This entire Mensch thing has totally captivated me. Never have I felt so empowered to take action and do something effective. Yes, I know I work in the literary mode but also due to my work in human rights and especially countering human trafficking I feel the need to do even more to make this planet a better place to live, truly more livable. Being a Mensch means much to me. I am hopeful that others will strive to be better humanitarians, our lives depend on it.

Look for the book that I am working on called MENSCH THE REAL REVOLUTION. I hope to finish it soon.

And Now for the Rest of the Story

Recently, while going through the news blurbs online (something I do more than I should, news has become more of a propaganda dump as opposed to real reporting. But that is another story). Anyway, I digress. There were two adjacent reports regarding a humanitarian crisis. It does not matter which one. What did matter was the way it was being handled. On one hand there was a politician paying lip service to the chaos and blaming it on so and so. Then there were the guys out there helping to handle the disaster. Both were standing on the so-called frontlines but the approach of each was so different that it created one of those aha moments for me.

The first responders were just handling the heck out of the situation while the politician never got his hands dirty. The politician in his beautiful suit made promises about handling the crisis and the humanitarian was there physically doing something about it. The contrast was striking and revealed two fundamentally different approaches to service. One embodied the essence of being a Mensch, placing human dignity and welfare above all else. The other represented a system that too often subordinates human needs to power dynamics and political expediency.

The Mensch in Action vs. The Political Performance

At its core, being a Mensch means directing your actions toward the wellbeing of others, acting from a place of genuine compassion rather than calculation. The humanitarian I witnessed on the news exemplified this perfectly. Her focus was immediate and direct, alleviating suffering, meeting human needs, and addressing injustices wherever they exist. Her loyalty was primarily to human welfare rather than to systems, parties, or donors.

The Mensch moves toward problems that others move away from. When disaster strikes, they’re often the first in and the last out, without cameras rolling or donations being counted. Their work stems from the deeply held conviction that every person deserves dignity and care, the very heart of what it means to be a Mensch.

The politician, by contrast, operates within systems designed to maintain power structures. Their work often involves managing competing interests, crafting compromises that frequently benefit their donors, and navigating the machinery of governance with an eye toward re-election rather than results. Their focus is rarely on persons but rather on perceptions, polls, and preserving their position. While they speak of sustainable solutions, their horizons rarely extend beyond the next election cycle.

This isn’t to say that all politicians lack Mensch qualities or that structural solutions aren’t necessary. But the contrast helps illuminate what makes the humanitarian approach such a powerful expression of being a Mensch.

The Words

Even the language we use exposes the fundamental differences. “Humanitarian” comes from “humanitas,” the Latin word for humanity, compassion, and refinement. It’s someone devoted to promoting human welfare and advancing social reform. The essence is caring for our shared humanity, a direct extension of the Mensch ideal of putting human dignity at the center of all actions.

“Politician” derives from the Greek “polis” meaning city or state and refers to someone skilled in the science of government. The essence is understanding and wielding the mechanisms of power.

One serves humans directly; the other serves the structures humans create to organize themselves. This fundamental difference shapes everything about how they approach problems and reveals why the humanitarian path aligns so naturally with being a Mensch.

Compassion vs. Power

The Mensch as humanitarian deals primarily in compassion, developed from genuine care. Their effectiveness comes not from official authority but from moral authority, not from the power to compel but from the power to restore dignity. The reward is not re-election or financial gain, but the knowledge that human suffering is being alleviated.

Politicians deal primarily in the currency of power, who has it, how to get it, how to use it, how to keep it. To be effective in their world, they must acquire and maintain power through elections, appointments, or other means. This creates not just tension but often corruption: the need to please donors and special interest groups frequently overrides doing what’s right for the people they supposedly serve. Follow the money in politics, and you’ll nearly always find the root of the decisions being made.

I’ve observed that when a politician speaks, people often ask, “What’s the angle?” When a humanitarian speaks, people are more likely to ask, “How can I help?” This difference in public response reveals the trust that authentic Mensch behavior naturally generates.

Different Timelines, Different Metrics

The Mensch as humanitarian often works in the urgent present, meeting immediate needs, addressing current situations, responding to crises as they unfold. Their timeline is now. Their metric is direct impact: How many fed? How many treated? How many housed? This immediacy connects directly to the Mensch principle of responding to human needs without unnecessary delay.

The politician typically works toward future outcomes, writing legislation that may take years to implement, building coalitions for long-term change, creating structures meant to outlast their tenure. Their timeline is the next election and beyond. Their metric is often more abstract: economic indicators, approval ratings, legislative victories.

This difference in timeline creates different pressures and incentives. Humanitarians feel the pressure of current situations; the politician feels the pressure of upcoming elections or political deadlines.

The Personal Cost

Both paths exact a personal toll, though of distinct kinds.

The Mensch as humanitarian often sacrifices comfort, security, and sometimes safety. They may witness terrible suffering and face moral injury from the inability to help everyone in need. Their challenges are often physical, emotional, and spiritual, burnout is common, as is a sense of being overwhelmed by the enormity of human need. Yet they continue because they understand that being a Mensch means prioritizing others’ wellbeing even when it comes at personal cost.

The politician sacrifices privacy and endures constant scrutiny and often faces harsh criticism regardless of their actions. They navigate complex ethical dilemmas where there may be no clearly “right” answer, only different sets of consequences. Their challenges are often relational and psychological, maintaining integrity in a system that may reward compromise, staying connected to real human concerns while operating in often abstract policy realms.

When the Paths Cross

Sometimes humanitarians become politicians, hoping to address root causes through structural change. Sometimes politicians take humanitarian actions, stepping outside their usual role to respond directly to the human condition.

Consider organizations like Doctors Without Borders, which combine direct medical service with advocacy for policy change. These crossovers show that while the divide is significant, there can be meaningful interaction between these worlds.

Yet these intersections can create tension too. The humanitarian who enters politics may find their Mensch values hampered by political realities. The politician who attempts humanitarian work may find their efforts viewed with suspicion due to political associations.

The Mensch Revolution Needs Both Action and System Change

What our world needs isn’t a better balance between these two approaches, but a fundamental shift in how we view public service. We need to elevate the Mensch spirit, putting human dignity and welfare more important than anything else, and demand that those in positions of power embody it rather than merely reference it in speeches while serving their donors.

Imagine a world where those making decisions about healthcare policy had spent time nursing the sick in underserved communities. Imagine lawmakers who had personally distributed food to the hungry before determining food assistance budgets. Imagine diplomats who had lived among refugees before negotiating international agreements about immigration.

The Mensch spirit, putting human dignity and welfare above all else, should not be the exception in public service but the rule. Until that happens, I’ll continue to place my faith in those who roll up their sleeves and help directly, rather than those who roll out speeches while helping themselves to power and privilege.

A Personal Conviction

In my own life, I’ve always been firmly on the humanitarian path. I value the immediate connection and tangible impact of helping others directly that embodies the Mensch ideal. There has never been a moment when politics called to me, the world of power plays, compromised values, and donor influence represents everything counter to the Mensch values I stand for.

While politicians talk about problems, Menschen solve them. While politicians debate policy in comfortable chambers, Menschen wade into floods, walk into war zones, and sit beside the suffering. While politicians accept donations from special interests, Menschen give their time, energy, and often their own resources to those in need.

Make no mistake, these are not two equally valid approaches to improving our world. One path consistently puts human dignity first, the very essence of being a Mensch; the other frequently sacrifices it on the altar of political expediency and financial gain.

I recognize that we need systems and policies, but too often the people creating them have lost touch with the very humanity they claim to serve. What we need are more Menschen influencing policy, not politicians controlling humanitarian efforts.

I leave you with these concluding thoughts. Has our acceptance of the political status quo dulled our senses to what true service should look like? We deserve better than what most politicians offer, and humanitarians, true Menschen in action, show us every day what that better way looks like. Will you join this revolution of character that puts people above politics and human dignity above all else?