Yes, Supporting Guaido Means You Support A Coup
Today, news broke of the Murado government using military force to stop protests in support of opposition leader Juan Guaido. For the sake of making this column relevant, we’ll pretend this story is happening as reported, something I’m doubtful of (remember the “denying aid” story and the Hezbollah claims)because I would not be surprised if such a thing happened. Instead, I would like to point out the opposition has proven to be just as violent except they have the support the MSM.
Guaido and his supporters have now created #OperacionLibertad, a plan that involves using the military to overthrow the Murado government. The military is even wearing wristbands in order to show support of the opposition. Sectary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Vice-President Mike Pence have all voiced support for the opposition. Is it just me, or does that sound like a coup?
A coup is defined as the following:
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
While it’s debatable how violent they are, and the opposition has tried to claim any and every election in favor of Murado and has even refused to vote and run for office, it certainly is violent. Again, the supporters of the opposition not only acknowledge it, some — such as the previously mentioned John Oliver — think this is actually a good thing.
Eli Lake of Bloomberg released an article today about how this does not count as a coup, of course, the article is filled with a large number of mental gymnastics.
[T]o start, the dissatisfaction in Venezuela appears to rise to higher levels than the government cares to admit.
Oh, silly me, I forgot that part in the definition of a coup that states “unless the people are unhappy with the government.”
Guaido himself, actually, is the other main reason the rebellion in Venezuela is not a coup: The interim president, who is recognized by the U.S. and dozens of other nations, has democratic legitimacy. Maduro is responsible for this turn of events. In May 2018, Maduro won a so-called election that no serious outside observer found to be free or fair. His second term began on Jan. 10, which is when Venezuela’s Supreme Court in exile ruled that Maduro had exceeded his authority by staying in power after his legitimate term in office.
Okay, about a million things are wrong here, but I’ll pick two for the sake of time.
First off, why does it matter who an outside country calls the real leader? Vladimir Putin calls United States elections rigged all the time. Does he have the right to fund groups that plan to overthrow the United States government? Of course not. After the 2000 election, many people thought George W. Bush’s presidency was illegitimate, did countries have the right to fund anti-Bush terrorist groups? What an awful example of “appeal to popularity.”
Second off, tons of groups have called the elections legitimate. Many of them were credited groups in South America that have been trusted by the majority of the population — including the mainstream media — for years.
Bloomberg’s real reason for not liking the term “coup” is actually explained in a different article.
Bloomberg News has decided against using the term and opted instead for more neutral, albeit imperfect, words such as “uprising.”
Basically, they think the term “coup” is too negative and as such would prefer to report it inaccurately because it would make the public more likely to support it.
With that said, I still support Juan Guaido. While I do not agree the United States has a place in installing him (that would make him a dictator) I still think he would be a much better leader than Murado. However, I also do recognize he is committing a coup (a neutral term, by the way) and feel that is not enough of a wrong for me to wish him luck running the country.
The issue isn’t that the media is pro-Guaido, the problem is they’re lying about it.
