NYT Discovers 'America First' Base Might Question Endless Wars
The New York Times muses that toppling Maduro risks 'blowback' from Trump's base, subtly suggesting that interventionism is the default, and public dissent is merely a 'risk' to be managed. This comes after decades of bipartisan consensus that has seen the US directly or indirectly interfere in countless sovereign nations, often with disastrous human and economic consequences. One might recall the
conveniently forgotten history of US involvement in Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s), or even the current sanctions regime against Venezuela, which reports estimate have caused tens of thousands of deaths. It appears the NYT is now grappling with the novel concept that perhaps 'America First' actually means prioritizing American interests—like, say, not funding proxy wars—over geopolitical chess
games. How many 'democratic transitions' does it take for a mainstream outlet to question the wisdom of destabilizing entire regions?