I think that the constitution of every country needs an amendment pertaining to the eligibility of its political candidates who run for the highest public office. To wit, eligible candidates must have a family—children. I believe this for two reasons. The leader has to see him or herself as a leader not just for the present but for posterity. The leader does not simply represent the nation to other nations of the world or act as arbiter and chief administrator, but also has a personal stake in the success of the country. The children hold the leader accountable as hostages to fortune. Their presence serves as parameter-setters for their parents' behavior and policy-making.
Secondly, children remain closer to the pulse of a nation and the pedestrian concerns of its citizens because they go to school and make friends. They go on-line and make more friends. They want to buy clothes, go grocery-shopping, buy a computer, and so on. The children force their parents to step down from the disorienting pedestal onto which leadership places them and brings them down from the rarified heights of decision-making.
Also the children pick up on pedestrian vibrations—contentment and discontent, confusion or fear, and cultural changes—that elude the leadership class. The leadership class and their children live on very different social plains that can intersect only within a familial context—allow them to rub off on each other.
Angela Merkel did not have the benefit of any of this. With no children to keep her in touch with the concerns of averge Germans, she had no way to detect their resentment of her moralistic, high-handed way of governing. She paid more attention to the citizens of other countries than she did to the citizens of her own country.
Without children, Angela Merkel has no personal connection to the future. She works as an official. When her time is up, she leaves office. When she dies, she does so without leaving anything behind, no hostages to fortune, no personal concerns that will survive her. It limits her personal involvement and affects the quality of her leadership.
Susan Pinker, in her book Sexual Paradox, says something else about the influence of children on women on pages 172-3:
The researchers showed how young female rats that had either become pregnant or had
foster pups were able to find food hidden in mazes better than virgin rats. Motherhood
increases certain types of problem-solving. . . .
Perhaps if Merkel had had children, she chould have dealt with the problems Germany faced better than she did. In the book Staatsfeind Wikileaks, two German reporters from Der Spiegel magazine reviewed reams of secret communications leaked by Julian Assange. In one set of communications, the American ambassador to Germany, Philip Murphy, communicated to his superior in the State Department, Hillary Clinton, his assessment:
"Merkel is methodical, rational, and pragmatic. She is persistent but risk-averse and seldom creative."
In other words, Merkel is dogmatic and moral, rather than an innovative risk-taker. She responds to moral principles, rather than acting from personal initiative—since she is rarely assertive. Perhaps this explains why Merkel managed the half-million immigrants from the Middle-East and Africa so poorly, when they started their trek across Europe in 2015. She responded to a moral crisis rather than to a logistical and sociological problem. Her memorable reaction, "Wir schaffen das!" reflects her notion of doing something good, rather than managing a logistical problem.
"Deutschland ist ein starkes Land!" she proclaimed. Why shouldn't Germany take in 100,000 new immigrants? That Germans did not want so many unwelcomed immigrants never entered her mind. She was just too out of touch to notice the resentment she aroused. The Tino Schomann program on the TV stated simply "Wir schaffen das nicht!" meaning that Germany can't handle so many people who cannot speak the language, who have no money, and have nowhere to live? What Merkel did was insane!
That single action led to a split in German society, especially from the eastern provinces, who still struggled with the lingering effects of the bankrupt East German government. Both the Alternative für Deutschland and die Linke, rooted in the former East Germany, criticized Merkel's high-handed actions, since the eastern provinces faced trying to intregrate into the new German nation, without all the new distractions. Merkel neglected them in an effort to achieve a new moral high—neglected the more mundane role of her government to take care of her own people first.
