The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

As the Trump administration cut ties last week with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in favor of opposition leader and National Assembly President Juan Guaidó, several liberal Democrats either cautiously hedged or openly came out in favor of Maduro and against what they decided to sell as United States “intervention” in foreign affairs.

While the word “socialism” may yet play to millennial Starbucks baristas, p*ssy hat wearers and bearded, beanie-wearing hipsters decrying their “toxic masculinity” at some march for the latest SJW cause célèbre, notably, most of these bright-eyed, bushy-tailed idealist politicians are new to Congress and apparently blissfully unaware that runaway hyperinflation, private property confiscations, gun seizures, infrastructure failures, empty store shelves and massive food lines are all still politically unpopular in these United States of America, at least outside of the liberal districts insane enough to vote them to national office.

In other words, they don’t see any sort of political or moral problem with openly supporting socialist dictators, despite the massive ruin said dictators have brought to those nations and its peoples.

“We cannot hand pick leaders for other countries on behalf of multinational corporate interests,” tweeted Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar along with an article arguing that President Trump’s decision to support Maduro’s rival was illegal. “The legislature cannot seize power from the President, and Venezuela's Supreme Court has declared their actions unconstitutional."

Except, we aren’t hand-picking anyone. By most accounts, the Venezuelan people seem to be finally breaking free from a dictatorship that has bankrupted their country and oppressed them for decades. One wonders if Omar would tweet anything similar were it a ‘right-wing’ dictatorship that was being deposed.

“A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face,” the Somalia-born Muslim freshman representative said in another tweet. “Trump’s efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.”

But Omar wasn’t finished with this subject clearly near and dear to her heart, not by a long shot. This time, she’s concerned about “costly interventions,” as if a Democrat ever cared about the cost of anything.

"We can’t afford to get involved in costly interventions abroad when tens of millions struggle to access housing, healthcare, and clean water right here at home. U.S. meddling abroad always ends badly for us, and the people we claim to be 'liberating,'" added Omar. “If we really want to support the Venezuelan people, we can lift the economic sanctions that are inflicting suffering on innocent families, making it harder for them to access food and medicines, and deepening the economic crisis. We should support dialogue, not a coup!"

Omar wasn’t alone. California Representative Ro Khanna also came to Maduro’s aid, saying in a statement: "The United States should not anoint the leader of the opposition in Venezuela during an internal, divided conflict. There is no doubt the Maduro’s economic policies have been terrible, and he has engaged in financial mismanagement and also political authoritarianism. But crippling sanctions and threats of military action are making life worse for ordinary Venezuelans, and the U.S. stands alone in its decision to impose economic sanctions against the Venezuelan government.”

Khanna called for a “negotiated settled” and for the Trump administration to “immediately change course” in its policy toward the country.

Newly minted liberal darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in, telling The Daily Caller last week that her office is “monitoring it closely.”

“I think that, you know, the humanitarian crisis is extremely concerning but, you know, when we use non-Democratic means to determine leadership, that’s also concerning, as well,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “So, we’re figuring out our response and making sure that we center the people of Venezuela first and foremost.”

While the Democratic Socialist tried to be somewhat nuanced, her party certainly has not:

"We call upon the US government to immediately cease and desist all attempts to intervene in the internal politics of Venezuela and break with its shameful legacy of imperial control in the region," the Democratic Socialists of America said in a statement. "Further, we call upon DSA chapters and DSA-supported political representatives to mobilize in this particularly critical moment around a campaign of solidarity with the Venezuelan people, aimed specifically at reversing the US government’s disastrous and counterproductive sanctions against Venezuela."

One cannot help but wonder what Ocasio-Cortez and members of her party would say to the women forced by their country’s destructive policies to sell hair, breastmilk, and even sex to survive.

Bernie Sanders, the godfather of United States socialists, weighed in with even more fence-sitting, criticizing Maduro for “waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society,” violating the country’s constitution, and winning an election many considered “fraudulent.” Sanders even called the country’s economy a “disaster,” but still called on the United States to “learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups—as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic … The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."

It’s a sentiment echoed by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who tweeted: “The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don't want other countries to choose our leaders—so we have to stop trying to choose theirs."

It’s certainly one thing to intervene in a nation’s affairs across the globe, deposing one dictator in favor of another or a system which ends up to be worse in the long run. See Iraq and Libya as prime examples of what NOT to do. In this case, however, it seems like we, along with a host of other countries, are merely supporting the will of a populace trying desperately to take their country back, and one in our own backyard, no less. If we have a vested interest in anything, it’s the stability of Central America, considering that, should they fail, the caravans headed our way will grow even more massive and numerous.

Because of her longtime consistently on the issue, Gabbard gets a pass, but I have a feeling the others may be more concerned with the demise of a socialist dictatorship than they are with any “intervention” coming from the United States.