Understandably, we don’t much like talking about death, and have an even stronger cultural distaste for criticizing the recently departed, or senior citizens for their declining health. But sometimes there are more pressing practical problems we have to confront. Many of us have been there at some point with our own aging relatives, and know how difficult it can be to take the necessary steps. But sometimes, it simply is necessary, and we are not doing anybody any favors by looking the other way.
America’s political gerontocracy is a genuine problem. It fuels dysfunction, distrust, and concrete negative policy consequences. We can’t sweep it under the rug any longer: too many of our high officeholders, including a disproportionate number of Democrats, are simply too old. It’s not unacceptable ageism to say so; it’s the cold, hard reality. And it’s time to confront it head on: we need a mandatory retirement age for politicians.
Gerontocracy is simply a symptom of an underlying disease that entrenches power via owning members of the political class and therefore keeping them around, loyal servants they are. Limiting or bsnning old people will not address the disease, it will just change the dynsmics of buying politicians behind the scenes a littlr. It will be marginally more expensive for the ruling class.
There are some very old politicians doing great jobs, there are some younger ones who are just as much part of the problem as Chuck Schumer or Mitch Mconnell.
If there is an issue with gerontocracy, it goes far beyond politics, to the fact that the entirety of society is built on seniority, particularly ownership of assets, and thus control of the economy and politics at large. To fix the problem of gerontocracy in politics would require a decoupling of politics from private interests, or a massive systemic shift of ownership in the economy.
Like, is the fact that some law makers are suffering from late stage dementia bad? Yah, sure, but 98% of the problems with the lawmakers would remain even if they weren’t older than ARPANET. Age limits or mental capacity exams wouldn’t even make a dent.
Most would still be bought and payed for, most would still participate in revolving door lobbyist system. Most would still be only representing half of the constituents in their districts. Most would still be sitting in safe seats where they were confident of never getting primaried and the opposition party not standing a chance in the general.
Like, all this talk about it recently seems like missing the forest for the trees, or a cynical attempt to redirect criticism to a highly visible issue that can be addressed with a simple fix without actually challenging any entrenched power structures. It’s the same issue I have with term limits on politicians. It’s just addressing a cosmetic facet of a larger issue.
I don’t like hard limits. You can have people beyond that number who are capable for many more years, and you can have some that aren’t close to the number yet and shouldn’t be there. Ideally the voters see decline or inability to do the job and use votes to replace the problem, but since it’s not a perfect world by far and the system isn’t working, why not approach it just like we would our relatives. Use routine independent evaluations to determine if someone should step down. Maybe we should have a hierarchy for representatives just like we have for any other command structure so that there is an acting rep until the next election. If not, the state governor can appoint someone like is usually done.
I’m curious for those who think just putting an age limit up would solve things - what age, and why that number?
A big problem isn’t that they’re incapable, it’s that they won’t live to see the major effects of policies they’re implementing. Another issue is that they’re more likely to be out of touch with the issues the majority of their constituents are facing.
How many boomers have you heard say shit like, “When I was young I paid for college by working part time selling hotdogs over the summer.”
they won’t live to see the major effects of policies they’re implementing.
We should move to a system where the value of a person’s vote is weighted by their life expectancy. The older you are, the less your vote should count.
I mean I would call the latter as incapable for governing the present and future of a society. The first isn’t a problem if they still care about the well being of later generations. If they don’t care about anything they won’t live to see, then that falls under incapable too.
I think that a hard age limit is good, and has more to do with not having people in charge whose age separates them from the people whose lives their decisions are altering. Yes, there are other things separating politicians from the negative effects of their actions as well, but those can and should be dealt with as well, and aren’t a reason not to solve the age issue.
I think the cutoff should be standard retirement age, so 65 in the US.
67 now for probably the majority. How do you deal with politicians who decline earlier than that? And why can’t we use the techniques to handle that for everyone instead of a limit?
How do you deal with politicians who decline earlier than that?
I am pretty certain there is already a process for removing people proven mentally unfit.
why can’t we use the techniques to handle that for everyone instead of a limit?
Because that’s solving for a different problem.
I am pretty certain there is already a process for removing people proven mentally unfit.
Over the decades of seeing how elderly politicians barely function in their position but not only remain but get reelected, and good lord the situation right now… I don’t think there is.
I’m curious for those who think just putting an age limit up would solve things - what age, and why that number?
Because an arbitrary number is the best solution:
- It is easy to verify. You are either below or above the limit
- It is fair. There is no way to cheat.
As to what number? I support 75.
if you have high chance to die in office just because of age you shouldnt be on the ballot
other health issues like cognitive decline are also bad when you are supposed to make impactful decisions (why seniors have to renew driving licenses more often)
I don’t disagree with the reasoning. Should we have testing for candidates since relying only on voters doesn’t seem to work?
