From Manifest Destiny to Venezuela: The Abusive Logic of Toxic Masculinity in U.S. Foreign Policy

For all intents and purposes, the United States government is in a state of conflict with the government of Venezuela. This comes days after the autocratic Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were apprehended by special forces of the U.S. military, pursuant to a warrant to prior criminal indictments that allege he was and is engaged in the practice of “narco-terrorism” as part of a global drug trafficking ring.

It is important to note that Maduro’s government has a very well-documented history of trampling basic human rights, and he is regarded by many leaders on the international stage as a foreign adversary and a possible state sponsor of global terrorism. But it is the process of how Maduro was removed from power and the socio-political context that disturbs many, especially myself, as to why President Donald Trump and his allies thought it prudent to authorize a military incursion into a sovereign country that resulted in deaths.

Between assessments from the U.S. and Venezuelan governments, anywhere from 75 to 100 people were killed—this number includes Venezuelan security forces and civilians who are otherwise bystanders. For such a blatant and seemingly unexpected attack in the heart of Caracas, deeper extremist views are clear.

Donald Trump revealed what many could consider to be the real reason why Maduro was deposed, or at least a central theme for justifying a clearly controversial act of rendition that echoes Manuel Noriega’s arrest and the 1989 invasion of Panama, which yielded deaths among U.S. invading forces and Panamanians. In parallel with history, the Noriega action authorized by former President George H.W. Bush was met with accusations that the United States was engaging in both militaristic adventurism and imperialistic policy.

Unlike Bush, Trump publicly declared that the United States will “control” Venezuela for the foreseeable future while exploiting the country’s rich oil reserves and natural resources, enriching oil barons and CEOs that the president thought appropriate to notify of the attack–but not the Congress.

The Senate proposed a war powers resolution condemning military action in Venezuela, but the resolution was defeated due to bullying by President Trump. But the resolution speaks to the fact that many—even in his own party—oppose Trump’s actions in this case. A global coalition of condemnation, including many U.S. military allies, is also opposed to Trump’s actions.

And considering the utilization of the “Noriega template” that was justified to snatch Mr. Maduro in a sovereign country, the justifications—legally, politically and socially—stem from American hubris and the toxic masculine influences that are systematically built into U.S. foreign and national security policy. There is additionally the consistent, yet resurgent, sentiments of white supremacy in foreign policy, too.

This dates back to the early years of British colonialism, which resulted in a series of global conflicts culminating in rebellion, the Declaration of Independence, and the bloody American Revolutionary War, plus the ensuing decades (still very bloody) leading up to the post-American Civil War phallocentrism of Manifest Destiny.

Some may ask: “Why does America’s history of expansion apply to the Venezuela crisis today?” And, as I highlighted above, it has to do with resources and economic supremacy. Well before Manifest Destiny, the rise of American phallocentrism and white hegemony could be felt in full force during the crisis of the American Revolutionary War and the era that followed. Many of us in the United States, to some extent, are socialized to believe that the American Revolution was simply about standing up to an oppressive imperial power, specifically British imperial dominance throughout much of North America at the time.

But the protest and ensuing rebellion against the British Crown and the government of King George III was deeply rooted in maintaining the institutions of slavery and expanding into lands controlled by the Native American nations that long preceded European settlement and colonization as a key enterprise.

As a sidebar, this classification of fact was highlighted in the recent PBS documentary miniseries, “The American Revolution,” by Ken Burns, Sarah Botstein and David Schmidt. Key revelations that George Washington was never inherently opposed to slavery, and that he only registered some opposition to the practice in his later private life, yielded criticism from many right-wing and far-right critics, calling the Burns-led documentary “woke” and “unpatriotic.”

Suffice it to say, the complaints fall on deaf ears in some communities. Historical accuracy is needed when we look at the role of phallocentric imperial power exercised through American history. Fast forward to the Manifest Destiny era, historical evidence shows a white supremacy at play in the interaction and eventual expansion of U.S.-held territories.

Many historians believe that John Louis O’Sullivan, a journalist and columnist linked to the anti-Civil War, anti-Lincoln, anti-abolitionist, pro-slavery, Confederacy aligned Copperhead movement of unionist Democrats, is the first to define “Manifest Destiny” as a God-given right of white Americans, especially, to expand across the continent.

The result of this belief in Providence contributed to white nationalism and white supremacy that was emboldened in toxic masculinity and control that later informed foreign policy and military dogmas that further extended concepts from prior eras, such as the Monroe Doctrine of separate global spheres of hegemony. In fact, Trump made the joke of the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” that asserts the supremacy of the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere — including Latin America. It is further used to illustrate President Trump administration’s obsessive and darkly comical campaign to annex the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland.

Ultimately, Manifest Destiny justifies aggressive conquest, the expansion of American territory, and white Christian dominionism. This further frames white male grievances as they collectively feel entitlement to such dominion as a right given by their interpretation of God, further fostering traits that are characteristic of toxic masculinity at a micro-level: emotional and mental health suppression, belief in extreme self-reliance and clear disregard for others that don’t align with their views (indigenous populations and cultures, women, LGBTQ+ communities, and others). This is an ideology built on envisioning true masculine power by conquering and then subjugating people of different beliefs and skin pigmentation.

There is additionally an ego component to address. A variety of news reports that explain some of the justification for the capturing of Nicolas Maduro stemmed from the now-former leader appearing to mock President Trump and the Trump White House. In fact, Trump recently obsessed over Maduro appearing to have “stolen his dance moves” at a rally weeks ago where he was singing along to a techno remix of his “No War, Yes Peace” mantra. Simply because Maduro didn’t seem to take threats from the White House seriously with bouts of public dancing and insouciance, some in Trump’s orbit saw this as a taunt and suggested there should be clear retaliation.

If this proves true, the president of the United States was so insecure about his own actions in office that he reacted with the most extreme and deadly behavior. Toxic masculinity can reveal itself through extreme behavioral reactions, and this is a clear extreme reaction. Add the power held by Trump and the state’s socio-political monopoly on violence, toxic and extreme masculinity echoed through diplomatic and military channels that the apparatus of the military-industrial complex yielded the outcome most appealing to Trump and his inner circle of dominionist and far-right acolytes, such as Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance.

To culminate, simply being an imbalanced man with a penis literally could start a war. While most wars are not just started by men, the vast majority are due to the phallocentric and patriarchal state of governance impacting the broader aspects of our society.

That said, Venezuela is not an aberration in the U.S or world history, either, but a continuation of a long-standing pattern in which dominance, unjust resource extraction and wounded masculine egos are laundered through the language and actions of national security and moral righteousness. By no means do I overlook the alleged crimes of Maduro and the terrible things he has done as a feckless strong man leader. I rather would take this overall analysis further to demonstrate how he fell to yet another feckless strong man, Trump, who had greater means to accomplish equally horrendous goals.

It is performative aggression rooted in white supremacy and is emblematic of phallocentristic imperialist posturing that is historically and presently emblematic of U.S. foreign policy. As such, the socio-cultural and political impulses of such an ideology will continue to reproduce violence and erode the domestic and international legitimacy of the United States.