Venezuela could force a foreign policy reckoning for U.S. progressives

The most obvious tension this progressive cohort will have to resolve involves finding a balance between defending human rights and advancing America’s national and global interests. Activists and advocates of human rights have the luxury of always being right. Analysts and policymakers must wrestle with being right while also being effective. That is even more complicated in a world of strategic competition, where foreign governments have an increasing range of choices when it comes to development and security partners. A progressive approach that turns the U.S. into the world’s moral conscience might be satisfying, particularly after four years of the Trump administration downgrading human rights as a priority of U.S. diplomacy. But a rigid refusal to compromise on principles would limit America’s effectiveness in areas where some progress is better than none at all. It would also divide an interconnected world into compatible partner states and untouchable pariahs, limiting America’s ability to lead on issues of global concern.

Another tension is between non-interference and intervention. To the extent that an emphasis on defending human rights features prominently in a progressive platform, what means are progressives willing to use to achieve their goals? In the same way that talking only about human rights limits America’s effectiveness in the global arena, only talking about human rights does too. At some point, it’s reasonable to expect that the instruments of state power will be used to achieve the desired goals. Will the progressive toolbox be limited to providing or withdrawing development and security aid, or will it extend to the aggressive use of economic sanctions, including indirect third-party sanctions? At what point do policy goals, particularly in a humanitarian crisis, justify military intervention? And under what circumstances, and circumscribed by what factors, would military options be considered? Paleo-progressives were jolted out of their reflexive post-Vietnam dovish posture by the humanitarian bloodbath in the former Yugoslavia. For the younger generation, the bogus case for the invasion of Iraq, and the failures there and in Afghanistan, are the more formative experiences. Without a more nuanced resolution to that debate, a progressive policy agenda risks being toothless.