How Dems Can Win the Argument over Trump's Venezuela Invasion

Dems shouldn't be afraid to loudly oppose Trump's idiotic war for oil

Well, Trump’s Year of Affordability is not off to a great start. The military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—and the ensuing fallout—is likely to dominate the political conversation.

Democrats would, of course, love to spend all of their time talking about Trump’s tariffs, his failure to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, and the high cost of groceries, energy, and housing. But that probably won’t be possible, at least for the next few weeks.

In politics—particularly when you are the opposition party—you don’t always get to choose the issue of the day, the week, or the campaign cycle. And while I’m confident that affordability will once again come to dominate politics, Democrats are going to need a message on Venezuela for the time being.

The early signs aren’t great. Democrats have been all over the map, with many offering a strong rebuke of Trump’s actions while others praise them. As seems inevitable in moments like these, centrist Democrats have started panicking and anonymously speaking to the nearest reporter in sight. On Sunday, Axios reported that:

Some Democrats are grumbling at their party’s largely oppositional stance to President Trump’s raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, saying privately that their colleagues should be celebrating.

These lawmakers argue it could be a major political miscalculation if the party fails to applaud the downfall of a brutal dictator with sufficient volume, even given grave concerns about the operation’s legality and longer-term ramifications.

Once again, Democrats are overcomplicating the simple—and therefore missing one of the easier layups in recent political history.

Here are some thoughts on how Democrats should (and should not) message Trump’s illegal, idiotic, and ill-advised invasion of Venezuela.

As always, this messaging isn’t just for elected officials and candidates. It’s for all of you, in your daily political conversations with family, friends, and coworkers.

If you want this message guidance delivered directly to your inbox and to support this project, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

---

1. Be on offense—don’t feel a need to equivocate

For as long as I’ve worked in politics, Democrats have had a learned helplessness when it comes to issues of war and peace. Against all evidence, we immediately assume we will lose the fight—and that Republicans and their media allies will be able to paint us as weak and unpatriotic. This mentality led many Democrats to greenlight the Iraq War despite serious misgivings.

The meta-politics of foreign policy is never the policy itself; it’s about strength. No matter the issue, equivocating or parroting your opponent’s position will always look weaker than boldly and authentically articulating your own.

I don’t know how many times we have to learn this lesson, but being Republican-lite never works—particularly on national security, where voters are looking for someone strong enough to protect them.

Too many Democrats assume the pro-war position is always the strongest. That’s simply wrong. You can strongly oppose dumb, illegal wars and still be strong on national security. All of the Democrats who disingenuously voted for the Iraq War ended up looking much weaker than those who boldly opposed it.

Yes, the Delta Force operation was conducted with incredible skill and bravery. Yes, it’s good that Maduro is gone. But the entire operation is insane.

We removed Maduro but left his corrupt allies in place, have no real plan for what comes next, no clarity about who is in charge, and a stated priority of stealing Venezuela’s oil and handing it to the Big Oil companies that fund Trump’s campaign.

If you can’t strongly and unequivocally oppose illegal regime-change wars for oil, you shouldn’t be in politics.

---

2. Focus on what comes next

It’s a good thing that Maduro is in jail. No one is arguing otherwise. Republicans will try to turn Democratic opposition to regime change and potential occupation into a pro-Maduro position. I’m skeptical this will work, since most voters have no idea who Maduro is and don’t view Venezuela as a threat. He hasn’t captured the public imagination the way Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden did.

That said, the strongest part of our argument must focus on what comes next in Venezuela.

The Washington Post conducted a snap poll over the weekend and found support for the operation to capture Maduro was evenly split: 40% approve, 42% disapprove. That’s a terrible sign for Trump. A daring Delta Force raid with no U.S. casualties should be overwhelmingly popular. The fact that it isn’t speaks to the administration’s failure to make a case for why removing Maduro is in America’s interest.

The poll also found that fewer than a quarter of Americans support the U.S. taking control of the Venezuelan government—a number that will almost certainly decline once U.S. troops and taxpayer dollars become involved.

The operation to capture Maduro was a success. We can celebrate the bravery and skill of our troops while aggressively criticizing Trump for having no plan for what comes next and for entangling the U.S. in the expensive, time-consuming task of running Venezuela.

---

3. Make it about the oil

The U.S. takeover of Venezuela isn’t about freedom, democracy, American values, or even stemming the flow of drugs into the U.S. It’s about oil. Don’t take my word for it—Trump said just the other day that getting the oil pumping was his top priority. He’s willing to leave the Maduro regime in place as long as they can get the oil flowing.

As Republican Congressman Thomas Massie put it:

What’s happening: lives of U.S. soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable.

A needless regime-change war for oil sounds like something designed in a lab to piss off everyone except the most ardent Trump supporters.

The fact that Trump is being so explicit about why he invaded Venezuela is a political gift to Democrats. It fits perfectly with the narrative we should be pushing: Trump as a corrupt autocrat whose primary focus is lining his own pockets and enriching the wealthy and politically connected.

---

4. Connect it to affordability

Some Democrats have argued that Trump invaded Venezuela to distract from high prices and the Epstein files.

I hate this argument.

I’ll write more about this later, but in short, it only makes sense to the most politically engaged voters—the voters we need to persuade the least.

The better argument isn’t that Venezuela is meant to distract us from high prices. It’s that Venezuela is distracting Trump from doing anything about high prices. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently nailed this message in an interview:

We have a huge amount of work to do here at home. A whole lot of folks can’t afford their grocery bills—and Trump’s made that worse with the trade war. Health insurance premiums are going through the roof. We’re seeing thousands of people drop their health care coverage here in Pennsylvania because the federal government stopped providing Affordable Care Act subsidies. So the idea that we’re going to get entangled in foreign wars instead of fixing the problems here at home—that’s my biggest beef with this.

Pretty good, huh?

---

None of this is particularly complicated—and it’s certainly less complicated than some Democrats seem to think. This is a fight Democrats can win, and one that reinforces our larger midterm message. We just have to get out of our own way first.