I think the most useful framework to use to view US foreign policy is the one set out in Walter Russel Mead's Special Providence.
The thesis is that there are essentially 4 schools of foreign policy, continually jockeying for getting their own way. Their primary motivations are roughly: promoting US business, protecting the US from foreign threats, promoting US values, and "Never start a fight, but always finish it." He respectively labeled these 4 schools "Hamiltonians", "Jeffersonians", "Wilsonians", and "Jacksonians". Basically, if you as a foreign country never manage to tick off more than one of these groups, you will generally do OK.
Hamiltonians are always going to have problems with any country that Nationalizes large amount of private assets. Particularly if the private companies in question were US companies, or had lucrative contracts with US companies. So while they don't necessarily care if a country decides to have universal healthcare, they care a great deal if it decides to nationalize its entire Oil industry. Venezuela did this in 1976, but it was Chavez in 1999 who kicked all the foreign oil projects out of the country. This earned him (and his protégé's ) the enmity of the Hamiltonians.
Jeffersonians are generally OK with countries as long as they don't threaten the US. Unfortunately, Venezuelan leaders have made a habit of casting the US as their enemy, as a tactic to distract from domestic troubles. While not a huge threat, they have also been busy the last few decades publicly making common cause with other countries that are generally perceived to be US enemies, like Cuba and Russia. This is clearly unfriendly behavior, and does not have them in good smell with Jeffersonians. Strike two.
Wilsonians want other countries to be democratic, and their people to be free. Any country whose rulers clearly cheat an election will be on their shitlist. They didn't have a big problem with Chavez kicking US Oil companies out when he did it back in 1999, because he was a popular elected leader of a young democracy, and in their books the region needs more of those.
However, recently things have changed. Venezuela abolished its presidential term limits in 2009. In 2015 the ruling party lost its parliamentary election, and essentially created its own separate parliament rather than abide by it. A recall movement started, which the President's government cancelled by fiat. The next election in 2017 had more shenanigans than I can list, resulting in polling showing about 73% of Venezuelans thinking the new assembly not being valid, and 78% considering their country to now be a dictatorship.
Wilsonians do not like election shenanigans, and certainly don't like dictatorships. That's strike three.
Jacksonians aren't going to be approving of any messing with Venezuela until the day we are actually fighting. For Maduro, that's a good thing. The US Army and Marines are heavily peopled by folks with this outlook (as are a lot of lower-income relatively apolitical Americans, from which those services draw) This is the one group you do not want to tick off above all others.
So the basic problem the current Venezuela regime has is that they've actively ticked off 3 of the 4 poles of US foreign policy. Anyone in this situation can expect a lot of non-military intervention (and military isn't out of the question either).