» Lesen Sie diesen Artikel auf Deutsch
An excessively complex world craves overly simple solutions. But if a given solution cannot, in fact, be that simple, there are two possibilities: First, one may cling to the simpler solution against one’s better judgment, thereby evoking the destructive terror of nostalgia. But the recourse to nostalgia can never succeed, because the closer one supposedly gets to that idealized world, the farther it retreats into the past. It is an endless and perpetually unsatisfying spiral into yesterday that produces only frustration and division. This path may lead to electoral triumphs in the short term, but never to long-term social success. It is a society’s certain path toward irrelevance.
But there is a second possibility: one might move beyond the destructive discourse and dare to present a simple yet positive, emotional, and popular message undergirded by complex, fact-based solutions. This is the task of all democratic parties with a progressive outlook, regardless of whether the way forward is pursued more slowly and conservatively or more rapidly and progressively.
There is no overlap between the two options. The choice of one or the other separates the frivolous from the serious. Lies from truth. The past from the future. Fear from hope. Political parties that clearly and unequivocally commit to position two and also embody it in their stance, language, message, platform, and above all, emotion, are – to put it mildly - underrepresented. But it is precisely these characteristics that are needed now.
The current political discourse in the Federal Republic revolves almost exclusively around the first position and always hovers on the edge of - or below - seriousness. It always moves backward, never forward. Back to the 13-hour workday. Back to diesel. Back to full-time work. Back to the Germanic past. Back to the kitchen. Back to EU border controls. Back to uniformity. Back to a social welfare state full of holes. Back to the power of billionaires. Back behind the »Limits to Growth« of the Club of Rome from 1972. In their attempt to meet people where they supposedly are right now, the established parties are speeding past virtually every stop at full throttle. New parties like the BSW immediately build on nostalgia; the Greens get bogged down in petty details regarding both policy and personnel; and the AfD is 100% committed to the first position.
»The public hungers and thirsts for a far-sighted party whose leading public figures and emotions speak to people in a positive, realistic, and optimistic tone.«
On paper and judging by its history, the task falls to the SPD, the progressive party of hope. Someone should tell them that. There is a hunger – and on top of that, a thirst – for a far-sighted party that speaks to people in a positive, realistic, and optimistic tone, both in terms of its message and its approach. The policy platform isn’t that hard to come by. Solutions to most problems have long been on the table – from the energy transition to productivity and securing a skilled workforce to education policy. What is missing is the communication of confidence – or rather the courage to be confident. Furthermore, there is a lack of personnel both to convey and to popularize such confidence. Because even hope can come across as popular – if not populist.
The Emotional Side of the Republic
»Change is only accepted if it is not perceived as a threat to one’s own lifestyle.«
In this persistent crisis, our focus shifts from the big picture to what we can personally control. Our private lives become an emotional safe haven. Confidence arises where individual agency is possible – in one’s career, social circle, and immediate daily life. Change is accepted only when it is not perceived as a threat to one’s own lifestyle, but rather as a concrete benefit. For the sake of self-preservation, many people focus more strongly on their own interests. At the same time, there is a growing longing for a reliable, caring force that provides security, offers guidance, and tackles problems pragmatically. People are not seeking a radical break, but rather measured change – driven by the expectation that someone will take responsibility, provide direction, and take firm control of the situation.
For many citizens, trust is more important than political programs
These shifts are not without consequences. They alter the logic of political decision-making. As trust in institutions declines, political complexity increases, and many people withdraw from the public discourse, those factors that promise guidance gain prominence. The social-psychological model of election research distinguishes among party identification, issue evaluation, and candidate orientation. As ties weaken and issues appear more complex, personalities rather than abstract issues come to the fore.
For those who feel stressed out, individual personalities become an emotional point of reference. They act as a transmission belt between an opaque political reality and individual expectations. Familiar mechanisms such as priming come into play: In a media-saturated public sphere, certain evaluation criteria become particularly prominent – ones such as leadership competence or crisis resilience. At the same time, characteristics unrelated to the political role in question also gain significance. When many people perceive politics only as a patchwork quilt, the likability, demeanor, tone of voice, and personal credibility of the individual candidate or officeholder shape judgment more strongly than programmatic details.
In a social climate characterized by withdrawal and insecurity, decision-making thus increasingly shifts into the emotional realm. The relevant question is not so much: Which position is convincing in detail, but rather, who understands my situation and whom do I trust to shape it effectively? This intensifies the expectations placed on political leadership. Empathy alone is not enough, nor is pure technical competence. What is called for here is a combination of understanding and the ability to get things done – the ability to make change appear manageable while simultaneously ensuring stability. Political efficacy becomes the central resource that generates trust.
When Leadership Delivers
The actual practices of political campaigns demonstrate that this shift cannot be described in theoretical terms alone. This became particularly clear in the Hamburg state election campaign for Peter Tschentscher and the SPD Hamburg. One week after the federal election on February 23, 2025, in which the SPD in Hamburg received 22.7 percent of the second (party preference) votes, it won 33.5 percent in the state election on March 2, 2025: a pickup of ten percentage points within just a few days. This can hardly be explained by programmatic differences; instead, the unique impact of personal leadership made the difference.
Polls conducted in the run-up to the election also confirmed this finding: A majority directly supported Tschentscher as mayor; many rated him as a good incumbent and credited him with visibly boosting Hamburg. The focus was thus on the person himself. Tschentscher was cast as a guarantor of stability and controlled change – as a symbolic figure of orderly, capable leadership who is steering the city through transformation while securing both economic strength and social cohesion. What mattered was not so much approval of individual projects as the attribution of leadership ability.
»The person at the center as a credible bearer of an attitude that provides orientation and channels hope.«
The emotional dynamic lay not in the escalation of conflicts over issues, but in »personalization«: i.e., the identifying of stability with one particular person and the accompanying feelings of relief and reassurance. Voters for Tschentscher had the feeling that complexity remains manageable and that the city is in steady hands. It was precisely this form of emotional stabilization that gave the campaign its impact. Hamburg represents a rational-emotional model of political leadership: security, competence, and progress were not pitted against one another, but rather linked. Leadership here meant making change manageable. Yet emotional connection can also arise in other ways.
James Talarico , the candidate for the U.S. Senate just chosen by Texas Democrats in a primary election, provides an example of this. In his public appearances, he combines moral clarity, social justice, and a positive vision for the future. His narrative is not technocratic but values-based: not »left versus right,« but »the bottom versus the top« – coupled with a Christian-inspired commitment to dignity, equality, and social cohesion. Here, too, the individual person takes center stage not merely as a figure attracting the sympathy of the public, but as a credible champion of an attitude that provides direction and channels hope.
Both examples point to the same structural core. When political and economic conditions seem to be demanding too much of the citizenry, political decision-making increasingly comes down to what individuals say and do. Leadership becomes a projection screen for stabilization or renewal – depending on the context, situation, and structure of needs. This observation is not an isolated case, but an expression of a fundamental shift in political perception.
No emotional relief through simplification
Precisely because emotions gain significance under conditions of overload and the pressure of complexity, they become politically contested. Populist actors exaggerate differences, feign outrage, and engage in simple-minded blame games. They promise emotional relief through simplification. The response of democratic politics cannot consist of ignoring emotions or weaponizing them for communicative purposes. Emotions are not a manipulative technique; they are instead a democratic resource. They determine whether politics is experienced as orderly, responsible, and effective.
»Politics must produce leaders who do not exploit emotions, but rather organize them and translate them into politically effective forms.«
Political leadership is crucial. In uncertain times, people seek not only explanations, but also individuals who embody guidance – who listen, make decisions, and take responsibility. Empathy without the ability to act is not convincing. The ability to act without empathy creates distance.
Campaigns can make guidance visible. They can package issues, stabilize trust, and define political roles more clearly. However, they cannot replace what matters most: credible, caring, yet simultaneously resolute leaders at the helm. Democratic politics thus faces a dual task: it must take emotion seriously without treating it merely as a means to an end – and produce leaders who do not exploit emotions, but rather organize them and translate them into political effectiveness. In times of overwhelming stress, it is not only arguments that decide, but feelings. And feelings attach themselves to people we trust.