Many people want politicians who act humbly. Whether they actually choose this is another matter
Are you one of those people who are fed up with narcissists in politics? Who wish that there were more representatives of the people, with whom you have the feeling that they care less about themselves and more about the bigger picture? If so, then you belong to the vast majority of 86 percent of voters who consider humility in politics to be desirable.
Humility, what an old and peculiar word. The Old High German combination of “serving” and “courage” is particularly popular in times of crisis or election. Olaf Scholz fulfills the electorate’s encouragement with “humility”, Annalena Baerbock has “humility before the task” and Armin Laschet speaks of “humility in this decisive time”.
But what exactly is this “humility”, which to some people may seem like an artificial facade to take the wind out of the sails of critical voices?
Research says: Those who know their own strengths and weaknesses have humility – and show them to the outside world if it makes sense for the “bigger picture” – not for their own ego. Humility is to be found in those who recognize others for what they do, who are always willing to learn, are open and, above all, understand that there is much greater than oneself.
This virtue of humility creates tremendous value. Hundreds of specialist articles prove: Anyone who humbly leads in business is good for the company, the employees and, last but not least, themselves. Employees get better, more resilient and more satisfied. Companies are becoming more innovative, more cooperative and culturally stronger. The humble manager is perceived as competent, intelligent and equipped with great potential.
Couldn’t it then also be worthwhile for politicians to be humble? Not only in terms of your own team, but also in terms of the electorate? At first it looks very dark: According to a survey I carried out among more than 200 voters, they see an average of 61 percent of the politicians they know as narcissists and only 23 percent as humble. According to their assessment, the remaining 16 percent are psychopaths, corrupt or simply incapable!
Can you think of politicians who make up the 23 percent? Who do not get rich from the sale of Covid masks, but pay the electricity bill for the private apartment in the Elysee Palace themselves, like Charles de Gaulle. Who sometimes admit weaknesses and mistakes like Obama, who did not avoid an “I screwed up” when he hastily assigned a post at the beginning of his presidency.
Politicians who recognize others and are willing to learn from them, such as Helmut Schmidt, who in 1977 took five hours to talk to Heinrich Böll, Max Frisch and Siegfried Lenz and the publisher Siegfried Unseld in order to understand what drives young people to terrorism.
But: How does the current top trio in federal politics – Annalena Baerbock, Olaf Scholz and Armin Laschet – actually fare on the humility scale? And what about the three who want to inherit Angela Merkel, with a view to the scale of unhealthy narcissism? On the basis of objective criteria, there is a subjective expert assessment of me, which I add to a kind of special case: the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, whom some had given a chance as a candidate for chancellor.
Who can recognize and admit their own weaknesses and mistakes? Scholz can, as his apology for the police violence at the G20 summit showed in the “Brigitte” interview: To this day, he is depressed that, although he had promised to do so as First Mayor, he “was not able to protect the citizens as he did I promised that ”.
Armin Laschet only gave himself insight into his plagiarism affair – with a zero apology: “I would like to expressly apologize for this, because careful work when writing works and respecting copyright are also a question of respect for other authors for me.” Annalena Baerbock on the other hand said of her slightly pimped up curriculum vitae: “That was crap” – a straightforward admission. Markus Söder also had a credible apology ready for the Easter rest: “We decided that together. So we all share responsibility, but we also say sorry together. We are sorry for this back and forth. “
Who can recognize and show their own strengths? Scholz knows what he can do, after all, he has enforced a digital tax on the world stage. To Laschet one could say: only survive in the toad pond or in the Triell? That is not enough!
Baerbock is also rather shaky, because she goes to high tide without a media crowd, but she finds it difficult to get away from the book, curriculum vitae and the N-word. Reaction only – no trace of action. And Söder? “A dog isser scho.” Which is why people in Bavaria are not bothered by higher incidences, lower vaccination rates or anything else that has not been implemented.
Who can acknowledge others?
The “Süddeutsche Zeitung” describes how Scholz is traveling to the USA in July 2021 because of the global minimum tax with the following words: “Like a seminar teacher in a blue T-shirt, sand-colored jeans, sneakers with healthy soles and a baggy leather satchel.” Appreciation is also evident in dressing in such a way that others do not have to look for the professional person with a magnifying glass. Speaking of professional: Mr. Laschet, how do you want to show presence and appreciation when you laugh heartily at flood victims?
At Baerbock, on the other hand, it becomes clear that no matter who you ask, it matters that she not only speaks of respect, but also shows it. She says: “We can only do this together.”
One of his biographers wrote about Markus Söder: “He completely ignores the expertise of his company.” Oha! And: “He prefers to laugh at others and likes to invite you to press conferences on Sundays to underpin his restless creative drive.”
Who is always ready to learn and open?
At first, Olaf Scholz was the wrinkled face, serious and not present. Now he has obviously taken good advice. And at least becomes a smiling Scholzomat. With Armin Laschet there is still room for improvement: “Because it’s such a day, you don’t change politics.” Anyone who says such a sentence about climate policy, although standing in tons of mud, is not ready to learn.
Annalena Baerbock is reported to have spoken to her party’s experts on the phone before important public appearances to find out the facts. Söder is also quite convincing here: Whatever made him do it – he seems to have learned something new. Trees and bees are kissing friends, asylum seekers are to be protected when they are (unfortunately) there already, and everything that comes must be mastered.
Who sees the bigger picture?
Olaf Scholz preaches about climate change and wants to serve the country – tends to be credible. But anyone who – like Laschet – says “2015 must not repeat itself” sows hatred and stirs up undemocratic thinking.
At first, Baerbock’s election campaign threatened to get lost in the small things, but then she presented concepts for the future and formulated better closing words with each triell. And Söder? “An example must be made in Athens. (…) More help for Greece is like shedding water in the desert. ”To address such words to a country to which we have never paid reparations for their 500,000 dead in the war we started?
As far as humility is concerned, we can say: Laschet cannot convince here, Söder and Baerbock more so – the clear winner in this category is Olaf Scholz.
Now let’s look at the narcissism factor.
Who is prone to self-expression? Rather not Scholz. Although he is slowly showing joy in appearances, as an actor he would still fail every exam. Laschet is not a self-promoter either: he does what he has to, even attacking the party’s orders…, the rest is silence. Annalena Baerbock is present, but not exaggerated, whereas Söder seems to love every appearance.
Who thinks they are superior?
Even if Olaf Scholz is not infrequently attested to being clever, he does not carry it around in front of him. With Laschet there is no evidence of a feeling of superiority – except that he trusts himself to be Chancellor, and that is still healthy narcissism. On the contrary, the Green candidate seems to consider herself almost too powerless. And Söder? Counter-question: Can you imagine a Söder with self-doubt?
Who is entitled to everything revolving around him or her?
Olaf Scholz seems to be fighting for the cause and not for his own ego, Armin Laschet also loves cooperation, ideally at eye level, otherwise from below. With Annalena Baerbock it is not possible to tell from the outside whether she is self-centered (for her employees?) The “Spiegel”, in turn, once reported about the indignant Söder: He wants to make schoolchildren happy and then the little ones are outrageously not there at 7 o’clock!
Who is prone to vanity?
Scholz? No. Lash? Probably not, even if a volcano of ice may blaze inside. Regarding Baerbock, it should be noted: Oh, it is vain to prettify your own résumé. And Söder often and likes to pose – with a cross or a measure and everything else that is there.
The result: Scholz and Laschet tend not to be narcissists, Annalena Baerbock shows a very small tendency, while Markus Söder achieved the full number of points in this category.
With regard to the relationship between humility and narcissism, it can be said that Olaf Scholz is the most humble. And is also appreciated by the electorate. If that were a clear victory for humility, why does the narcissist Söder do so well too? My study confirms what other researchers have already found out: a decent portion of the electorate – despite profound commitments to humility – cannot stand purely humble politicians. Point!
How can that be determined? In my survey, I described two politicians to the participants in two scenarios: In the first scenario, one candidate is purely narcissistic, he sees himself as the savior of the world and puts down his opponents, while his competitor is humble, willing to learn, willing to admit mistakes and Acknowledging competitors. In the second scenario, the candidate is more likely to be narcissistic and her competitor is a humble personality.
It is true that my test subjects correctly classified the fictitious candidates as humble or narcissistic. But: Only 50 percent would choose the humble politician from scenario two, and at least 58 percent would choose the humble politician from scenario one. Neither are bad values, but still considerably less than the 86 percent who claim that they want more humility in politics.
Male voters deal particularly harshly with the humble politician in the study: While 65 percent of women consider him a good politician, only 42 percent of men see it. As a result, more women would have to vote for Scholz and more men would want to vote for Söder.
Three other groups of voters spoil business for the humble. For example, those with poor self-esteem rate narcissists as significantly more competent and productive than those who are at peace with themselves. According to the motto: “If I am already a cucumber, I want to have the largest and brightest potato above me.”
People who like to avoid relationships are also very impressed by narcissists. This is called the avoidance type of attachment, and in the study it comprised around a third of the electorate. Why? Those who do not like or cannot approach others do not feel safe within themselves, are afraid of being “exposed”, and become arrogant and dismissive. Such a person cannot deal with humble politicians. Probably also because he or she cannot even imagine someone honestly admitting weaknesses or genuinely appreciating others. Instead, they see humble behavior as being played.
The last nail in the coffin is those who think it right that there are stronger and weaker groups in our society. Research calls this a “socially dominant orientation”. These are people who agree with sentences like: “Superior groups should dominate inferior groups” and reject sentences like “Group equality should be our ideal”.
Such an electorate naturally does not want politicians who act on an equal footing, show weaknesses or even serve a whole that goes beyond particular interests. They rather need a Georg Maaßen who calls out: “I can understand anyone who chooses me. Because I’m just good. “
There are two ways to get into the hearts of voters: being humble like an Olaf Scholz or narcissism paired with a little humility like Markus Söder. The latter fits in with the fact that research also rates Apple founder Steve Jobs as particularly successful, since he got his narcissism under control with a little humility later in life.
Whoever wins the race on Sunday or in the upcoming elections: We as voters can only hope that those elected in office will develop in such a way that they correspond to the ideal of the American author James Freeman Clarke: “A politician thinks to the next election, a statesman to the next generation. ”Then a bit of narcissism is welcome!
