Bush's failed Liberation Theology

I love good irony. While searching for information on “collective salvation” and liberation theology in general I stumbled on this article titled;
Bush’s Failed Liberation Theology
from November 2006. Long before Rev Wright made Liberation Theology a topic of national discussion.
Isn’t it ironic that most of the folks who are denouncing Obams’s supposed liberation theology as Marxist supported the Liberation theology of former President Bush when he decided we must free the oppressed in Iraq, at gunpoint. Forcing people to pay taxes to help the poor is Marxist , and fascist. Ordering thousands of people to kill and be killed for the sake of Liberation is okay. Quite a thing to contemplate isn’t it?
So, how is it that Obama’s religion which may or may not be liberation theology, based on helping the poor, is compared to Marxism and Fascism, while the liberation of Iraq, at ongoing enormous cost in lives and treasure for US taxpayers is somehow justified.

also, as a side issue; I find no clear definition of collective salvation in any liberation theology material. Is this something Glenn “religious unity and truth” Beck just completely made up? Not the term itself, but the definition he is using.

Bush isn’t a believer in liberation theology, and invading Iraq wasn’t an example of liberation theology. Obama’s not a believer in liberation theology either, although I think he’s got something of the Social Gospel about him.

I’m talking a comparison of principle, rather than official membership.

Neither Bush or Obama’s beliefs or actions reflect liberation theology principles.

which are what according to you?

Educate thineself. Suffice it to say, it is not liberation theology every time a Christian decides s/he wants to liberate a group of people.

(But a quick version is, it ties the sufferings of the poor and downtrodden with the Jewish need for liberation from Rome – e.g. the church should come to liberate the oppressed in the same ways that Jesus came to liberate the oppressed. Not a bad idea, really, but the theological movement itself has long had uncomfortably close ties to Marxism.)

It’s also worth pointing out that social equality movements in democratic societies, IMO, are a very different kettle of fish. The ideal is one of greater care and cooperation between members of the society, rather than liberating the poor from the rich oppressors, with the desired result of a better society for everybody.

Hassouri’s article borrows the phrase “Liberation Theology” to refer to Bush’s sense that liberating Iraq (in the old-school military sense, as in liberating a Nazi-occupied country) was a divine mission, but as used in the article it does not mean what theologians call LT, and Hassouri himself never claims so. The usual understanding of Liberation Theology is in reference to finding a basis in Christian scripture and Magisterium, to support the politico-economic reivindications of the oppressed classes and ethnicities. The major LT school, that of Latin American Catholicism, was eventually cracked down upon by John Paul II for being too Marxist-friendly.

He may be conflating different concepts – including “Liberation Theology” itself.

Now, a teaching common to much of historical Christianity is that while Grace is God’s individual gift, growth in Grace is achieved and sustained by belonging to the/a Church, as the collective body of the faithful, of which the risen Christ is the head; that God conveys Grace and/or signs thereof to the faithful through sacraments that are available through the Church body; and that the faithful are called to build and live in a just and righteous society (and not abide injustice) and that will be accounted for at Judgment ("…for I was hungry, and ye fed me; thirsty and ye gave me to drink… whatsoever ye did unto the least amongst ye, ye did unto me") . So in that sense a lot of Christianity already teaches that you can’t be a “lone wolf” Christian and that “I got mine, sucks to be you” is not the most Christian attitude. But none of that should be news to anybody by now.

to clarify. I’m not claiming either Bush or Obama actually ascribe to on follow liberation theology. It seems likely that Obama has a decent understanding of it but that doesn’t mean he embraces it.

What I’m commenting on is what I see as a contradiction in principle and the ironic rather than literal connection of the label, liberation.

Quite a few conservatives are now crying Marxism and Fascism concerning Obama’s domestic policy. With the help of Glenn Beck and his recent rally it’s being connected to liberation theology. It’s basically an accusation of reparations and wealth redistribution which are big bad boogy men.
What it is realistically is finding the boundaries of just how much we can do to help out the less fortunate.
After reading the above title and glancing at the article it occurred to me that a lot of these same folks did not object to the billions in debt or the cost in thousands of lives that liberating Iraq cost us. Is that a major contradiction in principle or is it not?

Well, if that’s your question, the answer is a resounding “No.” The ideology behind liberating Iraq is entirely consistent with American conservative ideal, where liberty consists mostly or entirely of freedom from (undue) government interference in your decisions. Liberation theology in application to a society like ours would generally demand more government interference in light of the (disputed) fact that economic and social inequalities can constrain us to the point of interfering with our freedom to an unacceptable extent. While I do believe in that fact, I don’t see the irony in the conservative belief. After all, the Iraqi government was undoubtedly oppressive.

Also note that, especially in Protestantism, ethical beliefs may or may not be theological in origin.

That said, I may be misunderstanding your question.

I think you’ve got it now.
I think it is a glaring contradiction in principles. For one thing there’s a responsibility issue. We are obviously responsible for the welfare of the people in our own society. Not so obviously in a country on the other side of the planet.
Conservatives argue that helping the poor through taxes is unfair to those who work hard to earn their money. It that’s true then how do we justify that same tax money by the truckload being used to help non citizens. We blow the crap out of their country and then spend billions to rebuild it. We kill civilians while liberating the country and then pay their family reparations, but reparations for black oppression is seen as a horrible concept.
Seeing Jesus as liberator as well as savior is described by conservative Christians as a perversion, but evidently the prince of peace doesn’t object to a long bloody war if we have a good reason.
As I said, glaring contradiction in principles.

Well, Bush and his Iraq War supporters always painted it as primarily an issue of American Security. Iraq, under SH, was a threat to the US. It was a direct threat and an indirect threat since it contributed to an unstable Middle East. A democratic Iraq would be a US ally, and a role model for the rest of the Middle East. A stabilizing force, if you will.

Now, we can argue all day about the wisdom of that policy, and I certainly wouldn’t defend it. But the Iraq war was not billed as giant welfare program. Certainly not primarily. It was billed as an action to ensure American security. Have you read the AUMF lately?

I just did. Know what’s on there?

It’s been a while but as I remember it we went through stages of a sales pitch which began as Iraq is a threat to us, Iraq is a threat to the region, WMD, but finally, just before the actual invasion , it was Operation Iraqi freedom to liberate all the wonderful Muslims in Iraq from there cruel dictator.
But let’s say it was somewhat about security rather than just liberation. We actually destroyed the army deposed the evil dictator in a short time.

In Dec 2003 Saddam was captured. Since then it’s been about rebuilding Iraq. Supporting and training their military and police. Rebuilding the infrastructure we helped destroy. Paying reparations {another word conservatives hate} to Iraqi. Redistributing the wealth from working taxpayers to poor Iraqis and private contractors. If it’s not a big welfare program it sure as hell looks a lot like one.

What really galls me is the extremest language coming from Beck and his ilk and how eagerly their fans lap it up and adopt the same extreme language.

Don’t confuse the name with the reason. Here’s the full AUMF. Saying it was “somewhat” about security does not mesh with the text of the AUMF:

The stuff in red is related to US security. The stuff in black is what you quoted. Now, how much of the AUMF was related to security and how much was devoted to liberation?

I can’t speak for “conservatives”, but the only aversion to reparation I know about is those aimed at Blacks for slavery. Reparations for living people directly affected by US actions is a different ball of wax. For example, the legislation paying reparations to Japanese Americans was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of “conservatives”. It didn’t have majority Republican support in the House, but it did in the Senate.

You seem to be latching onto tenuous connections based on cherry picked definitions of words to fit your predetermined thesis.

Then you shouldn’t engage in the same nonsensical arguments that Beck engages in. Your contention that Bush adheres to some form of Liberation Theology is worse than Beck’s claims. There is at least a link to reality that Obama, thru Wright, has a connection to LT. Bush… nothing but that cite in your OP that hijacked that term and misapplied it to Bush.

I doubt that liberating Iraq was any more than a pretext for the invasion. President Bush seems to have genuinely believed that the Iraqis would welcome American troops as invaders and quickly set about creating a pro capitalist, pro American democracy. Then he intended to flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil, break the power of OPEC, and reduce the price of gasoline, making it easy for Americans to fuel their SUVs.

In retrospect this seems bizarre. Nevertheless, there were historical precedents for such an attitude. Although Italy had been an Axis country during the Second World War, the Italians did greet American invaders as liberators from the Germans who occupied them.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the Eastern European countries did set up pro American, pro capitalist democracies.

When you add to this the facts that George W. Bush prided himself in going by gut instinct, and that he surrounded himself with sycophants who told him what he wanted to hear, the invasion makes sense.

We were greeted as liberators, at least by most of the population.

But we screwed the pooch early on by not creating a secure environment in the vacuum left by SH’s security apparatus. Not very smart.

And, because of Desert Storm we were pretty dam sure that’s exactly what would happen.

Yes, those are the official reason given. Let’s not confuse that list with how it was sold to the American public.
I could go through the list and cross off the bullshit which would eliminate a lot of red but that’s not the point.

Acknowledged. IMO the whole reparations argument is a bit of a red herring from the conservatives. I’m just pointing out that they seemed okay with reparations to citizens of another country, but not of their fellow citizens.

I’m talking about what seems to be contradicting principles

I’m sorry it wasn’t clear but I didn’t intend it as a literal claim. Only the word “liberation” as a symbolic description connects the two. Then it’s the principles and where our billions are going and why one is acceptable and the other is labeled as fascist and communism.

I’m genuinely confused by this. Are you saying it was sold to the public primarily as a need to liberate the Iraqi people? If so, what evidence do you have? The stuff in the AUMF was exactly what Bush et al were trumpeting around. links to Al Qaeda, nukes, mushroom clouds, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive force, SH shooting at US planes, and on and on and on. Liberating the Iraqi people was a nice biproduct, but WMDs was the sine qua non of the Iraq War. Congress would never have voted for the AUMF without the BS about WMDs. Even PNAC advocating democratization was in order to ensure US hegemony in the M.E., not a charitable act to free the poor Iraqis.

I was being a bit of a wise guy. I get your point I know that security was a big part of the initial sale along with liberation of the people. Any question of security was taken care of when Saddam was captured. We’ve been there years since then. I’m talking about what I see as a contrast and contradiction of principle between conservatives taking an aggressive stand against tax dollars spent to aide their fellow citizens, and the money spent to aide the the citizens of another country.

No, it wasn’t. Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until we let them in. Had we just left after SH was toppled, it is likely that Iraq would have become a failed state and a haven for al Qaeda training camps and activity. That’s still not a far fetched scenario for the future.

I don’t think war-supporting conservatives view military spending, even when it goes to security overseas, as welfare. They value a strong US military presence around the world as a projection of US power and authority. That’s not a view I agree with, but it isn’t really much of a mystery. Conservatives aren’t libertarians. They’ve proven themselves, especially under Bush, to be profligate spenders.