
In Europe first and now in America, elected men have taken it
In Europe first and now in America, elected men have taken it upon themselves to indebt their people to create an atmosphere of dependency. And why? For their own selfish need to increase their own personal power.






In every age, rulers have been entrusted with the sacred duty to guide their people toward justice and prosperity. Yet Pope Francis, speaking with the voice of a shepherd for all nations, warns of a grave corruption of this trust. He declares, “In Europe first and now in America, elected men have taken it upon themselves to indebt their people to create an atmosphere of dependency. And why? For their own selfish need to increase their own personal power.” These words strike like a bell of truth, reminding us that the chains of oppression are not always forged of iron—sometimes, they are woven from debt, fear, and manipulation.
To indebt the people is to bind them in invisible shackles. Debt, when used with wisdom, can build nations, create opportunity, and sustain life. But when it is wielded with malice, it becomes a tool of control. Those who hold the purse strings hold the freedom of the people. As Pope Francis teaches, some leaders deliberately foster this dependency, making the populace reliant on the state, not for the sake of service, but to solidify their own dominion. Such rulers appear generous on the surface, yet beneath lies a design as ancient as tyranny itself.
History reveals this pattern in many forms. In ancient Rome, rulers like Julius Caesar offered “bread and circuses” to the masses—lavish games and free grain. While the people cheered, their spirit of independence quietly eroded, replaced by reliance on imperial favor. This dependency ensured loyalty, allowing rulers to expand their power unchecked. In time, Rome’s citizens became spectators rather than participants in their own governance, paving the way for emperors who ruled as gods.
In more recent times, similar dangers have arisen through the mechanisms of modern finance. Nations have fallen into ruin because leaders pursued reckless spending to secure short-term popularity. The Weimar Republic of post-World War I Germany was burdened with crushing debt, its currency spiraling into worthlessness. Amidst this chaos, desperate citizens became vulnerable to the promises of a new leader—Adolf Hitler, who exploited their fear and dependence to seize total control. Here we see the dark fulfillment of Pope Francis’s warning: debt and despair prepared the soil for tyranny.
Let this teaching echo through the generations: a free people must guard against leaders who trade their liberty for illusions of security. True power does not seek to enslave through fear or dependency but to uplift through opportunity and virtue. Leaders must serve as stewards, not masters, and citizens must remain vigilant. For when dependency becomes the currency of politics, freedom withers, and the chains of servitude are once again forged—this time, not by conquerors from without, but by the very hands that were chosen to protect the people.
MKminh kieu
This quote prompts reflection on the morality of governance and financial policy. If debt can be used as a tool of control, it makes me question the ethical frameworks guiding political decisions. How do citizens ensure that public resources are used for collective benefit rather than personal aggrandizement? I’d like a perspective on balancing necessary government support with the risk of creating long-term dependency, and whether transparency or structural reforms are most effective in preventing abuse.
AMa mt
I feel skeptical but intrigued reading this statement. It raises the philosophical question of power versus responsibility—shouldn’t leaders serve the people rather than their own ambitions? How do cultural and economic contexts affect the likelihood of such exploitation? Additionally, how can citizens, media, and institutions detect and resist policies that intentionally create dependency, and what role does public awareness play in holding leaders accountable for these actions?
NQLe Thị Nhu Quỳnh
This perspective feels urgent and somewhat disheartening. It suggests that some elected officials may exploit economic structures to expand their influence, potentially at the expense of public autonomy. How can we distinguish between policies meant to provide support versus those intended to foster dependency? I’d like to explore frameworks for ethical governance that prevent manipulation while still addressing societal needs and inequalities without increasing reliance on state intervention for control.
TLthuy lythithu
Reading this evokes concern about accountability and transparency in government. If leaders deliberately create dependency to consolidate power, what measures can citizens take to prevent or counteract it? Are education, civic engagement, and independent oversight sufficient, or are systemic reforms necessary? I’m also curious about historical examples where debt or social programs were used manipulatively, and how those scenarios compare to current challenges in both Europe and America.
TNThuan Nguyen
This quote makes me reflect on the intersection of politics, economics, and ethics. It raises the question: how often do elected leaders prioritize personal power over the genuine welfare of their citizens? I wonder if structural systems, such as lobbying, campaign financing, or debt mechanisms, inherently encourage this behavior. How can societies design institutions that balance necessary governance with safeguards against creating dependency for political gain?