On January 23, the President of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaido, was sworn in as “interim president.” In what was presumably a pre-coordinated move, Guaido’s administration was quickly recognized by the governments of the United States, Canada, and several countries in Latin America.

Guaido’s claim rests on a provision in Venezuela’s constitution which allows him to assume the office should it become vacant. The Assembly says that it is.  Nicolas Maduro, elected to a second term as president in 2018, begs to differ. A number of countries, including Russia and China, continue to recognize his government.

All of which seems either remarkably simple or incredibly complicated, depending on who you ask and which side they’re on.  From an American who’s on neither side, like me, it comes down to two simple facts:

First, Venezuela’s government does not and never has represented any kind of military threat to the United States. It has never invaded the United States. It has never attacked the United States. It has never threatened to do either, nor does it seem to be well-equipped to do so if it desired to.

Secondly, Venezuela is not and never has been either a state or territory of the United States. It achieved independence from Spain in 1821 as part of the Republic of Gran Colombia, and became a completely independent nation in 1830.

Taken together, these two facts lead inexorably to one conclusion:

How Venezuelans choose to conduct their political affairs never has been and is not now the business of the US government. One need support neither Maduro nor Guaido to reach this conclusion. It’s simply not up to Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio, or any other American politician to run Venezuela.

Unfortunately, US administrations since the 1950s  seem to have lost or mis-filed the above memo. Usually in the name of anti-communism, though in reality mostly for the benefit of American oil companies, the US has continuously intervened to ensure “friendly” regimes in Caracas.

That began to backfire in 1998 with the election of Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez. Chavez cultivated closer relations with communist (Cuba and China) and former communist (Russia) countries, while implementing socialist economic programs.

Two decades later, Venezuela is an economic and humanitarian wreck. American politicians blame Chavez/Maduro and socialism for the country’s decline. Maduro and his supporters blame US sanctions and secret support for the opposition.

Both sides are right, but on only one of those claims is the US rightfully positioned to act. It should lift all economic sanctions on Venezuela, withdraw diplomatic recognition of any claimant, close its embassy, and leave a note on the door: “Work this out yourselves; when you have, let us know if you’d like to resume relations.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  OpEdNews, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa], 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Uintah Basin, Utah Vernal Express [paywall print edition],  01/29/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/29/19
• “Venezuelans’ domestic political affairs are none of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 01/30/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 01/30/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 02/01/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Uintah Basin, Utah Nickel Ads [print edition], 02/05/19

Well, Trump blinked. In his standoff with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over the 2019 State of the Union address, the president finally conceded that he doesn’t get to deliver the speech before a joint session of Congress unless he’s invited to do so — technically by the House and Senate, but as a practical matter by Pelosi herself. She’s going to wait until the ongoing “government shutdown” ends to invite him. He’s going to impatiently await that day.

It’s not very often that I agree with any politician, let alone Pelosi. When I do, it’s usually on “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” grounds. This matter included. I don’t really care WHY she withdrew the invitation. I just hope it stays withdrawn. Forever.

The Constitution requires the president to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

It does not require the president to do so in the form of a live speech. While the first two presidents (George Washington and John Adams) gave State of the Union speeches, the third (Thomas Jefferson) just sent a written report — as did every subsequent president for more than a century, until Woodrow Wilson revived the speech ritual.

Radio, then television, transformed the State of the Union address from mere constitutional busy work into something else entirely: A free campaign commercial for the sitting president and a shorter one for the opposition party.

The sitting president gets as long as he cares to take — Bill Clinton is the record-holder at 89 minutes — to harangue his cabinet, the Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress, in front of the American people, on all the major broadcast TV networks and cable news channels). The opposition party gets to respond in kind, usually at much shorter length, with a likely future presidential contender sometimes chosen as that party’s face.

Now, I am not a fan of campaign finance law. In my opinion, anyone who wants to donate his or her money to a political candidate should be allowed to do so in any amount.

But that body of law does exist, and the value of, say, two hours of prime time television on all the biggest channels (not counting the “newsy” countdown stories and post-speech “analysis”) far exceeds maximum legal campaign contribution limits. If all of the declared candidates for the next presidential election were given “equal time,” that might make it legal. But it would also be boooorrrrring.

It’s 2019. The president of the United States doesn’t have to schlep down to Capitol Hill to deliver a speech. He can fulfill his constitutional duty with a written report. Or, heck, with a constantly updated web site that automagically updates statistics revealing the “state of the union.” If he wants to speechify, he can embed a YouTube video or set up a Google Hangout.

End the “State of the Union” dog and pony show. Permanently.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Herald (Iowa),  01/24/19
• “Get rid of the State of the Union address. Be like Jefferson — he sent Congress a written report.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Miami, Florida Herald [web and print], 01/24/19
• “Let’s do away with the SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 01/25/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/25/19
• “A campaign finance proposal: Let’s do away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 01/25/19
• “It’s Time to Abolish the State of the Union Address,” by Jared Keller, Pacific Standard magazine, 02/05/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/28/19
• “Let’s do away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Shreveport, Louisiana Inquisitor (paywalled cache link), 02/01/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 02/01/19

“You’re not interesting because you went to a high school where kids got shot,” comedian Louis C.K. said at a New York gig in December, addressing Florida high school students who trafficked on their credentials as “school shooting survivors” to shill for the gun control movement. “You didn’t get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way and now I gotta listen to you talking?”

America’s “left wing” went ballistic. How dare this man mock kids who’d been through something so horrible?

On January 19, a group of students from Kentucky’s Covington Catholic High School found themselves targeted as bigots after social media (quickly followed by mainstream media) carried video clips that appeared to show them harassing and mocking an American Indian activist participating in the Indigenous People’s March.

The story quickly fell apart as it became apparent that the kids were waiting for buses, not counter-protesting the Indigenous People’s March, that they were themselves the targets of harassment by a racist group (the “Black Hebrews”), and that the conduct of Nathan Phillips, the Indian activist, was either itself confrontational or else easily perceived as such.

America’s “right wing” went ballistic. How dare biased media actors frame these kids?

The two incidents may seem at most tenuously connected, but taken together they constitute teachable moments for young political activists — and for those who rush to decry perceived mistreatment of those activists.

In a statement responding to the controversy, one of the Covington Catholic students, Nick Sandmann, writes:

“I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.”

The first part of that statement is naive. The second part is flatly false.

It’s naive to expect a bunch of people, congregating in the vicinity of “left-wing” protests, wearing  US president Donald Trump’s signature accessories  (“Make America Great Again” hats), to be perceived as anything other than “right-wing” counter-protesters.  And when protesters and counter-protesters meet, there WILL be uncomfortable “engagement.”

Sandmann falsely — or, to be charitable, perhaps again naively — characterizes himself as never having encountered public protest before. In fact, at the time of the confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial he had just finished participating in exactly such a public protest — the “March for Life,” an annual anti-abortion demonstration — after having traveled 500 miles for the specific purpose of doing so.

As Finley Peter Dunne wrote, “politics ain’t beanbag.” Those who enter the public square in support of a cause — ANY cause — thereby open themselves up to  mockery, misunderstanding, the whole panoply of unpleasant “engagement.”

Which is not to say that young people shouldn’t engage in political activism. But when they do, they’re acting as adults and implicitly asking to be treated as adults.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Parkland and Covington: Two Schools, Two Causes, One Lesson,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa],  01/22/19
• “Parkland and Covington: Two Schools, Two Causes, One Lesson,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/23/19
• “Parkland and Covington: Two Schools, Two Causes, One Lesson,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/24/19
• “Two schools, two causes, one lesson,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sanford, North Carolina Herald, 01/25/19