committee, including Rep. Adam Smith, questioned the legality of the action. Smith, the ranking Democrat, stated that removing another nation's president has serious implications for international stability.
Our Third Congressional District U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, has been conspicuously quiet. While her Democratic colleagues decried the operation as unconstitutional and reckless, Gluesenkamp Perez offered no defense of accountability, no acknowledgment of Maduro’s record, and no clear position at all. In Washington, silence often isn’t restraint; it’s alignment without fingerprints.
Those concerns, taken on their own, are not unreasonable. Legislation does indeed originate with Congress. The exercise of executive power is certainly worthy of scrutiny. The contrast between before and now is stark.
Before the operation, Maduro was often referred to as a destabilizing force whose removal would benefit both the country and the region, and as an illegitimate ruler who posed a significant danger to those around him. With the operation completed, attention quickly turned from Maduro to President Trump. Procedure came before justice as anger took precedence over accountability.
The phrase is akin to people chanting "lock him up" when its application is general, but vociferously objecting if someone is actually placed under arrest.
The phenomenon was not restricted to Washington state.
National figures of the Democratic Party expressed similar sentiments. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has termed this move as foolhardy and lacking transparency. Former vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris called Maduro's capture "unlawful and unwise." She questioned the legitimacy of the process rather than the nature of the incumbent himself.
It is reasonable to criticise how an operation was conducted. This is entirely different if the original target of that operation suddenly deserved protection from the consequences of their actions.
The problem of ousting Maduro, if he is the dictator we believe him to be, is not a moral issue. If the objection is only when an action is taken at the request of Donald Trump, then the concern is not with established law or with maintaining democratic norms, nor does it stem from a desire to protect global stability. This is rooted in politics.
The U.S. should not experience variable levels of indignation or alterations in its moral standards dependent on election results. There must be leaders prepared to stand by what they say, regardless of the president in office. When principles are only applied according to the politician's party, then principles lose their integrity and turn into nothing more than political tools.
Chad Taylor is co-owner and publisher of The Chronicle. He can be reached at chd@chronline.com.
