by: Dr. Steven Feldman, LPNC Candidate for U.S. House NC District 10

I'm Steve Feldman, your Libertarian candidate for Congress in North Carolina's 10th District. I want to talk about our recent military action in Venezuela—not to score partisan points, but to illustrate something I believe deeply: in politics, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. And honest people can disagree about which trade-offs are acceptable.

Taking the Other Side Seriously

Before I explain my concerns about invading Venezuela, let me do something unusual in politics: I'm going to make the strongest case I can for the intervention.

Nicolás Maduro’s regime murdered and tortured many of its own citizens. Millions of Venezuelans fled, including many to North Carolina, because staying meant starvation or persecution. The humanitarian crisis was real, and it was ongoing (and our sanctions on their economy may have contributed to the suffering).

The U.S. administration argues that taking Maduro out will stabilize the region, reduce the flow of migrants, disrupt drug trafficking networks that have devastated American communities (including right here in our state, from Asheville's recovery centers to Raleigh's suburbs), and secure energy resources that reduce our dependence on hostile nations. These goals reflect genuine concerns about American security and prosperity.

People who support this intervention aren't villains. They're Americans who looked at a brutal dictator, looked at the suffering of the Venezuelan people, considered possible advantages to the American people, not the least of which is oil, and concluded that doing nothing was morally unacceptable. I understand that impulse. I respect it.

The Case for Restraint

And yet, I oppose this intervention.

First, the constitutional question. The power to declare war belongs to Congress, not the president. Calling this a "police action" or "law enforcement operation" doesn't change what it is: a military strike on a sovereign nation to remove its head of state. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 permits presidential military action only in response to an attack on us. Venezuela didn't attack us. Whatever we think of Maduro, we should want our government to follow our laws.

Second, the precedent. When we claim it’s ok to invade nations whose leaders we find objectionable, our moral standing against similar action by other countries weakens. Just as we should not constrain the speech of others if we don’t want our speech to be restricted, we should not engage in foreign interventions that we would not want others to take. 

Third, history. I genuinely hope this works out for the Venezuelan people. We all do.  But hope is not a strategy, and the track record on regime change is sobering. Vietnam. Iran. Libya. Afghanistan. Iraq. Initial military action may be quick but followed by decades of instability, trillions in costs, and thousands of American lives lost, and hundreds of thousands of local lives lost. Twenty-two years after Iraq, even those who supported that invasion acknowledge the outcome was far from what we were promised.

An Independent Perspective

I’m troubled by the hypocrisy that can arise when we see things from a tribal perspective.  Some people who opposed regime change under Bush flipped to supporting it under Obama and flipped again under Trump. Some Democrats who pushed for Maduro's ouster suddenly cried foul because Trump pulled the trigger. Some MAGA supporters who decried "forever wars" cheer this one.

This isn't a left-right problem. It's a tribal problem. We should seriously ask, “Is this the best policy?”—anticipating unintended consequences—and not reflexively follow what our team supports.  We should strive for an independent perspective and attempt to understand the perspectives of those with whom we disagree.  The intervention supporters aren't warmongers. The intervention opponents aren't naive. Both sides are responding to real concerns with real arguments that have real trade-offs. A serious citizen should be able to articulate both positions—and then explain, honestly, which trade-offs they find acceptable and why.

What I Would Work Toward

As your representative, I would work to restore Congress's constitutional authority over war. I would push to reduce military spending and foreign adventures and focus on securing our homeland. We should insist that before we send anyone's son or daughter into harm's way, we have a clear objective, a realistic plan, and an honest assessment of what could go wrong.  But I’d like us to go even further and not send our children into harm’s way in the first place.  It’s better to seek peace around the world through peaceful collaboration, not violence.

This isn't isolationism. It's humility. It's recognizing that people everywhere are people who deserve to follow their own paths, that our power has limits, and that our good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes.  A Libertarian perspective respects the rights and responsibilities of others.  We shouldn’t try to force our choice of government on Venezuela.  Venezuelans need to be responsible for their own government.  If our goal is to help their people, ending our sanctions on their economy would reduce their suffering; this would help us, too, as it would reduce the number of Venezuelans fleeing and the resulting immigration pressure on our border.  And we could do a lot more to help people south of our border if we solve our own drug demand problem; decriminalization may be an important part of that solution.  Thomas Jefferson’s "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations" would be a good rule to follow.

The people of Venezuela deserve freedom and prosperity. So do the people of North Carolina. I believe we can pursue both by being honest about trade-offs, skeptical of quick-fix violent answers, and humble about what we don't know.

People are just people—Venezuelans, Americans, Republicans, Democrats. We share common values. All of us want a better world. We should talk to each other honestly about how to build one.