Politics & Power Quote by Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews points to a long-standing American habit of moral flexibility in foreign policy. The reference to the contras evokes the 1980s, when the Reagan administration backed Nicaraguan rebels fighting the Sandinista government, despite widespread reports of human rights abuses and the constitutional crisis of the Iran-Contra affair. That history complicates any claim that the United States, on principle, rejects anti-government movements or paramilitary groups. Sometimes it funds, trains, and celebrates them as freedom fighters.

The line functions as a reminder that labels such as insurgent, guerrilla, resistance, and terrorist are often assigned through the lens of interests. When a regime is seen as hostile to U.S. goals or values, its opponents can become proxies; when an armed nonstate group challenges a friendly government, the same tactics are condemned. The pattern extends beyond Nicaragua to U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and various militias in Iraq. The criterion has not been the method alone but who benefits and whether the enemy is ours.

Matthews, a veteran observer of Washington, is nudging the audience to face the contradiction: Americans prize rule of law and democratic process, yet their government sometimes backs extralegal violence abroad. The point is not a celebration of paramilitaries but a call for intellectual consistency. If opposition to government and irregular force can be justified in some cases, then the real issue is the standard. Is it democratic legitimacy, protection of civilians, accountability, and clear political aims? Or is it merely alignment with U.S. strategic interests?

The statement also warns against rhetorical absolutism at home. Condemning all militias or all insurgencies as inherently illegitimate erases necessary distinctions, but embracing them selectively without coherent ethics invites hypocrisy. The challenge is to acknowledge the messy reality of statecraft while articulating transparent criteria for when, and whether, such support is defensible.