Performative protesting determines who deserves attention
By NEVAEH KARRAKER — nakarraker@ucdavis.edu
Authoritarianism is a regime type thoroughly studied in all secondary education institutions, and, with the comfort with which Americans have settled into democracy and our Constitution, we take for granted the political stability of the country we live in.
The Trump administration is obviously corrupt, modern society pushes the limits of our civil rights daily and improvements need to be made on countless policies. And yet, the United States is not an authoritarian regime — unlike many in Latin America.
Alongside Cuba and Nicaragua, Venezuela stands as a prominent example after Hugo Chávez’s rise to power. In 1929, Venezuela became the leading global oil exporter, greatly enhancing the economy through international trade. When Chávez was elected into office in 1998, he utilized the country’s vast wealth to rewrite their constitution in favor of the executive branch and fund the Bolivarian Mission — a socioeconomic program focused on free healthcare and accessible education — which, while popular, consolidated his power and weakened Venezuela’s democracy.
After Chávez’s death in 2013, Nicolás Maduro accelerated the decline of democracy in aggressive ways — including the use of military force, rigging elections and devaluing currency — all of which plunged Venezuela into instability, repression and socialism.
For the Venezuelan people, the capture of Maduro by the U.S. on Jan. 3, 2026 symbolized a hopeful pivot back to democracy.
While the Venezuelan people hated Maduro’s leadership, the U.S. seemed to praise it. Protests erupted in cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco, often led by anti-war organizations like Answer or Code-Pink. These organizations demanded the release of Maduro, and some even claimed that they hope President Donald Trump’s actions will return their country to a state of former glory— a disturbing take. A technique populists utilize is promoting policies of “shared prosperity,” then inducing poverty to prevent non-conformity. Despite questionable decisions, Trump isn’t pushing the same socialist policies that Maduro used.
It’s ironic how protestors give selective support to political leaders; many of those who participated in the “No Kings” movement, like the 50501 Movement and Indivisible, also waved signs in favor of a known socialist dictator. Hatred for Trump has rooted itself so deeply in society that we’ll overlook other corruption present. If we’re serious about welcoming immigrants into America, we also have to listen to those who fled socialist regimes.
Of course, there are many sides to this. America’s tendency to get entangled in international affairs understandably breeds contempt, so retaliation and economic decline as billions of dollars are poured into other countries are all valid concerns. There’s a delicate balance in knowing when to intervene and invest in foreign aid, and when to focus on rebuilding the strength of the American people.
Was capturing Maduro a necessary intervention by the U.S.? Probably not, though it’s complicated. Russia and Venezuela have become strong geopolitical allies, with Russia sending warships in exchange for oil and challenging U.S. dominance. This — combined with Maduro altering election results and facilitating drug-trafficking — prompted Trump to make a powerful military and diplomatic statement towards countries threatening the U.S. by capturing Maduro. However, Trump’s motives weren’t altogether altruistic — he also had clear ulterior motives of seizing Venezuela’s oil reserves and reshaping Venezuela’s new regime. After all, Venezuela is far from free; socialism remains as Vice President Delcy Rodríguez takes Maduro’s place.
On the other hand, releasing a known dictator without understanding Venezuela’s political history may be an ignorant move disguised as a strategic campaign. Activism nowadays is often borderline performative; societal pressure and the desire for validation can cause people to hop on yet another trend. It’s practically become a justification to be angry at anything and everything — that’s not justice, but abhorrence.
Diving into protesting when relying on illegitimate sources like social media influencers makes movements or elections easier for authority figures to manipulate and sway. Like politicians, protestors sometimes compete to gain the most followers, not actually benefit society. If we expect voters to research policies before casting their ballot, why should protesting be any different?
Activism can be powerful, and history has revealed time and again that a unified populus is key to drive change. However, protesting without truly understanding the policies, context and any other necessary information is fatuous. This issue goes beyond just protesting Maduro’s capture, but signifies a critical wound within America that is fueled by hostility.
So yes, there are potential benefits of the capture of Maduro for both America and Venezuela, and it’s important to acknowledge that. However, the means and ethics are questionable, and blind celebration or condemnation isn’t the answer. If Americans want real change, we cannot be driven by hatred or think in black-and-white, but research both sides and be open to discuss it.
Written by: Nevaeh Karraker — nakarraker@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.
