Dangerous Minds

Parents naturally rejoice when their children show evidence of learning important lessons like keeping their hands clear of hot stoves or refusing unwrapped candy from a stranger. The myriad little lessons of childhood boil down to the familiar admonition: actions have consequences.

If there is a corresponding master lesson for adulthood, it may well be this: ideas have consequences. On the level of individuals, it is clear enough that a person’s thinking affects his or her actions—from moment to moment and over the course of time. On the level of nations and societies, thought influences communal action in fascinating ways. History abundantly illustrates that behind real-life events, social trends and policies lie philosophers and theoreticians. Would there have been a French Revolution without a Rousseau? How many of the world-shaking political and scientific advances of recent centuries would have unfolded without the Enlightenment thinkers who promoted and described the ideal of progress?


Of course, as Louis XVI discovered, it is not always (and for everyone) good news that ideas produce consequences. The entire world would have been far better off without Nazism and Communism, for example, and the intellectual currents that spawned these virulent ideologies. The pernicious influence of a Mein Kampf or a Communist Manifesto cast bloody shadows across the 20th century. Our new century has already suffered under the weight of the horrible consequences of warped worldviews.

I am still undecided on the question of how much alarm is genuinely warranted by a particularly objectionable fashion affecting our country in recent decades: a fierce antigovernment ideology readily observed on the national stage. Intense and reflexive hostility to federal authority has inspired acts of terrorism (the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing), the proliferation of armed militia groups in several states and a range of extremist movements that employ the words freedom and sovereign in idiosyncratic ways.

In more mainstream circles, a diffuse suspicion of just about every activity undertaken by government pervades national political discourse. There is no need to recount the latest upsurge in the antitax sentiment that surfaces periodically throughout U.S. history. Recent decades have also witnessed particularly loud voices proclaiming what I have taken to calling the reverse Midas-touch argument: everything government does backfires by warping healthy economic and behavioral incentives and producing disastrous unintended consequences.

Proponents of such simplistic analysis rarely walk away with the whole loaf they covet. Think tanks and lobbying groups with the strongest of aversions to a healthy public sector still experience as much frustration as jubilation. But even when they do not carry the day, they do have a way of generating background noise and nudging the debate further away from pragmatic policy and socially responsible decisions. The most punitive aspects of the welfare reform law of 1996, to cite just one example, reflect the influence of shrill antigovernment voices. Ask thousands of low-income, single-parent families who lost vital public assistance when they hit program time limits or could not comply with mandated work requirements in the absence of childcare subsidies. Ideas certainly do have consequences.

Our nation stands at a crossroads, where we will soon be witnessing the interplay of ideas and consequences in especially momentous ways. Over the next few weeks, we face weighty decisions regarding budget cuts, the national debt ceiling, the future of Medicare and Medicaid and much else. Will our national leaders scuttle the much-needed reforms of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act in the name of free markets? Will Congress sacrifice the new Consumer Protection Bureau on the altar of smaller government?

I worry less about the possible electoral success of the Libertarian Party or renewed interest in the philosophy of Ayn Rand than about the potential narrowing of our collective framework of values. God gives us the great gift of freedom so that we may employ it for worthy ends. Proponents of shrinking government for the supposed goal of preserving liberty deliberately reduce complex social equations to a single variable. In so doing, they exclude from consideration crucial human values. If values like solidarity, social justice and the common good are ignored, we are all impoverished.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
7 years 7 months ago
Father Massaro,

The spirit of charity is an individual or group of individuals willing to give of themselves and/or their possesions while expecting nothing in return.  It is immoral for the State to steal from one group of people and give to another.  That is not charity, that is theft.    The State's efforts to create "Social Justice" always achieves "Social Injustice".  The State cannot play the role of GOD!  The only Social Utopia effort created was the "Garden of Eden".  The Tree of Knowledge was placed within the garden to establish the opportunity to exercise Free Will (Choice) or remain steadfast to the Obedience of God.  The Serpent (Lucifer) wanted to establish his kingdom of followers as well.  Unfortunately he has been successful in this world, just look at how God's ultimate creation, human beings, treat one another.

I am no where close to being a theological scholar, but I do try and apply thought.  There are people who need temporary and sometimes permanent assistance near the late stages of their life, but the solutions offered by the state always make the problem worse.  

Ideas do have consequences, as evidenced by the states imperialistic actions regarding foreign policy.

Take care Father Massaro and God Bless!    
John Hess
7 years 7 months ago
When we, as a people, democratically decide through our elected representatives to tax ourselves in order to provide relief to the poor, the old, and the sick, it is indeed most certainly truthfully called "redistribution of income".  It is however, not "theft", nor "abuse of power", nor is it immoral.  It is our law, and good, charitable law at that.  If, as the people of a wealthy nation compared to others, we become so mean spirited as to abandon our weaker brothers and sisters we will then elect representatives who will change our laws.  Active citizenship via the ballot box is both an answer to the excessive influence of money in politics and a moral exercise. 

The government is our imperfect, powerful tool.  We can use it for good or ill.      


The latest from america

Screengrab from a viral video showcasing a confrontation between a Native American drummer and a group of Catholic high school students in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 18, 2019. Screenshot via YouTube.
Several clips of the encounter circulating on social media show a small group of Native American drummers, who were in Washington for the Indigenous People’s March, being surrounded by a much larger band of teenagers.
Pope Francis has suppressed the Ecclesia Dei Commission, a significant decision with consequences for the Holy See’s relations with the priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Gerard O’ConnellJanuary 19, 2019
Photo: IMDB
A new Netflix miniseries brings out the story’s aspects of adventure and conflict, with occasionally pulse-pounding results.
Rob Weinert-KendtJanuary 19, 2019
Protestors march to support a U.N. anti-corruption commission in Guatemala City on Jan. 6. Photo by Jackie McVicar.
“What they are doing not only puts Guatemala at risk but the entire region. Bit by bit, for more than a year, they have been trying to divide us. The elections are at risk. We are six months away.”
Jackie McVicarJanuary 18, 2019