Mamdani and Maduro

Two very strange things happened in the last few days. A Democratic Socialist was sworn in as mayor of New York City and the United States invaded another sovereign nation capturing its leader to face justice in the U.S. These are unusual events to say the least and they are representative of two ways of governing that have a very long history of opposition in our country. 

One is socialism, a system where the government owns or controls the major resources and industries, aiming to distribute wealth and opportunities more equally. The goal is to ensure everyone’s basic needs (like healthcare, education) are met by government programs, rather than private individuals and companies that profit from them. It’s about collective well-being and cooperation, contrasted with capitalism’s focus on private ownership and free markets, though many modern systems blend elements of both systems. 

We are a capitalist country which enables a few people to do extremely well, many people to get by pretty well, and some folks to really struggle. Our personal prosperity is controlled by the markets and other economic factors along with individual effort and good (or not so good) fortune. Our goods and services come mostly from the private marketplace, though we also have some quasi-socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Capitalism champions personal freedom and individual effort. Socialism upholds the common good and the ability of the government to oversee it. The capitalist one-liner about socialism is. “Socialism doesn’t work because eventually you run out of other people’s money.” 

Several European nations have massive socialist programs providing things like childcare and higher education for “free,” but they have a much higher tax rate. The population in these countries are some of the happiest people in the world because they don’t have to worry about affording these things, like we do. Yet, communist countries also deploy socialism with a much less desirable result.

The new mayor of New York has promised several free services Americans find necessary for daily life. We’ll see how that goes. It sounds great, but it will be extremely expensive. Where will the money come from?

_____________________________________________________________________________

On January 3^rd in the wee hours of the morning the lights went out in Caracos, the Venezuelan capital of 300,000. Military bases and air defenses were bombed by over 150 U.S. aircraft. Then the helicopters came in flying under the radar. Members of the US Army’s Delta Force quickly found Maduro and his wife and extracted them. Dozens of Venezuelans were killed, along with 32 Cuban citizens who were part of Maduro’s security detail.

Maduro was indeed a narco-terrorist and allied with Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, and Hezbollah, selling them oil from the world’s largest reserve. Even though resource rich, mismanagement and corruption led to the collapse of the Venezuelan economy causing eight million people to leave the country, many winding up in the US.

Maduro was a bad guy. But regime change has never worked very well for us. Remember Iraq and Afghanistan. While the military pulled off a flawless feat and there is a feeling it was good thing to bring this corrupt dictator to justice, we are left with an important question. 

Was it legal? 

It was not. It was a violation of international law. There was no security council approval or case for self-defense. It was a violation of the US Constitution which requires congressional approval for significant military interventions. It was not a law enforcement operation. It was a military operation in a foreign state.

But it is a good thing the thug is out of power, and the US took control of the oil and we are “running the country. “ Right?

It sounds rather like something we would condemn if another country did it. Mr. Trump has already issued 225 Executive Orders this presidential term, more than his entire first term. There are 253 active cases challenging his administrative actions. Trump obviously has a way of stretching the legal limits of his authority. Executive overreach is not new, but the blatancy and extent it is being used by the present administration is new.

It seems like a good thing. Does it really matter if it was legal? It does if we are a nation of laws that follows its constitution, let alone international law.

Frustration births change, for better or worse. People are frustrated with the high cost of living. Having the government provide necessary services for them that they cannot afford on their own has a broad appeal. 

People are also frustrated when we don’t have a strong response to countries that pose a threat to our nation. Many of us would rather see a quick and effective executive response than have Congress debate it to death.

These frustrations and extreme responses are born out of a basic dissatisfaction of our government and the status quo. My question is: Do we really want to throw out the founding principles and guardrails our nation was founded on? We might be inclined to say, “yes,” if it works to our favor, but the day will come that we regret it.