As a member of Gen Z, I am often told my generation is a lost cause for conservatism — too cynical, too progressive, or just too far gone.

That assumption couldn’t be more wrong. Gen Z isn’t rejecting America; we’re demanding that it work again. And if conservatives are serious about reclaiming the soul of the nation, the path forward runs directly through the issues my generation lives with every day.

Gen Z came of age at the crossroads of stability and uncertainty. 

During President Trump’s first term, we witnessed a strong economy, interest rates that opened the door to homeownership, an end to forever wars, and a return to policies that prioritized the family.

Under President Biden, however, millions of young Americans graduated college and took entry-level jobs that barely covered their student loan payments, even as the cost of everything rose faster than their paychecks. They were told to follow the rules — go to college, take on loans, delay adulthood. Then, when those rules failed them, they were blamed.

What frustrates my peers isn’t tradition or responsibility; it’s a system that feels rigged against them. 

That’s precisely where conservatism, properly articulated, can meet the moment.

Homeownership

For Gen Z, homeownership feels less like a milestone and more like a fantasy. Sky-high rents that prevent us from putting money into savings, zoning restrictions that choke supply, and inflation driven by reckless federal spending have priced young people out of opportunity. 

Conservatives should call this what it is: a policy failure. Government rules make it harder to build homes, while bad monetary policy drains savings and pushes the dream of stability further out of reach for young families.

If we believe in ownership, stability, and opportunity, then we should lead on reforms that make it easier — not harder — for young Americans to buy homes and build wealth.

Student Debt

Then there’s student debt. Gen Z didn’t invent the student loan crisis; we inherited it.

Many borrowers were reckless, and they should repay what they owe. But recklessness was enabled by a federal loan system that treated teenagers as capable of signing six-figure contracts while shielding universities from the consequences of failure.

Subsidies have fueled tuition inflation and reduced institutional accountability, leaving students to bear the full cost of bad decisions — both theirs and the systems.

Conservatives should reject blanket loan “forgiveness” that shifts the burden to taxpayers, but we must also offer real solutions: ending the federal government’s role as a blank-check lender so private institutions once again have incentives to lend responsibly, expanding alternatives like apprenticeships and credentialing, and breaking the cartel between the federal government and higher education. Responsibility cuts both ways—and universities should finally be forced to bear some.

Building A Family 

Most surprising to pundits — but obvious to anyone paying attention — is Gen Z’s renewed interest in traditional family values. After watching the loneliness, instability, and social breakdown of the last two decades, many in my generation are rediscovering what older generations once took for granted: marriage matters, family matters, and children are not obstacles to fulfillment but central to it. This isn’t nostalgia; it’s realism. Gen Z wants meaning, not just mobility. We want strong relationships, safe neighborhoods, and a culture that doesn’t sneer at commitment.

Conservatives should lean into this—not with lectures, but with policies that make it possible to start and raise a family. That means an economy where a young family has the chance to create a home and build a foundation for the future, a tax code that doesn’t treat marriage like a liability, and leaders who value faith, responsibility, and strong bonds across generations. When conservatives defend the family, we aren’t clinging to the past — we’re offering a future Gen Z actually wants.

The fight for America’s soul isn’t about writing off an entire generation. It’s about proving that our ideas can meet real needs in real lives. Gen Z is open, skeptical, and looking for answers. If conservatives are honest about the economic realities we’re dealing with and defend the institutions that make life meaningful, my generation won’t just listen — we’ll lead.

* * *

Jake Matthews is a communications manager for technology, economics, and energy at The Heritage Foundation.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

January 3, 2026, will go down in history as the day Venezuelans recovered something many had believed lost: hope.

That hope did not come from abstract promises, but from the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro — the first sign in decades that Venezuela may veer off the trajectory of authoritarian rule, economic collapse, and mass exile that has defined the country for 26 years.

Despite this renewed optimism, many critics of the Trump administration have suggested the operation was somehow unethical or misguided.

Those critics miss the point entirely. Toppling Maduro has paved the way for long-term stability grounded in free-market capitalism and the rule of law to take root in Venezuela. If these forces are allowed to flourish, they will reshape the military, political, and economic structures that guide the country, and allow Venezuela to fully re-enter the global community.

It is no accident that authoritarians controlled Venezuela for as long as they did. To topple a regime from the inside, you need either a massive popular uprising or some kind of military coup. Maduro made sure both were impossible in Venezuela.

A 2013 law banned the sale of firearms and ammunition to civilians and imposes prison sentences of up to 20 years for unauthorized possession. Over the past decade, the Maduro regime aggressively disarmed the population, ensuring that ordinary citizens have no means to resist a usurping government or defend a democratic transition.

That means no uprising would succeed without the military’s involvement. Which is why in recent years Maduro expanded the Venezuelan officer corps, which reportedly boasts over 2,000 generals and admirals — more than double the number in the United States.

In a system saturated with generals, no single faction can act decisively without broad internal backing. Plotting a coup becomes exponentially harder when success requires the loyalty of dozens, if not hundreds, of senior figures rather than a centralized command.

And, because so many of those officers have been rewarded with lucrative posts or interests in vast sectors of the economy, it would be difficult for an opposition faction or reform-minded general to rally enough support within the officer corps to mount a successful coup.

Fortunately, the fact that the Venezuelan military is more a patronage program than a fighting force allowed American forces to topple Maduro in just 88 minutes.

That was a major step in the right direction, but hardly a guarantee of future success.

Even with Maduro gone, any Venezuelan regime that hopes to endure will need the military’s buy-in. And because Maduro spent years purchasing officers’ loyalty, it won’t be easy for an opposition leader to swoop in and take control.

That’s why Maduro’s de facto vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, was left in power after Maduro’s capture. Many expected opposition leader María Corina Machado — whose coalition overwhelmingly won the 2024 elections — to assume leadership. Instead, President Donald Trump declined to back her, arguing she lacked sufficient internal support.

Allowing Rodríguez to serve as a temporary bridge likely reduces the number of officers required to defect at once, lowering the coordination threshold needed to maintain stability. And, at a time when the American body politic is highly suspicious of “regime change” and “forever wars,” respecting this reality ostensibly diminishes the need for troops on the ground.

Moreover, immediate installation would have been politically toxic for Machado. A staunch defender of democratic rule, she must earn her mandate from Venezuelans, not appear as a foreign appointee marching into Miraflores on the heels of American troops.

If Machado is to translate political momentum into lasting change, she will need to leverage Venezuela’s greatest asset: its oil reserves. The country holds an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven reserves, the largest in the world.

But Venezuela’s oil is not an easy prize. Most of it is heavy or extra-heavy crude — dense, sulfur-rich, and costly to extract, transport, and refine. Oil production has fallen from roughly 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to about 1 million today, and experts agree that rebuilding lost capacity will take years of sustained investment and technical rehabilitation.

Reviving the sector will require tens of billions of dollars in long-term investment. But American companies will not make multi-billion-dollar investments based on speeches, personalities, or election cycles. They will invest if they believe the rules of the game will endure. In this sense, Venezuela’s recovery is inseparable from free-market reform and the rule of law.

This is why the transition underway is about far more than replacing one leader with another. It is about replacing an economic model. Venezuela’s oil sector — and its broader economy — cannot recover without sustained private investment, and sustained private investment requires credible commitment to free-market capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law. Anything less signals instability and thus keeps capital on the sidelines.

Incentives are aligned in a rare and encouraging way. American companies want stability, predictability, and enforceable contracts. Venezuelans want lasting freedom, prosperity, and insulation from the return of authoritarian socialism. Both depend on the same outcome: a durable shift away from state control and toward a market-based system that cannot be easily undone. The more Venezuela commits to capitalism, the safer long-term investment becomes. And the more capital flows in, the harder it becomes for any future government to reverse course without catastrophic cost.

That alignment matters. It creates a feedback loop in which economic openness reinforces political durability, and political durability reinforces economic confidence. This — not ideology, not personality, and not short-term geopolitics — is the most important driver of Venezuela’s future.

Venezuela’s trajectory depends on balancing three forces: military power, political legitimacy, and market-driven recovery. Mismanaging any one of them risks collapse. The United States and its allies must avoid the temptation to pursue oil while tolerating authoritarian continuity. That path would only produce a new class of kleptocrats.

Done correctly, however, this moment offers a rare alignment of interests. Venezuelans want dignity and self-government. Investors want stability and lawful capitalism. And the United States has an opportunity to support a transition that is neither naïve nor imperial, but grounded in realism.

The door is open. What comes next will decide whether hope can walk through it and materialize as the liberty and prosperity millions of Venezuelans, like myself, have been praying, yearning, and working for decades.

Olga Benacerraf de Strulovic is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School. She was born and raised in Venezuela’s capital city of Caracas, and was one of many Venezuelans who fled the country during Nicolás Maduro’s rule.