One of the justifications for her not retiring or being forced out is that Democrats would have lost an important judiciary committee position. Well, that happened anyway. The elderly of Congress...
One of the justifications for her not retiring or being forced out is that Democrats would have lost an important judiciary committee position.
Well, that happened anyway.
The elderly of Congress need to start thinking of the U.S. over themselves. There is something to be said for going out on high note, retiring when they are still strong, and functional.
I'm not for age limits as I am not for ageism, which is bigotry about age.
Term Limits for Congress would have prevented Feinsteins, McConnells, etc, and would have fixed other problems too.
I know, it is asking the mice to vote themselves out of cheese, but it would be a good thing.
Preposterous. We have age limits on all sorts of stuff. In my town, can't be outside after 10PM if you're under 16. Can't die for your country or dig in mines until you're 18. Can't drink till...
Exemplary
Preposterous. We have age limits on all sorts of stuff. In my town, can't be outside after 10PM if you're under 16. Can't die for your country or dig in mines until you're 18. Can't drink till you're 21. Can't even be president until you're at least 35. Most of these justifications fall under "not having enough maturity or physical development for the task at hand." Reasonably so, IMO.
Is it then not reasonable to have an upper limit, where it is a known that mental and physical health will start deteriorating rapidly? Generally speaking, that process really starts ramping up after 60, and gets stronger each year that passes. We know the upper bound for 99% of the population is about 100 years old. And on average, metal and physical health slides along the way, it's not purely a question of dying.
Is it not reasonable for a 21 year old to be elected to the Senate? If they wanted to have a full career in the Senate to age 65, they'd need just over 7 terms. But if a 50 year old is elected to the senate (also reasonable), by the time they hit a 7-term limit they'd be 92. So either term limits don't solve the problem of old people deteriorating and dying in office at an expected age, or they just discriminate against younger politicians from having a full career.
And further....I fully support forced retirement across all sectors. Everyone retires from the workforce at 65. They can find fulfillment outside the workforce for their remaining years, there's plenty of volunteer work to be done. And if it's a question of "they won't have enough to live on," then just maybe we should reconsider fixing the social safety net instead of expecting people to work until they die.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s reasonable for a 21 year old to be elected to senate. One should have some experience with the system before trying to change the system. I think anyone who has had...
Honestly, I don’t think it’s reasonable for a 21 year old to be elected to senate. One should have some experience with the system before trying to change the system. I think anyone who has had the experience of hiring fresh graduates will understand how functionally useless and often dangerous they are without supervision — but who supervises a senator?
Btw, I wasn’t sure if you were suggesting a policy change or if you didn’t know that senators must be 30 years old at a minimum.
I was somewhat subtlely taking a jab at the agism thing, and did in fact forget that the Senate has a minimum age. I certainly wouldn't vote for a 21 year old Senator. IMO 30 is a great minimum...
I was somewhat subtlely taking a jab at the agism thing, and did in fact forget that the Senate has a minimum age. I certainly wouldn't vote for a 21 year old Senator.
IMO 30 is a great minimum for national representation.
But isn't that kind of the thing? You wouldn't vote for a 21yo, because they obviously* don't have the experience and wisdom necessary to carry out the role they gave been given. But you also...
But isn't that kind of the thing? You wouldn't vote for a 21yo, because they obviously* don't have the experience and wisdom necessary to carry out the role they gave been given. But you also wouldn't vote for a 87yo, because they won't have the physical strength or mental acuity to carry out the role they gave been given.
But that's the point of the vote: to put the candidates in front of the public and have them decide which criteria are most important to them. It may well be that you get some 21yo who really does get what's going on and understands the issues well enough, that they think they should be elected despite their young age. Likewise, for the 84yo. If the basic democratic system is working, then surely we would expect that reasonable candidates are voted in, without having to narrow the field in the first place.
So when things start falling like they seem to be now, adding restrictions feels a lot like it's solving the symptoms and not the root cause. The question shouldn't be "How do we stop people voting for candidates who are too old?" but rather "Why are so many older candidates being chosen?" Is it because the voting system is unfit for purpose? Is it because the political pipeline for getting into the Senate is so long now that people need to literally work their entire lives to have a chance? Is it because the Senate isn't seen as a useful place to enact change for younger people? Is it (d) all of the above?
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of age limits, although I can see their value in certain contexts. But in this context, it seems like completely the wrong discussion to be having - completely missing the forest for the trees.
* obviousness not guaranteed - at least in the UK, politicians like Mhairi Black have generally done fairly well among constituents and professionally
IMO it’s the opposite — age limits are not great, but term limits are crippling. They have the effect of destroying institutional knowledge and I think actually encourage corruption. If you can’t...
IMO it’s the opposite — age limits are not great, but term limits are crippling. They have the effect of destroying institutional knowledge and I think actually encourage corruption. If you can’t plan for a long political career, you enter the office with the knowledge that you need to make connections in industry and plan for your new career as lobbyist or whatever.
The effect on political corruption has some empirical evidence behind it. This is exactly what happened when Mexico introduced term limits. Politicians legislate specifically to maximize their...
The effect on political corruption has some empirical evidence behind it. This is exactly what happened when Mexico introduced term limits. Politicians legislate specifically to maximize their prospects after their term ends instead of taking the long-view. This basically means their tenure as legislators becomes an extended job interview with various big businesses to set themselves up once they're out.
What time is the age limit in Mexico? I ask this, because an age limit of 70 would certainly still allow for old "institutional" knowledge to proliferate, and "thinking forward to your next job...
What time is the age limit in Mexico?
I ask this, because an age limit of 70 would certainly still allow for old "institutional" knowledge to proliferate, and "thinking forward to your next job prospect" wouldn't really be a feasible thing if you're someone planning to stay till 70.
It's also old "enough" where someone who's lived a healthy life would certainly be old, but not be in pure, demented cognitive meltdown.
6 years (1 term) for the president, 12 years for everyone else, whether that is 3x4 year terms or 2x6 year terms depending on the position. More details:...
6 years (1 term) for the president, 12 years for everyone else, whether that is 3x4 year terms or 2x6 year terms depending on the position.
We already have age limits in this country. Minimum age limits. There is no reason to have an upper boundary as well, given how much longer we have to live now than when the constitution was...
We already have age limits in this country. Minimum age limits. There is no reason to have an upper boundary as well, given how much longer we have to live now than when the constitution was written. At the time it was written, those people ages 18, 25, 35 were already old.
If we're talkig age discrimination, we need to consider that we already have that in this country.
What? No they weren't. In the days before modern medicine and antibiotics, if a person lived beyond childhood they were very likely to live into their 60s and beyond. We get a skewed conception of...
At the time it was written, those people ages 18, 25, 35 were already old.
What? No they weren't. In the days before modern medicine and antibiotics, if a person lived beyond childhood they were very likely to live into their 60s and beyond.
We get a skewed conception of lifespan back then due to infant and child mortality rates. Granted, geriatric medicine was nowhere near as effective, so they weren't as likely as us to live into their late-70s or 80s, but 35 hasn't been considered old for most of history.
Thomas Jefferson was 83 when he died, George Washington was 67 (not old but certainly not 35), John Adams was 90, Benjamin Franklin was 84, Samuel Adams was 81, etc. The founding fathers did not...
Thomas Jefferson was 83 when he died, George Washington was 67 (not old but certainly not 35), John Adams was 90, Benjamin Franklin was 84, Samuel Adams was 81, etc.
The founding fathers did not think their mortality was approaching at age 35.
Sure, but it doesn't change the original point made that life expectancy now is "much longer" than it was in the late 18th century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
Sure, but it doesn't change the original point made that life expectancy now is "much longer" than it was in the late 18th century.
"They state ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’ "
Let’s not forget that broadly speaking, the best medical care available was pretty bad. That was the era of animal magnetism and phrenology. Basic hygiene was in its infancy. Germ theory was...
Let’s not forget that broadly speaking, the best medical care available was pretty bad. That was the era of animal magnetism and phrenology. Basic hygiene was in its infancy. Germ theory was fringe science while most doctors subscribed to the concept of miasma. Letting a doctor cut into you was nearly as likely to kill you as cure you.
I think that depends on the solution. There's no reason for the institutional knowledge to be lost if the pipeline is developed well enough, and people stay on as advisors and staff members.
I think that depends on the solution.
There's no reason for the institutional knowledge to be lost if the pipeline is developed well enough, and people stay on as advisors and staff members.
This is basically an argument for the "deep state". I'm on the fence about how much I like that. On the one hand, I don't like that it reduces the impact of my vote, and on the other hand I like...
This is basically an argument for the "deep state". I'm on the fence about how much I like that. On the one hand, I don't like that it reduces the impact of my vote, and on the other hand I like that the effect of voting in lunatics like Trump is also blunted.
You can look at career civil servants as either some shady cabal bent on secretly holding the reins of power in opposition to the will of the people, or as people who know what they're doing in an...
You can look at career civil servants as either some shady cabal bent on secretly holding the reins of power in opposition to the will of the people, or as people who know what they're doing in an atmosphere of convoluted bureaucracy and neverending compromise.
My experience of people is that most of us can't keep a big secret to save the immortal souls of our mothers, so the former is pretty damned unlikely.
I think there is the possibility of shadiness within this that doesn't require them to be a cabal or maintain secrets of a group. The system functions in part by filtering in people who will play...
as people who know what they're doing in an atmosphere of convoluted bureaucracy and neverending compromise.
I think there is the possibility of shadiness within this that doesn't require them to be a cabal or maintain secrets of a group.
The system functions in part by filtering in people who will play by certain rules, and filtering out people who won't. It's not 100% efficient as few systems are, and it's not as simple as just saying they play by the rules or they don't, because there's a myriad of levels to it. Some of it works by gatekeeping credentials, jobs and awards and what not. How often do you see someone say 'So and so is the most qualified because they've done X, Y and Z' in politics? However in order to do X, Y and Z, they likely had to play by rules that generally aren't favorable to the public and are more favorable towards each individual getting their own rewards. Basically, you have to compromise a bit of your morals each step of the way to gain the things that supposedly make you qualified. Unless you're Trump, you don't get to generally start out as President, you have to work your way up through this system.
The type of people who work their way through the ranks aren't secretly meeting in back rooms with some grand plan to subvert democracy, they're just participating and upholding a system that rewards people who are willing to compromise public gain for personal gain.
The people getting appointed to various cabinet positions or certain committees that have more importance or value for political posturing are probably not getting them by merits of public service, yet they turn around and use them as some kind of merit badge for qualification to higher offices.
I’m confused on how you’re equating mandatory retirement age to ageism. There are tons of industries and other parts of the government that have mandatory retirement because it’s been deemed...
I’m confused on how you’re equating mandatory retirement age to ageism. There are tons of industries and other parts of the government that have mandatory retirement because it’s been deemed necessary for safety and national security reasons.
How is this any different? There are octogenarians who can barely even function but are expected to adequately represent their constituents? That sounds like a massive safety risk to the general public to me.
The government is also rife with age minimums. 25 for Congress and 35 for the Presidency.
Other roles including the armed forces have age limits, why not for important decision making roles that impact an entire country. Discussion around limits does not come from a place of bigotry...
I'm not for age limits as I am not for ageism, which is bigotry about age.
Other roles including the armed forces have age limits, why not for important decision making roles that impact an entire country.
Discussion around limits does not come from a place of bigotry but a place of feeling that a more sustainable and impactful government is one run by younger people who are aware of the challenges and technological advancements that are part of modern life.
It's no good having geriatrics legislating on cultural and technological issues that they have no understanding of, or even laymen experience of.
A 40 year old senator has a much better chance of understanding issues surrounding social media and AI for example, than an 80 year old senator does, just by virtue of being immersed in the topics more fully.
Furthermore on issues impacting children they are more likely to have younger children from the current generation. Rather than thinking about children from when an 80 year old had kids, which was probably raising gen X'ers, they have no idea about raising Gen Z'ers.
Finally, younger government have to live with their decisions and laws, 70+ yr olds have realistically another 10-20 years of runway, so they legislate for the short term.
It would also introduce some problems as well. There is something to be said about having institutional knowledge, and term limits would cause that knowledge to shift from long time congressmen to...
It would also introduce some problems as well. There is something to be said about having institutional knowledge, and term limits would cause that knowledge to shift from long time congressmen to the lobbyists that we all also complain about. I don’t think it’s quite so clear cut an argument for or against term limits.
Almost everything politically does. Maybe losing that would be a good thing. About as many people in Internet comment sections argue that it is a problem that so much of Congress is elderly, set...
It would also introduce some problems as well.
Almost everything politically does.
There is something to be said about having institutional knowledge
Maybe losing that would be a good thing. About as many people in Internet comment sections argue that it is a problem that so much of Congress is elderly, set in its way, and has an old obsolete view of the world.
to the lobbyists that we all also complain about
Loybbyists have already been here for a long time.
Im confused how neutering public servants institutional knowledge but allowing lobbyists to retain all theirs with no limit is supposed to help. Why don't we legislate term or additional limits...
Maybe losing that would be a good thing.
Im confused how neutering public servants institutional knowledge but allowing lobbyists to retain all theirs with no limit is supposed to help.
Why don't we legislate term or additional limits for lobbyists instead?
I'm simply using it as a label to describe one side of the table. I don't understand your pedantry when you didnt even bother trying to address my point.
I'm simply using it as a label to describe one side of the table. I don't understand your pedantry when you didnt even bother trying to address my point.
The institutional knowledge is valuable for public servants. Civil servants / public servants and federal elected officials are not necessarily the same. My federal elected officials barely...
The institutional knowledge is valuable for public servants. Civil servants / public servants and federal elected officials are not necessarily the same. My federal elected officials barely interact with my community. I guess my point is that institutional knowledge has very limited value at that level.
Here's a probably-bad idea that I think is at least worth discussing: What if elected officials were limited to serving a single term, followed by a single non-voting emeritus term? It wouldn't be...
Here's a probably-bad idea that I think is at least worth discussing: What if elected officials were limited to serving a single term, followed by a single non-voting emeritus term? It wouldn't be perfect by any means, especially if the current and emeritus office holders are politically at odds, but it would help to maintain a sense of continuity of office and preserve that institutional knowledge across term limits.
There was a very interesting point raised the last time that term limits were discussed and it has affected me pretty deeply: I don't want the lobbyists to have the most experience and know the...
There was a very interesting point raised the last time that term limits were discussed and it has affected me pretty deeply: I don't want the lobbyists to have the most experience and know the system better than rookie lawmakers in Washington.
I think term limits would be a good Step 2 after outlawing legal bribary lobbying.
My opinion, and more generally responding to Grasso raising institutional knowledge, is that institutional knowledge is usually way way overvalued. Smart people learn very quickly and I think...
My opinion, and more generally responding to Grasso raising institutional knowledge, is that institutional knowledge is usually way way overvalued. Smart people learn very quickly and I think institutions themselves contain much more knowledge than just the most senior people. For instance in Congress, there are thousands of staffers who guide lawmakers and many (but not all) members of congress don't get there knowing absolutely nothing.
In companies, everyone wants to think they're irreplaceable and history proves quite quickly that is not the case. Relevant colleagues often contain vast stores of functional knowledge and know how to guide new team members and (good receptive) bosses towards the info they need. I am a corporate chief of staff and when I onboard new executives it's an intensive and extensive process that gets them up to speed very very quickly. A month of effective onboarding with me can get a new executive ready to get their hands dirty within a few weeks and certainly within a couple months. Outgoing executives think it will take years to get to where they are because it took them years but well structured organizations with support staff and documentation that hire good staff know how to make their new staff effectively quickly.
We should pray that the lawmakers we are electing are smart (a bold assumption) and that the system around them effectively gets them up to speed (a much less bold assumption, IMO).
While I don't know that much about politics, one thing to consider is that politics is a relationship business. People do bring some of their relationships with them when they switch jobs, but it...
While I don't know that much about politics, one thing to consider is that politics is a relationship business. People do bring some of their relationships with them when they switch jobs, but it still seems plausible to me that an inexperienced staff has fewer relationships to draw on?
Also, it's true that people leave and are replaced, but that's different from an entire organization starting from scratch. Newly elected officials have a lot of hiring to do.
On the other hand, a new organization can sometimes be a lot more effective because it's starting fresh, so who knows.
Thing is you can't outlaw lobbying as it's most often used as a bad word for corporate interests and the like, but all the things you like are also supported by lobbying. From environmental issues...
Thing is you can't outlaw lobbying as it's most often used as a bad word for corporate interests and the like, but all the things you like are also supported by lobbying. From environmental issues to native american rights.
While true, I'm not sure that makes it any better. The reason why "good" lobbying exists is to counter-balance the bad lobbying. While simplistic, if there was no lobbying (involving money, gifts,...
While true, I'm not sure that makes it any better. The reason why "good" lobbying exists is to counter-balance the bad lobbying. While simplistic, if there was no lobbying (involving money, gifts, etc) then the "will of the people" could be shown with petitions and their votes since the politicians would be more vulnerable without unlimited funding
The point was really driven home to me when I watched "Distinguised Gentleman" starring Eddie Murphy. There is a scene where a senior politician is asking Eddie Murphy's character if he was for or against a particular cause (Power lines, IIRC). Trying to gain favor, Eddie's character was like "Well, what side should I be on?" and the senior politician was like "It doesn't matter! If you're against it we'll get you money from the environmentalists and if you're for them we'll get you money from the power companies! (but they pay better!)"
Lobbying doesn't operate on the level of fundraising as much as people think. More often the money isn't going to the campaign coffers themselves so much as a threat of media buys against the...
Exemplary
Lobbying doesn't operate on the level of fundraising as much as people think. More often the money isn't going to the campaign coffers themselves so much as a threat of media buys against the candidate if they cross the special interest group.
But even that's not the primary method of influence. What they actually do is skew the entire legislative agenda and sources of information to advance the most persuasive case for their preferred policy outcomes.
Research efforts are funded that provide evidence and statistically backed findings in service of their goal. Glossy slide decks and presentations are drafted to stress the costs of [thing I don't like] and the contrasting benefits of [thing I like] and these are presented to legislative aides and researchers to inform them about the implications of policy proposals on the floor. In many cases, specific language for legislation is drafted and put forward for legislators to review that makes it into the final product because actually drafting legislation is hard and requires a bunch of background research to put together.
So it's not as simple as just "get rid of the campaign money." That's only the most egregious examples of business influence. Most of the stuff lobbyists do is basically indistinguishable from any method of people exerting pressure on the political system. But because businesses can stand-up well paid, competent people to maintain these connections and push their agenda over the long-term, they just outgun any local or small-scale movements trying to do the same. Large orgs, like Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club, are well funded enough to employ the same strategies and they are quite effective as a result. But it's difficult to crowdsource a funding base when you don't stand to make a lot of money individually from legislative outcomes.
What's happening with Clarence Thomas looks like legalized bribery and something needs to change there. I'm not sure lobbying in general works that way, or at least not all the time? Laws can be...
What's happening with Clarence Thomas looks like legalized bribery and something needs to change there.
I'm not sure lobbying in general works that way, or at least not all the time? Laws can be improved, but companies will still have experts in Washington and lawmakers (or their staffs) will still want to learn things from them.
So although there can be better laws, I don't see lobbying itself ever being outlawed. It would be like outlawing talking to people.
It seems like not being unduly influenced is more about having your own staff expertise and learning things from a variety of sources.
And also, some kind of campaign finance reform so that campaigns aren't all about "dialing for dollars." The fundraising will continue so long as campaigns need to raise funds.
No, it's not. It's a realistic take on biology and enforced by the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-maximum-age-pilot-can-fly-airplane You cannot be a commercial airline pilot after 65. It's...
I'm not for age limits as I am not for ageism, which is bigotry about age.
No, it's not. It's a realistic take on biology and enforced by the FAA:
You cannot be a commercial airline pilot after 65. It's deemed too risky. If you're one of the many who's still in fit health, great. You've got decades of commercial airline pilot experience and will be gobbled up as a private jet pilot or a trainer in smaller planes.
"You are too old" is a very real limitation, and is one of the few that's actually easy to enforce unlike the often proposed and unintentionally awful cognition tests.
She was 85 when she was re-elected in 2018. Per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html, at 85 she had a life expectancy of 6.44 years. Her life expectancy at the time of election was exactly...
She was 85 when she was re-elected in 2018. Per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html, at 85 she had a life expectancy of 6.44 years. Her life expectancy at the time of election was exactly her term, so it should come as no surprise that she didn't make it.
I think both age limits and term limits both feel like they're first-order solutions - there is a problem (very old politicians who can't be removed for various political and practical reasons),...
I think both age limits and term limits both feel like they're first-order solutions - there is a problem (very old politicians who can't be removed for various political and practical reasons), so we solve that problem specifically, and then start work on dealing with the next problem.
But that sort of approach ends up with a kind of constitutional whack-a-mole - and when the whole system feels broken, there's just too many problems to attack them one by one. Instead, I think we need to focus more on the root causes, and, at least in the US, people staying on in these positions long after they should have retired feels more like a symptom than the disease itself.
I'm not American myself, but my impression of the US political system is that it's mainly defined by deadlock - there are two parties, and a handful of key positions that can be sat on by one party or the other - president, the SC, representative majority, senate majority, and a bunch of different committees. Which means that the goal of politics becomes to win as many of these positions as possible, in order to pass laws and resolutions with as little opposition as possible.
But because most of these positions are so binary, it's like tossing a bunch of different coins in the air and hoping they all come up heads. That won't happen, so what you end up with is deadlock.
Dealing with that deadlock feels like the challenge, then. Either by getting rid of the binary where possible (for example in Congress via a proportional electoral system that forces smaller parties to work together), or by removing party politics from positions where that's not possible (for example, by having the Supreme Court be appointed by a non-political entity distinct from any parliament).
Most states have more stringent requirements for a person to renew their driver's license over a certain age. Is that ageism also? Everybody else's rights to have safe streets and a functional...
Most states have more stringent requirements for a person to renew their driver's license over a certain age. Is that ageism also?
Everybody else's rights to have safe streets and a functional government massively outweigh the rights of old people to drive or hold public offices.
Long service allows for building working alliances and friendships which can grease the wheels for effective legislation. It also allows for deep understanding of what laws do and how policy works...
Long service allows for building working alliances and friendships which can grease the wheels for effective legislation. It also allows for deep understanding of what laws do and how policy works and doesn't work in government.
I do agree with @Grasso that term limits shift the power balance from congress members toward lobbyists.
I don't remember which one, but there was a very not politically correct quote from a famous early California lawmaker about politicians needing the ability to take gifts from lobbyists and vote against them anyway. If your mentor about how things work in the capitol is a former lawmaker now lobbyist because of term limits, you are more likely to be influenced.
I doubt it will ever be implemented, but my pet policy proposal would be a required mental competence test yearly after age 60, administered by a panel of board certified practicing neurologists. If a majority of ten working specialists have to agree that you are mentally incompetent, that is a test that is hard to game.
In my view, physical disability, including age related weakness does not prevent you from being an effective lawmaker, but mental disability absolutely does, as we have seen recently with Feinstein.
My concern with that is that it can still be gamed or abused (by the media, by someone deemed too incompetant, etc). Since it would be a medical test then it will be covered under HIPAA so your...
I doubt it will ever be implemented, but my pet policy proposal would be a required mental competence test yearly after age 60, administered by a panel of board certified practicing neurologists. If a majority of ten working specialists have to agree that you are mentally incompetent, that is a test that is hard to game.
My concern with that is that it can still be gamed or abused (by the media, by someone deemed too incompetant, etc). Since it would be a medical test then it will be covered under HIPAA so your average person won't ever really know what went on behind the curtains. I also don't really like the thought of 10 people making such decisions for the whole country. This doesn't even touch any acting in good faith arguments.
Do you honestly think someone like Trump, who was just out there saying he beat George W. Bush and Obama in elections and if he didn't win in 2024 we'd see "WWII", would quietly accept the decision of a 10 person panel?
I think the only reasonably fair limitation would be age. Age can't be accused of being political like a person on a panel. Age doesn't care about party affiliation. There is already precedent with age minimums.
I would trust the experiences of a 40-something person to be closer with the actual world experiences of things like rent prices (even if for their children), cost of daycare, insurance prices over someone in their late 70s hording over their pile of gold going "when I was younger my mortgage was $135 a month".
I don't approve of age or disability discrimination. Bernie Sanders is quite competent and in my corner. You could make the panel 20 or 30. There is a practical limit, but statistically it is...
I don't approve of age or disability discrimination.
Bernie Sanders is quite competent and in my corner.
You could make the panel 20 or 30. There is a practical limit, but statistically it is going to be hard to find that many political ideologues who are also working specialists with credible resumes.
Edit, a different way to approach the problem might be to require a publicly broadcasted job interview after a certain age, or a public presentation on a complex topic. That wouldn't be impacted by medical privacy laws.
And who's his replacement? Even bernie is playing the same game the rest of these are and not passing the torch. How long can he be in your corner? How much can he get done? How sound is his mind...
Bernie Sanders is quite competent and in my corner.
And who's his replacement?
Even bernie is playing the same game the rest of these are and not passing the torch. How long can he be in your corner? How much can he get done? How sound is his mind actually and how much is hidden from view?
The human body breaks down. You cannot fly a commercial airliner after a certain age because your chances of crashing the plane and killing 200 people goes up enough that for everyone's safety, you're just not allowed.
Those pilots go on to fly smaller planes and train new pilots where the risk is more acceptable.
Why people seem to think that we shouldn't have similar logic for our highest positions baffles me.
You are 100 percent right that we need to be developing a bench of replacement candidates. The lack of local journalism hurts politicians who would like to develop a nation wide profile. Aging is...
You are 100 percent right that we need to be developing a bench of replacement candidates. The lack of local journalism hurts politicians who would like to develop a nation wide profile.
Aging is an extremely individual journey where some lose mentally quite young and others deteriorate physcially but not mentally even at the end.
Politically, it's not going to be possible to institute age caps until after the Boomer stop voting. At that point it is entirely possible that GenX gets screwed by age caps, what else is new. We've been overshadowed by larger generations and always will be. The next large generation will likely get rid of the age caps when they want to stay in power longer.
It already exists for the young. Maybe you're saying you don't support those, but precedence was set by these. I don't view age limits as a problem because we're not short on people. There's lots...
I don't approve of age or disability discrimination.
It already exists for the young. Maybe you're saying you don't support those, but precedence was set by these.
I don't view age limits as a problem because we're not short on people. There's lots of good people in the country. Now there's probably many other problems in the system that might prevent a lot of those good people from being able to get involved, but I don't think that should be seen as an age limit problem.
An age limit is not pretending to be medically or scientifically empirical that a specific age is the limits to which a person is no longer capable, it's meant to be a cutoff that is "good enough" that it reduces problems a lot with less political manipulations or conspiracies behind it. The age of majority being 18 isn't scientifically or medically empirical that is when everyone has the capabilities of being independent but yet that's the age we set, because trying to determine every individuals capabilities and when they're capable would be an impossible task as it would require too many resources.
Of course the initial phase and how it affects current politicians means it could be manipulated for political gain, but exempting all current politicians would be a way to remove that.
Having said that, I'm also aware there's many other problems with age limits. I don't know if legally it is a problem, because obviously it's legal to discriminate in age against young people but not against people above a certain age. Not to mention, many old people vote, so it could easily turn into political theater such as "what next, they're going to set age limits to vote?" and suddenly you could have an army of senior voters against it even though it doesn't impact their ability to vote, just who runs for office.
So a panel of medical professionals could end up being more politically viable than an age limit.
As I said above, I am not 100 percent wedded to my proposed solution. Requiring publicly broadcast debates before every primary and general election would also detect that worst cases, such as...
As I said above, I am not 100 percent wedded to my proposed solution.
Requiring publicly broadcast debates before every primary and general election would also detect that worst cases, such as Feinstein.
Isn't that was the various election debates were supposed to be? A job interview for the voters to decide based on the answers given? How have they went in recent elections? (BTW, if you're only...
Edit, a different way to approach the problem might be to require a publicly broadcasted job interview after a certain age, or a public presentation on a complex topic. That wouldn't be impacted by medical privacy laws.
Isn't that was the various election debates were supposed to be? A job interview for the voters to decide based on the answers given? How have they went in recent elections?
(BTW, if you're only requiring someone to do something after a certain age isn't that just another form of age discrimination? If the 70 year old has to give an hour long presentation that their aides whipped up for them and the 40 year old candidate doesn't...)
Yes, we would lose Bernie but also gain more opportunities to get more Bernies in there. I trust AOC to be more in-tune with modern problems and costs (from rent prices to daycare to AI to social media) than all the Feinsteins, McConnells and the like put together.
I sincerely doubt people would be happy to see a 75 year old working or even running a McDonald's shift, so why is it ok to see them running the most powerful nation in the world?
Plenty of 75 year olds work by necessity, if they can find the jobs. If the state organization that issues drivers licences can require more frequent eye tests after a certain age, mental...
Plenty of 75 year olds work by necessity, if they can find the jobs.
If the state organization that issues drivers licences can require more frequent eye tests after a certain age, mental competency tests for elected officials should be no different.
But I am not wedded to my solution as opposed to others. Requiring a publicly broadcast debate before every election would also solve the problem in an age neutral way and doesn't involve age discrimination. If Feinstein had been forced to debate, I doubt she would have won her most recent primary challenge.
We've been brainwashed by corporate interests into believing that term limits are a good thing. Term limits are a bad thing. They reduce institutional knowledge and experience and keep the...
We've been brainwashed by corporate interests into believing that term limits are a good thing. Term limits are a bad thing. They reduce institutional knowledge and experience and keep the revolving door a-spinning. This way, lobbyists are the only people in politics who know how the system works. Fresh-faced politicians have no chance against lobbyists when they don't have more experienced politicians who can show them the ropes, because they're all fresh-faced.
Baltimore City recently passed a charter amendment to impose term limits on most elected officials in a question that was squeezed into the ballot at the last minute and was funded almost entirely by the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group... because if you have no chance to win in a hardcore Democratic stronghold, you can at least ban Democrats from electing the people that they think are doing a good job.
The term limit initiative was coupled with a recall initiative as well, which failed to gather enough petition signatures for ballot placement. Because for some reason David Smith and his ilk wished they could recall the new mayor and return the chair to one of the corrupt bastards who have been running the city into the ground for the last few decades, who are exactly the type of people that we are told that term limits are supposed to kick out.
We as a whole country need to be more willing to accept primary challenges and try to chip away at the ridiculous advantage that incumbency has in an election. But term limits are anti-democratic, as they remove the citizenry's choice to vote for the person that they like.
I am more in favor of age limits than term limits. The real question/issue is why are incumbents so hard to replace in the first place. People choose to vote for Feinstein despite her age. Why...
I am more in favor of age limits than term limits.
The real question/issue is why are incumbents so hard to replace in the first place.
People choose to vote for Feinstein despite her age. Why don't we get compelling alternatives?
I imagine it is due in parts to voter apathy towards learning about new candidates, and a lack of compelling candidates due to party support for incumbents and a lack of development of new talent.
That's a big part of it. The other part is the two party system which enables parties to support incumbents that are already on their death bed rather than supporting fresh blood. They have very...
and a lack of compelling candidates due to party support for incumbents and a lack of development of new talent.
That's a big part of it. The other part is the two party system which enables parties to support incumbents that are already on their death bed rather than supporting fresh blood. They have very little competition for most votes (because if you're a Democrat you aren't going to vote Republican), so there's no reason to give you a better representative.
American parties do not decide on the party lists. Anyone can run and if they can beat the incumbent in a primary or caucus they become that party's candidate. If people can't win it's not because...
American parties do not decide on the party lists. Anyone can run and if they can beat the incumbent in a primary or caucus they become that party's candidate. If people can't win it's not because of "the party" it's because the other candidates were ineffective at getting enough supporters in to vote for them.
This is how you get situations like Rhode Island, where half the Democratic Party is basically Republicans who run as centrist democrats because the Republican Party's brand equity is trash. Anyone can run! All Party Bosses do is tell the people who trust them who to support with their endorsements but, ultimately, people are doing the supporting.
Anyone can run, but they won't get institutional support, and the incumbent will. So they're at an extreme disadvantage. Of course voters are influenced by name recognition, I wasn't stating that...
American parties do not decide on the party lists. Anyone can run and if they can beat the incumbent in a primary or caucus they become that party's candidate.
Anyone can run, but they won't get institutional support, and the incumbent will. So they're at an extreme disadvantage.
Of course voters are influenced by name recognition, I wasn't stating that the only reason why it happens is purely about party leadership, voters continue to vote for the name they know is another problem. Addressing voter behavior is different than addressing systemic problems or institutional problems. My point is that on the systemic or institutional side, the party is absolutely influencing who is winning and that is partly because they lack competition.
The "institutional support" is largely just contacts with power-brokers who do endorsements and contacts with experienced campaign managers and consultants. But if you're an outsider/insurgent...
The "institutional support" is largely just contacts with power-brokers who do endorsements and contacts with experienced campaign managers and consultants. But if you're an outsider/insurgent candidate you don't want the party's campaign managers and consultants anyway because they're the problem.
There's also the money that comes with that institutional support. Campaigns without money almost never win. What you're talking about is more the exceptions rather than the rule, but exceptions...
There's also the money that comes with that institutional support. Campaigns without money almost never win.
What you're talking about is more the exceptions rather than the rule, but exceptions doesn't mean the rule isn't there or doesn't exist.
If outsiders/insurgent candidates winning was the rule rather than the exception, then we probably wouldn't be talking about 90 year old Feinstein dying in office, or McConnell freezing up or anyone else for that matter. The incumbents and the institutionally backed representatives are the ones that are winning the majority of the time.
This is one of the few instances where I don't think the two party system is the issue. For starters the problem of incumbency starts with the primaries, where all the candidates belong to the...
This is one of the few instances where I don't think the two party system is the issue.
For starters the problem of incumbency starts with the primaries, where all the candidates belong to the same party. The "party" should prioritize its strength over individual power and work to get the best candidate to the general election.
You see this happen on the Republican side from time to time with the party (Trump) running candidates against incumbents.
Generally speaking the democratic party is a lot more hands off in inter-party races, they don't provide a lot of support for either candidate, but because of that the incumbent can rely on lobbyist support that they developed while in office while the challenger doesn't get much support from anyone.
Now having the party play king maker is hardly ideal, but I think it would actually help develop outside talent by providing a clear 'outsider' narrative for challengers who aren't being supported.
I think the party does prioritize party strength over individual power and does place some backing behind the incumbents rather than being hands off. In a primary, their strongest individual...
For starters the problem of incumbency starts with the primaries, where all the candidates belong to the same party. The "party" should prioritize its strength over individual power and work to get the best candidate to the general election.
I think the party does prioritize party strength over individual power and does place some backing behind the incumbents rather than being hands off. In a primary, their strongest individual candidate compared to the others could be a newcomer, because in theory those voting in the primary would be more aligned with the party, more politically active, and thus presumably a little more aware of the candidates. In the general election, those advantages go away and the incumbent name has more power. This is why incumbents proliferate. If incumbents weren't the strongest for the general election but just so happened to be stronger in the primaries, then they wouldn't dominate the general election. Party leaders prefer incumbents and that's why they support Feinsteins, Pelosis, McConnells etc. because their best chance of helping the party maintain power is through incumbents.
Having other parties would help because they would be able to build upon successes of prior runs (by success I don't just mean winning, but it could be as simple as gaining a few more voters than the time before or gaining more fundraising etc.) but the way it is now, one individual who is challenging the only party on that side of the political spectrum from within that party can't easily do that, because it's all tied to that one individuals name, you can't easily carry forward successes. Not to say it doesn't happen, obviously people who might have had some previous success can campaign for others in the future to leverage some of their past success to help someone else, but it's not nearly as effective as having established 3rd parties would be.
Of course that requires you have a voting system that can actually support multiple parties, which we don't. That's why I criticized the two party system rather than just saying someone should run a 3rd party. The current system is hostile to 3rd parties.
Sadly, I think a lot of people will view this as a good thing. Not just for partisan reasons or because they hated her specifically or anything, but also she can't be forced to stay in the Senate...
Sadly, I think a lot of people will view this as a good thing. Not just for partisan reasons or because they hated her specifically or anything, but also she can't be forced to stay in the Senate anymore just to (ab)use her and because it's an opportunity to get some younger blood into the Senate. None of those are really things that should ever happen and they're certainly not reasons that anyone should feel that they "have to" feel some sort of bittersweet contentment from, but I think that's where we are, with people on both ends of the political spectrum who feel happy in one way or another. It's a sad state of affairs.
Honestly, even someone like Feinstein, who I disagreed with broadly during her actual functional career, is not someone I want to see made dancing like a half-dead puppet in her final years. At...
Honestly, even someone like Feinstein, who I disagreed with broadly during her actual functional career, is not someone I want to see made dancing like a half-dead puppet in her final years. At that age and health level, it is best on a humane level that she is finally let go.
Exactly. I don't fault you for feeling that way and I don't disagree--I can't say to what degree she refused to step down vs others encouraged her--but it's sad that it's come to this, whether...
Exactly. I don't fault you for feeling that way and I don't disagree--I can't say to what degree she refused to step down vs others encouraged her--but it's sad that it's come to this, whether it's because she was abused or it's because we have a system that encourages someone to stay in Congress long after they cannot serve anymore. Not to sound like an anarchist, but I guess I'm putting the system on trial, man.
Yeah, shame on her for not retiring sooner and shame on her colleagues for not impeaching her when she was unequivocally incapable of doing the job. Refusing to impeach her forced her to leave...
Yeah, shame on her for not retiring sooner and shame on her colleagues for not impeaching her when she was unequivocally incapable of doing the job. Refusing to impeach her forced her to leave office by dying, for Christ's sake.
I wonder how this effect Nancy Pelosi's next campaign. She is 83, though her possible new term is only 2 years long. Feinstein was last elected at 85, for a 6 year long term.
I wonder how this effect Nancy Pelosi's next campaign. She is 83, though her possible new term is only 2 years long. Feinstein was last elected at 85, for a 6 year long term.
Realistically, no one in their 80s should be running for office. It's a fragile age where they can go from perfectly fine to a shambling husk in months or even days. Someone that old just can't...
Realistically, no one in their 80s should be running for office. It's a fragile age where they can go from perfectly fine to a shambling husk in months or even days. Someone that old just can't reliably make year long plans let alone 2, 4, or 6 year long commitments. And it's not really their fault at that age, they've already beaten all of the statistics, but it's irresponsible to be 80 and make others rely on you making it to 86.
One of the justifications for her not retiring or being forced out is that Democrats would have lost an important judiciary committee position.
Well, that happened anyway.
The elderly of Congress need to start thinking of the U.S. over themselves. There is something to be said for going out on high note, retiring when they are still strong, and functional.
I'm not for age limits as I am not for ageism, which is bigotry about age.
Term Limits for Congress would have prevented Feinsteins, McConnells, etc, and would have fixed other problems too.
I know, it is asking the mice to vote themselves out of cheese, but it would be a good thing.
Preposterous. We have age limits on all sorts of stuff. In my town, can't be outside after 10PM if you're under 16. Can't die for your country or dig in mines until you're 18. Can't drink till you're 21. Can't even be president until you're at least 35. Most of these justifications fall under "not having enough maturity or physical development for the task at hand." Reasonably so, IMO.
Is it then not reasonable to have an upper limit, where it is a known that mental and physical health will start deteriorating rapidly? Generally speaking, that process really starts ramping up after 60, and gets stronger each year that passes. We know the upper bound for 99% of the population is about 100 years old. And on average, metal and physical health slides along the way, it's not purely a question of dying.
Is it not reasonable for a 21 year old to be elected to the Senate? If they wanted to have a full career in the Senate to age 65, they'd need just over 7 terms. But if a 50 year old is elected to the senate (also reasonable), by the time they hit a 7-term limit they'd be 92. So either term limits don't solve the problem of old people deteriorating and dying in office at an expected age, or they just discriminate against younger politicians from having a full career.
And further....I fully support forced retirement across all sectors. Everyone retires from the workforce at 65. They can find fulfillment outside the workforce for their remaining years, there's plenty of volunteer work to be done. And if it's a question of "they won't have enough to live on," then just maybe we should reconsider fixing the social safety net instead of expecting people to work until they die.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s reasonable for a 21 year old to be elected to senate. One should have some experience with the system before trying to change the system. I think anyone who has had the experience of hiring fresh graduates will understand how functionally useless and often dangerous they are without supervision — but who supervises a senator?
Btw, I wasn’t sure if you were suggesting a policy change or if you didn’t know that senators must be 30 years old at a minimum.
I was somewhat subtlely taking a jab at the agism thing, and did in fact forget that the Senate has a minimum age. I certainly wouldn't vote for a 21 year old Senator.
IMO 30 is a great minimum for national representation.
But isn't that kind of the thing? You wouldn't vote for a 21yo, because they obviously* don't have the experience and wisdom necessary to carry out the role they gave been given. But you also wouldn't vote for a 87yo, because they won't have the physical strength or mental acuity to carry out the role they gave been given.
But that's the point of the vote: to put the candidates in front of the public and have them decide which criteria are most important to them. It may well be that you get some 21yo who really does get what's going on and understands the issues well enough, that they think they should be elected despite their young age. Likewise, for the 84yo. If the basic democratic system is working, then surely we would expect that reasonable candidates are voted in, without having to narrow the field in the first place.
So when things start falling like they seem to be now, adding restrictions feels a lot like it's solving the symptoms and not the root cause. The question shouldn't be "How do we stop people voting for candidates who are too old?" but rather "Why are so many older candidates being chosen?" Is it because the voting system is unfit for purpose? Is it because the political pipeline for getting into the Senate is so long now that people need to literally work their entire lives to have a chance? Is it because the Senate isn't seen as a useful place to enact change for younger people? Is it (d) all of the above?
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of age limits, although I can see their value in certain contexts. But in this context, it seems like completely the wrong discussion to be having - completely missing the forest for the trees.
* obviousness not guaranteed - at least in the UK, politicians like Mhairi Black have generally done fairly well among constituents and professionally
Pilots aren't aloud to fly after age 65 so we do have agism on the other end too.
https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-maximum-age-pilot-can-fly-airplane
Airline pilots also have a minimum age of 21 (23 for to be captain).
IMO it’s the opposite — age limits are not great, but term limits are crippling. They have the effect of destroying institutional knowledge and I think actually encourage corruption. If you can’t plan for a long political career, you enter the office with the knowledge that you need to make connections in industry and plan for your new career as lobbyist or whatever.
The effect on political corruption has some empirical evidence behind it. This is exactly what happened when Mexico introduced term limits. Politicians legislate specifically to maximize their prospects after their term ends instead of taking the long-view. This basically means their tenure as legislators becomes an extended job interview with various big businesses to set themselves up once they're out.
What time is the age limit in Mexico?
I ask this, because an age limit of 70 would certainly still allow for old "institutional" knowledge to proliferate, and "thinking forward to your next job prospect" wouldn't really be a feasible thing if you're someone planning to stay till 70.
It's also old "enough" where someone who's lived a healthy life would certainly be old, but not be in pure, demented cognitive meltdown.
6 years (1 term) for the president, 12 years for everyone else, whether that is 3x4 year terms or 2x6 year terms depending on the position.
More details: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2014-03-31/mexico-president-promulgates-electoral-political-reform/#
We already have age limits in this country. Minimum age limits. There is no reason to have an upper boundary as well, given how much longer we have to live now than when the constitution was written. At the time it was written, those people ages 18, 25, 35 were already old.
If we're talkig age discrimination, we need to consider that we already have that in this country.
What? No they weren't. In the days before modern medicine and antibiotics, if a person lived beyond childhood they were very likely to live into their 60s and beyond.
We get a skewed conception of lifespan back then due to infant and child mortality rates. Granted, geriatric medicine was nowhere near as effective, so they weren't as likely as us to live into their late-70s or 80s, but 35 hasn't been considered old for most of history.
Thomas Jefferson was 83 when he died, George Washington was 67 (not old but certainly not 35), John Adams was 90, Benjamin Franklin was 84, Samuel Adams was 81, etc.
The founding fathers did not think their mortality was approaching at age 35.
I agree that 35 is not old, but remember that those people were all extremely well off and had access to the best medical care available at the time.
Sure, but it doesn't change the original point made that life expectancy now is "much longer" than it was in the late 18th century.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
Let’s not forget that broadly speaking, the best medical care available was pretty bad. That was the era of animal magnetism and phrenology. Basic hygiene was in its infancy. Germ theory was fringe science while most doctors subscribed to the concept of miasma. Letting a doctor cut into you was nearly as likely to kill you as cure you.
I think that depends on the solution.
There's no reason for the institutional knowledge to be lost if the pipeline is developed well enough, and people stay on as advisors and staff members.
In which case the power shifts away from the individual voting members and towards the party that financially backs and "advises" them.
This is basically an argument for the "deep state". I'm on the fence about how much I like that. On the one hand, I don't like that it reduces the impact of my vote, and on the other hand I like that the effect of voting in lunatics like Trump is also blunted.
You can look at career civil servants as either some shady cabal bent on secretly holding the reins of power in opposition to the will of the people, or as people who know what they're doing in an atmosphere of convoluted bureaucracy and neverending compromise.
My experience of people is that most of us can't keep a big secret to save the immortal souls of our mothers, so the former is pretty damned unlikely.
I think there is the possibility of shadiness within this that doesn't require them to be a cabal or maintain secrets of a group.
The system functions in part by filtering in people who will play by certain rules, and filtering out people who won't. It's not 100% efficient as few systems are, and it's not as simple as just saying they play by the rules or they don't, because there's a myriad of levels to it. Some of it works by gatekeeping credentials, jobs and awards and what not. How often do you see someone say 'So and so is the most qualified because they've done X, Y and Z' in politics? However in order to do X, Y and Z, they likely had to play by rules that generally aren't favorable to the public and are more favorable towards each individual getting their own rewards. Basically, you have to compromise a bit of your morals each step of the way to gain the things that supposedly make you qualified. Unless you're Trump, you don't get to generally start out as President, you have to work your way up through this system.
The type of people who work their way through the ranks aren't secretly meeting in back rooms with some grand plan to subvert democracy, they're just participating and upholding a system that rewards people who are willing to compromise public gain for personal gain.
The people getting appointed to various cabinet positions or certain committees that have more importance or value for political posturing are probably not getting them by merits of public service, yet they turn around and use them as some kind of merit badge for qualification to higher offices.
I’m confused on how you’re equating mandatory retirement age to ageism. There are tons of industries and other parts of the government that have mandatory retirement because it’s been deemed necessary for safety and national security reasons.
How is this any different? There are octogenarians who can barely even function but are expected to adequately represent their constituents? That sounds like a massive safety risk to the general public to me.
The government is also rife with age minimums. 25 for Congress and 35 for the Presidency.
Other roles including the armed forces have age limits, why not for important decision making roles that impact an entire country.
Discussion around limits does not come from a place of bigotry but a place of feeling that a more sustainable and impactful government is one run by younger people who are aware of the challenges and technological advancements that are part of modern life.
It's no good having geriatrics legislating on cultural and technological issues that they have no understanding of, or even laymen experience of.
A 40 year old senator has a much better chance of understanding issues surrounding social media and AI for example, than an 80 year old senator does, just by virtue of being immersed in the topics more fully.
Furthermore on issues impacting children they are more likely to have younger children from the current generation. Rather than thinking about children from when an 80 year old had kids, which was probably raising gen X'ers, they have no idea about raising Gen Z'ers.
Finally, younger government have to live with their decisions and laws, 70+ yr olds have realistically another 10-20 years of runway, so they legislate for the short term.
It would also introduce some problems as well. There is something to be said about having institutional knowledge, and term limits would cause that knowledge to shift from long time congressmen to the lobbyists that we all also complain about. I don’t think it’s quite so clear cut an argument for or against term limits.
Almost everything politically does.
Maybe losing that would be a good thing. About as many people in Internet comment sections argue that it is a problem that so much of Congress is elderly, set in its way, and has an old obsolete view of the world.
Loybbyists have already been here for a long time.
Im confused how neutering public servants institutional knowledge but allowing lobbyists to retain all theirs with no limit is supposed to help.
Why don't we legislate term or additional limits for lobbyists instead?
Are senators still public servants? Many of them seem to serve themselves.
I'm simply using it as a label to describe one side of the table. I don't understand your pedantry when you didnt even bother trying to address my point.
The institutional knowledge is valuable for public servants. Civil servants / public servants and federal elected officials are not necessarily the same. My federal elected officials barely interact with my community. I guess my point is that institutional knowledge has very limited value at that level.
Here's a probably-bad idea that I think is at least worth discussing: What if elected officials were limited to serving a single term, followed by a single non-voting emeritus term? It wouldn't be perfect by any means, especially if the current and emeritus office holders are politically at odds, but it would help to maintain a sense of continuity of office and preserve that institutional knowledge across term limits.
There was a very interesting point raised the last time that term limits were discussed and it has affected me pretty deeply: I don't want the lobbyists to have the most experience and know the system better than rookie lawmakers in Washington.
I think term limits would be a good Step 2 after outlawing
legal bribarylobbying.My opinion, and more generally responding to Grasso raising institutional knowledge, is that institutional knowledge is usually way way overvalued. Smart people learn very quickly and I think institutions themselves contain much more knowledge than just the most senior people. For instance in Congress, there are thousands of staffers who guide lawmakers and many (but not all) members of congress don't get there knowing absolutely nothing.
In companies, everyone wants to think they're irreplaceable and history proves quite quickly that is not the case. Relevant colleagues often contain vast stores of functional knowledge and know how to guide new team members and (good receptive) bosses towards the info they need. I am a corporate chief of staff and when I onboard new executives it's an intensive and extensive process that gets them up to speed very very quickly. A month of effective onboarding with me can get a new executive ready to get their hands dirty within a few weeks and certainly within a couple months. Outgoing executives think it will take years to get to where they are because it took them years but well structured organizations with support staff and documentation that hire good staff know how to make their new staff effectively quickly.
We should pray that the lawmakers we are electing are smart (a bold assumption) and that the system around them effectively gets them up to speed (a much less bold assumption, IMO).
While I don't know that much about politics, one thing to consider is that politics is a relationship business. People do bring some of their relationships with them when they switch jobs, but it still seems plausible to me that an inexperienced staff has fewer relationships to draw on?
Also, it's true that people leave and are replaced, but that's different from an entire organization starting from scratch. Newly elected officials have a lot of hiring to do.
On the other hand, a new organization can sometimes be a lot more effective because it's starting fresh, so who knows.
Thing is you can't outlaw lobbying as it's most often used as a bad word for corporate interests and the like, but all the things you like are also supported by lobbying. From environmental issues to native american rights.
While true, I'm not sure that makes it any better. The reason why "good" lobbying exists is to counter-balance the bad lobbying. While simplistic, if there was no lobbying (involving money, gifts, etc) then the "will of the people" could be shown with petitions and their votes since the politicians would be more vulnerable without unlimited funding
The point was really driven home to me when I watched "Distinguised Gentleman" starring Eddie Murphy. There is a scene where a senior politician is asking Eddie Murphy's character if he was for or against a particular cause (Power lines, IIRC). Trying to gain favor, Eddie's character was like "Well, what side should I be on?" and the senior politician was like "It doesn't matter! If you're against it we'll get you money from the environmentalists and if you're for them we'll get you money from the power companies! (but they pay better!)"
Well, when we've managed to get all of campaign finance reformed so that politicians don't have to fundraise the lobbying problem can be addressed.
Lobbying doesn't operate on the level of fundraising as much as people think. More often the money isn't going to the campaign coffers themselves so much as a threat of media buys against the candidate if they cross the special interest group.
But even that's not the primary method of influence. What they actually do is skew the entire legislative agenda and sources of information to advance the most persuasive case for their preferred policy outcomes.
Research efforts are funded that provide evidence and statistically backed findings in service of their goal. Glossy slide decks and presentations are drafted to stress the costs of [thing I don't like] and the contrasting benefits of [thing I like] and these are presented to legislative aides and researchers to inform them about the implications of policy proposals on the floor. In many cases, specific language for legislation is drafted and put forward for legislators to review that makes it into the final product because actually drafting legislation is hard and requires a bunch of background research to put together.
So it's not as simple as just "get rid of the campaign money." That's only the most egregious examples of business influence. Most of the stuff lobbyists do is basically indistinguishable from any method of people exerting pressure on the political system. But because businesses can stand-up well paid, competent people to maintain these connections and push their agenda over the long-term, they just outgun any local or small-scale movements trying to do the same. Large orgs, like Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club, are well funded enough to employ the same strategies and they are quite effective as a result. But it's difficult to crowdsource a funding base when you don't stand to make a lot of money individually from legislative outcomes.
What's happening with Clarence Thomas looks like legalized bribery and something needs to change there.
I'm not sure lobbying in general works that way, or at least not all the time? Laws can be improved, but companies will still have experts in Washington and lawmakers (or their staffs) will still want to learn things from them.
So although there can be better laws, I don't see lobbying itself ever being outlawed. It would be like outlawing talking to people.
It seems like not being unduly influenced is more about having your own staff expertise and learning things from a variety of sources.
And also, some kind of campaign finance reform so that campaigns aren't all about "dialing for dollars." The fundraising will continue so long as campaigns need to raise funds.
No, it's not. It's a realistic take on biology and enforced by the FAA:
https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-maximum-age-pilot-can-fly-airplane
You cannot be a commercial airline pilot after 65. It's deemed too risky. If you're one of the many who's still in fit health, great. You've got decades of commercial airline pilot experience and will be gobbled up as a private jet pilot or a trainer in smaller planes.
"You are too old" is a very real limitation, and is one of the few that's actually easy to enforce unlike the often proposed and unintentionally awful cognition tests.
She was 85 when she was re-elected in 2018. Per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html, at 85 she had a life expectancy of 6.44 years. Her life expectancy at the time of election was exactly her term, so it should come as no surprise that she didn't make it.
I think both age limits and term limits both feel like they're first-order solutions - there is a problem (very old politicians who can't be removed for various political and practical reasons), so we solve that problem specifically, and then start work on dealing with the next problem.
But that sort of approach ends up with a kind of constitutional whack-a-mole - and when the whole system feels broken, there's just too many problems to attack them one by one. Instead, I think we need to focus more on the root causes, and, at least in the US, people staying on in these positions long after they should have retired feels more like a symptom than the disease itself.
I'm not American myself, but my impression of the US political system is that it's mainly defined by deadlock - there are two parties, and a handful of key positions that can be sat on by one party or the other - president, the SC, representative majority, senate majority, and a bunch of different committees. Which means that the goal of politics becomes to win as many of these positions as possible, in order to pass laws and resolutions with as little opposition as possible.
But because most of these positions are so binary, it's like tossing a bunch of different coins in the air and hoping they all come up heads. That won't happen, so what you end up with is deadlock.
Dealing with that deadlock feels like the challenge, then. Either by getting rid of the binary where possible (for example in Congress via a proportional electoral system that forces smaller parties to work together), or by removing party politics from positions where that's not possible (for example, by having the Supreme Court be appointed by a non-political entity distinct from any parliament).
Most states have more stringent requirements for a person to renew their driver's license over a certain age. Is that ageism also?
Everybody else's rights to have safe streets and a functional government massively outweigh the rights of old people to drive or hold public offices.
Long service allows for building working alliances and friendships which can grease the wheels for effective legislation. It also allows for deep understanding of what laws do and how policy works and doesn't work in government.
I do agree with @Grasso that term limits shift the power balance from congress members toward lobbyists.
I don't remember which one, but there was a very not politically correct quote from a famous early California lawmaker about politicians needing the ability to take gifts from lobbyists and vote against them anyway. If your mentor about how things work in the capitol is a former lawmaker now lobbyist because of term limits, you are more likely to be influenced.
I doubt it will ever be implemented, but my pet policy proposal would be a required mental competence test yearly after age 60, administered by a panel of board certified practicing neurologists. If a majority of ten working specialists have to agree that you are mentally incompetent, that is a test that is hard to game.
In my view, physical disability, including age related weakness does not prevent you from being an effective lawmaker, but mental disability absolutely does, as we have seen recently with Feinstein.
My concern with that is that it can still be gamed or abused (by the media, by someone deemed too incompetant, etc). Since it would be a medical test then it will be covered under HIPAA so your average person won't ever really know what went on behind the curtains. I also don't really like the thought of 10 people making such decisions for the whole country. This doesn't even touch any acting in good faith arguments.
Do you honestly think someone like Trump, who was just out there saying he beat George W. Bush and Obama in elections and if he didn't win in 2024 we'd see "WWII", would quietly accept the decision of a 10 person panel?
I think the only reasonably fair limitation would be age. Age can't be accused of being political like a person on a panel. Age doesn't care about party affiliation. There is already precedent with age minimums.
I would trust the experiences of a 40-something person to be closer with the actual world experiences of things like rent prices (even if for their children), cost of daycare, insurance prices over someone in their late 70s hording over their pile of gold going "when I was younger my mortgage was $135 a month".
I don't approve of age or disability discrimination.
Bernie Sanders is quite competent and in my corner.
You could make the panel 20 or 30. There is a practical limit, but statistically it is going to be hard to find that many political ideologues who are also working specialists with credible resumes.
Edit, a different way to approach the problem might be to require a publicly broadcasted job interview after a certain age, or a public presentation on a complex topic. That wouldn't be impacted by medical privacy laws.
And who's his replacement?
Even bernie is playing the same game the rest of these are and not passing the torch. How long can he be in your corner? How much can he get done? How sound is his mind actually and how much is hidden from view?
The human body breaks down. You cannot fly a commercial airliner after a certain age because your chances of crashing the plane and killing 200 people goes up enough that for everyone's safety, you're just not allowed.
Those pilots go on to fly smaller planes and train new pilots where the risk is more acceptable.
Why people seem to think that we shouldn't have similar logic for our highest positions baffles me.
You are 100 percent right that we need to be developing a bench of replacement candidates. The lack of local journalism hurts politicians who would like to develop a nation wide profile.
Aging is an extremely individual journey where some lose mentally quite young and others deteriorate physcially but not mentally even at the end.
Politically, it's not going to be possible to institute age caps until after the Boomer stop voting. At that point it is entirely possible that GenX gets screwed by age caps, what else is new. We've been overshadowed by larger generations and always will be. The next large generation will likely get rid of the age caps when they want to stay in power longer.
It already exists for the young. Maybe you're saying you don't support those, but precedence was set by these.
I don't view age limits as a problem because we're not short on people. There's lots of good people in the country. Now there's probably many other problems in the system that might prevent a lot of those good people from being able to get involved, but I don't think that should be seen as an age limit problem.
An age limit is not pretending to be medically or scientifically empirical that a specific age is the limits to which a person is no longer capable, it's meant to be a cutoff that is "good enough" that it reduces problems a lot with less political manipulations or conspiracies behind it. The age of majority being 18 isn't scientifically or medically empirical that is when everyone has the capabilities of being independent but yet that's the age we set, because trying to determine every individuals capabilities and when they're capable would be an impossible task as it would require too many resources.
Of course the initial phase and how it affects current politicians means it could be manipulated for political gain, but exempting all current politicians would be a way to remove that.
Having said that, I'm also aware there's many other problems with age limits. I don't know if legally it is a problem, because obviously it's legal to discriminate in age against young people but not against people above a certain age. Not to mention, many old people vote, so it could easily turn into political theater such as "what next, they're going to set age limits to vote?" and suddenly you could have an army of senior voters against it even though it doesn't impact their ability to vote, just who runs for office.
So a panel of medical professionals could end up being more politically viable than an age limit.
As I said above, I am not 100 percent wedded to my proposed solution.
Requiring publicly broadcast debates before every primary and general election would also detect that worst cases, such as Feinstein.
Isn't that was the various election debates were supposed to be? A job interview for the voters to decide based on the answers given? How have they went in recent elections?
(BTW, if you're only requiring someone to do something after a certain age isn't that just another form of age discrimination? If the 70 year old has to give an hour long presentation that their aides whipped up for them and the 40 year old candidate doesn't...)
Yes, we would lose Bernie but also gain more opportunities to get more Bernies in there. I trust AOC to be more in-tune with modern problems and costs (from rent prices to daycare to AI to social media) than all the Feinsteins, McConnells and the like put together.
I sincerely doubt people would be happy to see a 75 year old working or even running a McDonald's shift, so why is it ok to see them running the most powerful nation in the world?
Plenty of 75 year olds work by necessity, if they can find the jobs.
If the state organization that issues drivers licences can require more frequent eye tests after a certain age, mental competency tests for elected officials should be no different.
But I am not wedded to my solution as opposed to others. Requiring a publicly broadcast debate before every election would also solve the problem in an age neutral way and doesn't involve age discrimination. If Feinstein had been forced to debate, I doubt she would have won her most recent primary challenge.
We've been brainwashed by corporate interests into believing that term limits are a good thing. Term limits are a bad thing. They reduce institutional knowledge and experience and keep the revolving door a-spinning. This way, lobbyists are the only people in politics who know how the system works. Fresh-faced politicians have no chance against lobbyists when they don't have more experienced politicians who can show them the ropes, because they're all fresh-faced.
Baltimore City recently passed a charter amendment to impose term limits on most elected officials in a question that was squeezed into the ballot at the last minute and was funded almost entirely by the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group... because if you have no chance to win in a hardcore Democratic stronghold, you can at least ban Democrats from electing the people that they think are doing a good job.
The term limit initiative was coupled with a recall initiative as well, which failed to gather enough petition signatures for ballot placement. Because for some reason David Smith and his ilk wished they could recall the new mayor and return the chair to one of the corrupt bastards who have been running the city into the ground for the last few decades, who are exactly the type of people that we are told that term limits are supposed to kick out.
We as a whole country need to be more willing to accept primary challenges and try to chip away at the ridiculous advantage that incumbency has in an election. But term limits are anti-democratic, as they remove the citizenry's choice to vote for the person that they like.
I am more in favor of age limits than term limits.
The real question/issue is why are incumbents so hard to replace in the first place.
People choose to vote for Feinstein despite her age. Why don't we get compelling alternatives?
I imagine it is due in parts to voter apathy towards learning about new candidates, and a lack of compelling candidates due to party support for incumbents and a lack of development of new talent.
That's a big part of it. The other part is the two party system which enables parties to support incumbents that are already on their death bed rather than supporting fresh blood. They have very little competition for most votes (because if you're a Democrat you aren't going to vote Republican), so there's no reason to give you a better representative.
American parties do not decide on the party lists. Anyone can run and if they can beat the incumbent in a primary or caucus they become that party's candidate. If people can't win it's not because of "the party" it's because the other candidates were ineffective at getting enough supporters in to vote for them.
This is how you get situations like Rhode Island, where half the Democratic Party is basically Republicans who run as centrist democrats because the Republican Party's brand equity is trash. Anyone can run! All Party Bosses do is tell the people who trust them who to support with their endorsements but, ultimately, people are doing the supporting.
Anyone can run, but they won't get institutional support, and the incumbent will. So they're at an extreme disadvantage.
Of course voters are influenced by name recognition, I wasn't stating that the only reason why it happens is purely about party leadership, voters continue to vote for the name they know is another problem. Addressing voter behavior is different than addressing systemic problems or institutional problems. My point is that on the systemic or institutional side, the party is absolutely influencing who is winning and that is partly because they lack competition.
The "institutional support" is largely just contacts with power-brokers who do endorsements and contacts with experienced campaign managers and consultants. But if you're an outsider/insurgent candidate you don't want the party's campaign managers and consultants anyway because they're the problem.
There's also the money that comes with that institutional support. Campaigns without money almost never win.
What you're talking about is more the exceptions rather than the rule, but exceptions doesn't mean the rule isn't there or doesn't exist.
If outsiders/insurgent candidates winning was the rule rather than the exception, then we probably wouldn't be talking about 90 year old Feinstein dying in office, or McConnell freezing up or anyone else for that matter. The incumbents and the institutionally backed representatives are the ones that are winning the majority of the time.
This is one of the few instances where I don't think the two party system is the issue.
For starters the problem of incumbency starts with the primaries, where all the candidates belong to the same party. The "party" should prioritize its strength over individual power and work to get the best candidate to the general election.
You see this happen on the Republican side from time to time with the party (Trump) running candidates against incumbents.
Generally speaking the democratic party is a lot more hands off in inter-party races, they don't provide a lot of support for either candidate, but because of that the incumbent can rely on lobbyist support that they developed while in office while the challenger doesn't get much support from anyone.
Now having the party play king maker is hardly ideal, but I think it would actually help develop outside talent by providing a clear 'outsider' narrative for challengers who aren't being supported.
I think the party does prioritize party strength over individual power and does place some backing behind the incumbents rather than being hands off. In a primary, their strongest individual candidate compared to the others could be a newcomer, because in theory those voting in the primary would be more aligned with the party, more politically active, and thus presumably a little more aware of the candidates. In the general election, those advantages go away and the incumbent name has more power. This is why incumbents proliferate. If incumbents weren't the strongest for the general election but just so happened to be stronger in the primaries, then they wouldn't dominate the general election. Party leaders prefer incumbents and that's why they support Feinsteins, Pelosis, McConnells etc. because their best chance of helping the party maintain power is through incumbents.
Having other parties would help because they would be able to build upon successes of prior runs (by success I don't just mean winning, but it could be as simple as gaining a few more voters than the time before or gaining more fundraising etc.) but the way it is now, one individual who is challenging the only party on that side of the political spectrum from within that party can't easily do that, because it's all tied to that one individuals name, you can't easily carry forward successes. Not to say it doesn't happen, obviously people who might have had some previous success can campaign for others in the future to leverage some of their past success to help someone else, but it's not nearly as effective as having established 3rd parties would be.
Of course that requires you have a voting system that can actually support multiple parties, which we don't. That's why I criticized the two party system rather than just saying someone should run a 3rd party. The current system is hostile to 3rd parties.
Sadly, I think a lot of people will view this as a good thing. Not just for partisan reasons or because they hated her specifically or anything, but also she can't be forced to stay in the Senate anymore just to (ab)use her and because it's an opportunity to get some younger blood into the Senate. None of those are really things that should ever happen and they're certainly not reasons that anyone should feel that they "have to" feel some sort of bittersweet contentment from, but I think that's where we are, with people on both ends of the political spectrum who feel happy in one way or another. It's a sad state of affairs.
Honestly, even someone like Feinstein, who I disagreed with broadly during her actual functional career, is not someone I want to see made dancing like a half-dead puppet in her final years. At that age and health level, it is best on a humane level that she is finally let go.
Exactly. I don't fault you for feeling that way and I don't disagree--I can't say to what degree she refused to step down vs others encouraged her--but it's sad that it's come to this, whether it's because she was abused or it's because we have a system that encourages someone to stay in Congress long after they cannot serve anymore. Not to sound like an anarchist, but I guess I'm putting the system on trial, man.
Yeah, shame on her for not retiring sooner and shame on her colleagues for not impeaching her when she was unequivocally incapable of doing the job. Refusing to impeach her forced her to leave office by dying, for Christ's sake.
1970 in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
I wonder how this effect Nancy Pelosi's next campaign. She is 83, though her possible new term is only 2 years long. Feinstein was last elected at 85, for a 6 year long term.
She should also retire.
Realistically, no one in their 80s should be running for office. It's a fragile age where they can go from perfectly fine to a shambling husk in months or even days. Someone that old just can't reliably make year long plans let alone 2, 4, or 6 year long commitments. And it's not really their fault at that age, they've already beaten all of the statistics, but it's irresponsible to be 80 and make others rely on you making it to 86.
*Still hasn't decided if she will step down
Best comment I read elsewhere to the same tune:
"Her offices say despite her recent condition she will finish her term and seek re-election."
My guess is she left a clause in her will still refusing to retire from the senate.