I & I Editorial BoardYou have to marvel at the sequence of events we just experienced. On Jan. 1, a socialist was sworn in as mayor of New York, promising the “warmth of collectivism.” On Jan. 3, President Donald Trump announced that he’d forcibly removed Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela, ending the country’s 23-year embrace of socialism.
We will leave it to the pundits, the lawyers, politicians, and various other “experts” to debate the merits of Trump’s action.
But what we can’t let happen is for the left and the mainstream media to ignore or downplay just how tragic Venezuela’s embrace of collectivism has been.
So, we thought we’d do our readers a service and republish an editorial we wrote more than six years ago, in which we detailed the cold, hard truths about socialism. The situation in Venezuela had only deteriorated further in the years after this editorial ran.
Venezuela: A Humanitarian Crisis The Left Couldn’t Care Less About
Try to imagine this scenario. A once-wealthy country spirals downward over the course of several years into a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Starvation and violence are rampant. The economy has collapsed. Millions have already fled. And all the while, an autocratic ruler acts with complete indifference, when he’s not trying to crush dissent and blame other countries for the misery he’s inflicting on his own.
Under normal circumstances, there would be regular protests in Washington. Hollywood actors would be busy creating tear-jerker videos and making emotional award ceremony speeches. Musicians would be putting on global benefit concerts. The corruption, desperation, and daily human misery would be above-the-fold in newspapers and lead the nightly news. It would be on everyone’s mind.
But in this case, the catastrophic suffering is being almost completely ignored. Why? Because it’s happening in Venezuela — a socialist state that the left has for years championed and now refuses to admit has been a monumental failure.
“Much of the Western left, including those who once had only kind words for (Hugo) Chávez and his successors, is treating Venezuela as an embarrassment best brushed under the carpet,” James Bloodworth writes in Foreign Policy.
It is almost impossible to describe what’s happening in Venezuela today.
Ninety percent of the country now lives in poverty. Food and basic necessities are scarce. Malnutrition is rampant. The child mortality rate has shot up 140% since 2008. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States says that newborns in Syria have a better chance of survival than those born in Venezuela today.
There are severe shortages of medicines, and diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tuberculosis have surged. Malaria cases are up more than ten-fold since 2009.
“The situation in Venezuela is dire,” said Dr. Paul Siegel, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health.
The economy has collapsed as hyperinflation — which reached 815,000% in May — has taken hold. To cope, President Nicolas Maduro has had to issue new currency twice within the past year. The new 50,000 Bolivar note is equal to about $8. In a country with vast supplies of oil, energy is scarce.
Nearly 10% of the country — some 4 million people — have fled, including many who climbed aboard boats to embark on treacherous and often fatal escapes.
“Women and girls are suffering disproportionately in Venezuela,” says a report from CARE. “Trafficking of women for sex and forced labor is increasing throughout the region. The spiraling levels of poverty, both for Venezuelans inside the country and those fleeing within the region, have forced many women into sex work.”
The response from the left to all this? Ignore it, make excuses, or attack President Trump for interfering.
In fact, the biggest Venezuela protest in Washington was the “Hands Off” march this spring, in which protestors attacked Trump for attempting regime change in the country.
And when the press does report on Venezuela, it almost always leaves out one key detail: The fact that the profound misery is the direct result of the country’s embrace of socialist policies starting with Chavez and continuing with his hand-picked successor, Maduro. In fact, 93% of the stories that aired on network news from February 2018 through February 2019 never mentioned “socialism” or “socialist,” according to a Media Research Center analysis.
The indifference shown by the liberal establishment to what’s happening in Venezuela is disgusting, but it’s also incredibly revealing. Human suffering matters, it seems, only when it suits the left’s ideological agenda.
You can bet that the next time a country tries to enact Venezuela-style socialist policies, the left will be cheering it on.
Until disaster inevitably strikes and it suddenly loses all interest.
– Written by the I&I Editorial Board
RELATED:
Voters Back ‘Military Action’ Against Drug Boats, Leftist Narco Regimes: I&I/TIPP Poll — I&I, Nov. 19, 2025
Venezuela: There’s No Disaster Quite Like The Collapse Of Socialism — I&I, June 6, 2019
What Caused Venezuela’s Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists — Investor’s Business Daily (our previous home), May 5, 2017
Support Independent Journalism
Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left.
We are 100% reader supported!!
If you like what you see, please feel free to donate.
And be sure to tell your friends!
Unleash Prosperity
” A Humanitarian Crisis The Left Could Care Less About” There, fixed it. “Couldn’t Care Less” is a double negative meaning the opposite of what is intended. Doesn’t it read much more clearly once corrected? So many journalists both written and in media use the phrase incorrectly it is madden. Is it too much to expect that people whose job is to communicate would at least do so correctly.
That’s worthy of a discussion. Our thinking: “Could care less” means that they could, but don’t, care less than they do — they don’t care about it very much, but there’s still room at the bottom of the care barrel. “Could not care less” means that their care is the least possible — they could not care less because their care is already at zero. To us, it’s like: I could run slower vs. I couldn’t run slower.
BTW, Grammarly agrees with our usage: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/couldnt-care-less/
Incorrectly correcting people is my favorite part of the internet. Especially when it is done with such confidence.
Well, from democrats and liberals position, one cannot be a slave master unless one has slaves, so they will utterly oppose the slave master of Venezuela being deposed. THAT would set a terrible, terrible, terrible for them.
I’m so glad that I voted for President Trump-and that he won!
I’m not too crazy about our incursion and-in effect-taking over Venezuela’s government-but I understand the “reason why.”
We cannot let dangerous people-who are also antithetical to US interests-run countries in our hemisphere.
With China at our doorstep, the US’s inactions (especially under the dementia-ridden Biden) had put our nation at risk.
Finally, someone recognizes the importance of the Monroe Doctrine (MD).
It is not just a sheet of paper with words on it-it is, in my opinion, a roadmap to the security of the US.
The MD is the lock on our doors (essentially, it is the Trump attack on illegal immigration writ large) that the feckless and treacherous Biden Administration ignored, sweeping MD aside with gusto!
One can’t help but wonder who the Biden team actually rooted for?
What the clueless Left fails to understand in their wishful, ignorant bliss is that the “warm brace of collectivism” murdered at least 30 million people during the 20th century.
The media is not main stream. In fact they hate main stream Americans, our values, our religion and our Contitution. Left stream, yes. Main stream, no way.
So if President Trump will use the military to take out an autocratic socialist president of a foreign country that has confiscated American private property; what will he do to a US mayor that verbazes his intention to confiscate American private property? Perhaps it will come down to one main difference one is a drug cartel leader.