Democrats Suddenly Oppose Ousting Dictators? (Only When Trump Does It)
Mainstream media would have you believe a new moral compass guides Democratic foreign policy. They frame this opposition to Trump's Venezuela policy as a principled return to non-intervention. Yet, where was this sudden concern for national sovereignty when the Obama-Biden administration oversaw regime change efforts (or outright wars) in Libya, Syria, and supported a coup in Honduras? Critics
might call this a selective outrage, timed perfectly for political positioning. The media conveniently ignores the long, bipartisan history of US interference in Latin America—from supporting dictatorships to destabilizing economies. The 'threat to democracy' narrative consistently appears to justify interventions, until a different party uses it. It raises questions about whether the 'principle'
is truly non-intervention, or just 'when Republicans do it, it's bad.' The consistency of US foreign policy, regardless of party, often involves protecting corporate interests and geopolitical dominance, a narrative conveniently absent from 'The Hill's' dissection.