I don't want term limits, I want age caps and health disclosures. Any term limit cap that is actually effective against ancient leaders punishes younger ones more. 64 as the max age to be eligible...
I don't want term limits, I want age caps and health disclosures. Any term limit cap that is actually effective against ancient leaders punishes younger ones more.
64 as the max age to be eligible for a national-level ballot. Thus the oldest rep could be no more than 71.
More so than age, I want minimal accountability for what my reps are doing, or not doing. I don't get paid if I don't show up for work . I don't care if it's extreme paragliding or dementia either.
More so than age, I want minimal accountability for what my reps are doing, or not doing.
I don't get paid if I don't show up for work . I don't care if it's extreme paragliding or dementia either.
I am indifferent to the age of Congress but would back dementia tests. I am however a strong proponent of age caps for the president. It's a different type of job that demands vigor, stamina,...
I am indifferent to the age of Congress but would back dementia tests.
I am however a strong proponent of age caps for the president. It's a different type of job that demands vigor, stamina, charisma, mental flexibility to perform well among other characteristics.
The issue with tests is they're just going to have a cache of doctors that give them a favorable result to remain in power. Age limit gives it a simple and easy to understand line upon which they...
The issue with tests is they're just going to have a cache of doctors that give them a favorable result to remain in power.
Age limit gives it a simple and easy to understand line upon which they cannot cross. While not applicable, and we can debate that as well, to federal judges, many states have mandatory retirement ages for many judicial seats. There's no reason there shouldn't be the same for every political position.
We've got this dementia-raddled rep bogarting a seat she never even uses from a nursing home. We've got crypt-keeper Pelosi pulling strings behind the curtain, from a hospital bed, to get a cancer-laden one-foot-in-the-grave rep pushed into place because she can't stand the idea of a young woman overshadowing her.
Once you're eligible for Social Security and/or Medicare, you no longer are eligible to run for office. Finish your current term and enjoy retirement, the country needs to move on from you.
Many people right now are asserting this. I think some of the reason is demographic changes. The baby boomers loudly complained about rule by the old when they were young. They were a large enough...
Many people right now are asserting this. I think some of the reason is demographic changes. The baby boomers loudly complained about rule by the old when they were young. They were a large enough group to be heard and noticed. If my GenX generation complained, we were ignored. Today, GenZ and Millenials combined are resenting the Boomers and the Silents and they have the demographic weight to possibly change things.
This is not a new issue. I remember Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond dying in office at advanced ages. Congress has tended to be an old age home because states and districts profit from returning senior members to represent them.
I just don't think its a problem if congress people rely largely on staff the way it is if a president does it.
I'm curious to see whether limits can be set in place when it is in the interest of serving representatives and senators to not have such limits.
Within reason. I think we can all agree Feinsteinn was well past retirement age. Congress people still need to have the wherewithal to make critical decisions and set priorities for staff.
I just don't think its a problem if congress people rely largely on staff the way it is if a president does it.
Within reason. I think we can all agree Feinsteinn was well past retirement age. Congress people still need to have the wherewithal to make critical decisions and set priorities for staff.
Feinstein was a very different situation. As I said elsewhere, I agree with @habituallytired that Congress members should be required to hold debates and town halls. If you can't speak fluently...
Feinstein was a very different situation.
As I said elsewhere, I agree with @habituallytired that Congress members should be required to hold debates and town halls. If you can't speak fluently you should be taken out of office and replaced
That last requirement is a nasty monkeypaw where Congress just pumps the eligibility up 20 years. Hard fix it at 65, can be evaluated in 40 years if medical science has improved the status quo by...
That last requirement is a nasty monkeypaw where Congress just pumps the eligibility up 20 years.
Hard fix it at 65, can be evaluated in 40 years if medical science has improved the status quo by then.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have accomplished great things post 65 though. I could be convinced to set it at 72 for congress, 60 for the president.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have accomplished great things post 65 though. I could be convinced to set it at 72 for congress, 60 for the president.
They have, but they're kind of the exception that proves the rule. Out of 100 Senators, 47 are over 65. Out 118/435 in the house. So about 30% of the federal representation is over the age where...
They have, but they're kind of the exception that proves the rule. Out of 100 Senators, 47 are over 65.
Out 118/435 in the house. So about 30% of the federal representation is over the age where we expect most people to retire.
No wonder. To them, their worldview is mostly locked in the 1980s, the way that the world will perpetually be locked in circa 2008 for me.
University professors frequently work into their 80s. There is a special status in law firms called 'of counsel' for members who are older and want to work and contribute but carry a lighter load....
University professors frequently work into their 80s. There is a special status in law firms called 'of counsel' for members who are older and want to work and contribute but carry a lighter load. In the federal courts, there are retired judges who take a certain number of cases per year because they want to and the system is overloaded.
My father is one of many people who consults part time in the field he retired from.
65 or even younger is an important retirement age for people whose work is strenuous or exhausting but that is far from the entire work force.
I've been taught by 70-something year old professors who were sharper and more capable than the average person has been in their entire life. I'm really not for the recent rash of ageism when it...
I've been taught by 70-something year old professors who were sharper and more capable than the average person has been in their entire life.
I'm really not for the recent rash of ageism when it comes to politics. If it's illegal to discriminate by age in an ordinary workplace by age, then the same standard should be applied to political office.
We already have a simple means of removing people who are no longer fit for office: voting. If people are electing bad choices, that's an indictment of democracy as a fundamental concept and not an indication that we need more complex rules for candidacy.
Air traffic controllers are required to retire at a certain age. I believe a lot of companies have age caps for CEO. They certainly used to. I distinguish between type of job when it comes to the...
Air traffic controllers are required to retire at a certain age.
I believe a lot of companies have age caps for CEO. They certainly used to.
I distinguish between type of job when it comes to the idea of an age cap.
University professors, 'of counsel' lawyers, aged-out consultants, and a couple of retired judges don't make sweeping policy decisions that affect 330Million+ people. A few still sharp aged...
University professors, 'of counsel' lawyers, aged-out consultants, and a couple of retired judges don't make sweeping policy decisions that affect 330Million+ people. A few still sharp aged individual exceptions to the rule doesn't make for a good case to not have age limits. 47% of senators are well past their prime and aren't accomplishing the great things that Sanders and Warren have. Setting the rules to keep around the 2% that don't suck, but as a result also protects the 45% that do seems a terrible trade.
We don't allow minors to make the decisions of adults because it's well understood they don't have the full mental faculties to do so, cognitive decline is well established with age. It's not ageism to want to put a stop to the vast majority of well past their prime politicians that cling to power because they have nothing better to do than to force legislation about things they don't understand and write laws to ensure they aren't prosecuted for the many things that are illegal for the rest of us like insider trading.
Only relying on voting to remove from office requires a system that is fair and balanced, something our very flawed democracy does not feature.
@boxer_dogs_dance as well so I don't have to type more than one reply
It's also widely accepted that intelligence/mental acuity follows a normal distribution across the population, so if cognition is the issue, why are we discriminating by age and not attempting to...
It's also widely accepted that intelligence/mental acuity follows a normal distribution across the population, so if cognition is the issue, why are we discriminating by age and not attempting to quantify and test the desired capability? (Instead of literally excluding a protected class from representation.) We do have copious tests, with different trade-offs, for things like memory and spatial reasoning.
I'll take a 70 year old who peaked at an IQ over 120, rather than a middle aged median person any day, and certainly over someone under the median.
I'm also not opposed to rescinding the minimum age. I'd prefer a tiered system where experience in lower offices is required to run for higher offices. No presidency unless you serve in the House or Senate first.
Both race and age are protected classes under the law, so an age limit excluding a protected class would be no different, just arguably less accurate in its aim. Historically misused but specific...
Both race and age are protected classes under the law, so an age limit excluding a protected class would be no different, just arguably less accurate in its aim.
Historically misused but specific in goal or directly discriminatory and less accurate? Or, there's always the third option of "neither, let voters choose who they want."
I don't understand what you mean about an exclusion... There wouldn't be any additional exclusions against an age limit. Because an age limit doesn't discriminate against being black (setting...
I don't understand what you mean about an exclusion... There wouldn't be any additional exclusions against an age limit. Because an age limit doesn't discriminate against being black (setting aside systemic issues people wealthy enough to run for president don't deal with).
Historically misused but specific in goal or directly discriminatory and less accurate
Yes. Both. Also because we have no accurate and unbiased method for determining these now, as others touched on.
I'd like to direct you to the BFOQ. The Biden/Trump debate is all the evidence that I need to justify 65 as a BFOQ requirement for making judgements for an entire nation.
Because a flat age limit is a lot harder to game (from either side) versus either a psychological evaluation that is going to have a subjective element to it, or a battery of reasoning tests where...
Because a flat age limit is a lot harder to game (from either side) versus either a psychological evaluation that is going to have a subjective element to it, or a battery of reasoning tests where a potential candidate may be brilliant in some categories, but not others.
Yea, it's not to say that older people are not capable, rather 'what is the impact if it turns out they are not.' We don't want 70 year old presidents for the similiar reasons we don't want 18...
Yea, it's not to say that older people are not capable, rather 'what is the impact if it turns out they are not.'
We don't want 70 year old presidents for the similiar reasons we don't want 18 year old presidents. I'm sure there are plenty of 18 year olds who would be capable, but on average the risk is high.
In the end, it doesn't matter as much if a CEO clings to his post to the ripe old age of 110 with a raging case of dementia, because their impact is relatively small compared to having nuclear launch codes.
Specifically re the presidency I am not sure it is. Also my grandfather was forcibly retired from his company in an era when those policies were common
Specifically re the presidency I am not sure it is.
Also my grandfather was forcibly retired from his company in an era when those policies were common
For the presidency I can perhaps see an argument for more restrictive age limits (though I'm still skeptical that 65 is the most reasonable choice) but given that the current article is about a...
For the presidency I can perhaps see an argument for more restrictive age limits (though I'm still skeptical that 65 is the most reasonable choice) but given that the current article is about a member of Congress, I don't think it's clear that people calling for an age limit of 65 here are referring exclusively to the presidency.
I don't think that mandatory retirement from employment at a certain age (which already isn't really a thing in the US these days afaik) is equivalent to removing someone's ability to hold public office. They have completely different incentives imo.
65 as the limit for being on the ballot. So a senator would be in office until 71. 65 is the threshold where stroke and dementia risk starts increasing dramatically. Plus, if they are actually...
65 as the limit for being on the ballot. So a senator would be in office until 71.
65 is the threshold where stroke and dementia risk starts increasing dramatically.
Plus, if they are actually good at doing their jobs, there are plenty of other avenues they could continue to do so.
I'm not remotely convinced that 65 is a sensible place to set an age limit if one were put into place, and I don't think "it's when a risk starts increasing" is a good enough justification for...
I'm not remotely convinced that 65 is a sensible place to set an age limit if one were put into place, and I don't think "it's when a risk starts increasing" is a good enough justification for that when the consequence is removing a very fundamental democratic right.
I don't know how fundamental a democratic right that is, especially when we're largely talking here about people who already have had the chance to hold public office. They can still vote like...
I don't know how fundamental a democratic right that is, especially when we're largely talking here about people who already have had the chance to hold public office. They can still vote like everyone else (I don't think I missed anyone calling for an upper age limit on voting, anyway I don't support one).
The average age for a stroke is 71. Lower for men, higher for women. While I know that a stroke does not make one utterly incapable the way dementia does, I do know that it precludes doing one's...
The average age for a stroke is 71. Lower for men, higher for women. While I know that a stroke does not make one utterly incapable the way dementia does, I do know that it precludes doing one's job in a full capacity, one that we should expect from elected officials.
Part of the reason that I'm perfectly fine with this limit is that the total sum of people affected is less 600. More than half of whom are millionaires.
I'd like to call this age limit the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" rule.
TBH I'm fully in favor of forced retirement from the workforce at 65 across the board. Fulfillment can come in the form of volunteering or spending time with family. But I also acknowledge that is a pretty extreme stance, one that I don't expect to build support for anytime soon.
I think the majority of people calling for age limits for public office want them to apply across the board. I only want them for executive positions like the presidency and governors.
I think the majority of people calling for age limits for public office want them to apply across the board.
I only want them for executive positions like the presidency and governors.
Out of curiosity, what do you think a reasonable age limit would be? I've added some of my own thoughts on it below after asking you a question which is annoying of me. Feel free to disregard,...
Out of curiosity, what do you think a reasonable age limit would be?
I've added some of my own thoughts on it below after asking you a question which is annoying of me. Feel free to disregard, it's just been an eye opening holiday season.
I've spent the holidays with my parents (71 and 72 respectively) and boy howdy this is the first year I've felt like they are "old". My dad is starting to lose words. My mom is getting tired when we're out past 5pm. Like, true old people stuff. It's been really jarring. I know everyone ages differently, and a limit would effect folks that I think are still incredibly with it - like Bernie Sanders - but man watching aging first hand really has me questioning the capabilities of our representatives. I think they would be invaluable as advisors and support, and there is no need to put limits on that. And all of that without taking into consideration their sometimes problematic view points and perspectives on racial, gendered, or other more modern discussions.
I don't feel like I really have the expertise to solidly determine what a good age limit would be from any actual scientific evidence, and as a result I would err on the side of only limiting the...
I don't feel like I really have the expertise to solidly determine what a good age limit would be from any actual scientific evidence, and as a result I would err on the side of only limiting the very old. So I would set the limit somewhere around 80 at the lowest. This would absolutely not filter out every person with any cognitive decline, but that's more or less impossible with age limits anyway (after all, Fetterman exists). I think it would still be an improvement over the current system, as the most egregious examples are over that age, while limiting the rights of fewer people than a younger age limit would -- I think a policy like this should try to avoid unnecessary false positives as much as it can. I'm hesitant around age limits pretty generally, and I don't think I'm that abnormal when you consider the range opinions the general US populace would have about them. So I also think an age limit that rules out the extremes is also simply more practical than "retirees can't run for office" in terms of actually getting implemented without backlash. Frankly, I think even my high age limit version would be extremely hard to actually get passed into legislation.
My dad just turned 65 this month, and he's definitely doing great cognitively. We have quite different politics (he's a former Reaganite turned centrist Democrat, whereas I'm a Marxist), but he's more cognitively capable of holding public office than I am imo. He's also a lawyer and is unlikely to retire anytime soon (unless my parents are really misleading me about their financial circumstances). Age-related cognitive decline is extremely variable, so it's hard to say when exactly any individual is guaranteed to suffer from its effects. Maybe he'll be like your parents in five years, maybe he'll be just as sharp as he is now, maybe he'll be dead.
Those are great points - it's hard to find a balance. I think if we could find a way to redistribute power away from the oldest folks that might help. Maybe terming out seniority positions within...
Those are great points - it's hard to find a balance. I think if we could find a way to redistribute power away from the oldest folks that might help. Maybe terming out seniority positions within parties. But I don't know.
On your parent's front, I hope they have a long runway ahead of them! I was surprised by my dad, he's played soccer 3 times a week my whole life, so watching the physical and mental stuff has been weird. Literally only in the last year. It all kicked off with a knee replacement. Mom's stuff kicked off from AFIB diagnosis of her heart. Literally 2 years ago they were both working, doing intense-ish activities, and seemed like my parents always had. Sorry, I think I'm just externally processing. :)
Yeah honestly I think term limits are probably a more effective way to ensure there's less entrenched power in the hands of the very old in Congress, if that's the goal. Probably nothing as...
Yeah honestly I think term limits are probably a more effective way to ensure there's less entrenched power in the hands of the very old in Congress, if that's the goal. Probably nothing as restrictive as for the president, but it would be valuable to have something.
And every single one that votes to do so is out of office the next term, assuming they don't get Luigi'd for having the gall to even attempt such, and it's reversed with all those that replaced them.
That last requirement is a nasty monkeypaw where Congress just pumps the eligibility up 20 years.
And every single one that votes to do so is out of office the next term, assuming they don't get Luigi'd for having the gall to even attempt such, and it's reversed with all those that replaced them.
When the discussion around dementia tests came up a couple of years ago re the president, I saw and agreed with a proposal for a panel of ten working certified neurologists, five nominated by each...
When the discussion around dementia tests came up a couple of years ago re the president, I saw and agreed with a proposal for a panel of ten working certified neurologists, five nominated by each party.
But that level of caution is only practical for offices at the highest level.
Proposals can be modified. We literally have people talking about packing the supreme court to get around decisions they don't like. The more complex your solution the easier it is to end around.
Proposals can be modified. We literally have people talking about packing the supreme court to get around decisions they don't like. The more complex your solution the easier it is to end around.
I agree with age limits. If we have age minimums, we should also have age maximums. I think this should be the case for any position one would run for. If you are of the age of retirement, you are...
I agree with age limits. If we have age minimums, we should also have age maximums.
I think this should be the case for any position one would run for. If you are of the age of retirement, you are no longer eligible to represent the people. Theoretically, you already completed your civic duty, and now it is time to rest.
I also strongly believe that age minimums past the age of majority are age discrimination, however, I understand why some are put in place, I just think that if you call age discrimination on those over 40, I think age discrimination should be categorized as anything regarding age. but that's a different story.
Age is orthogonal to the issue of corruption. I do want some kind of age limit, but for congress, I agree with @sparksbet and would set it at 80, so 72 to run for senator, 78 or possibly 75 to run...
Age is orthogonal to the issue of corruption.
I do want some kind of age limit, but for congress, I agree with @sparksbet and would set it at 80, so 72 to run for senator, 78 or possibly 75 to run for congress.
Getting an age cap implemented is a tough political issue. Setting it too low loses potential allies.
I would like to see the general discontent over elderly politicians sparked by feinstein and Biden and Trump result in political changes that can be lasting.
What we really want here is competence. Age isn't a measure, but mental health is. Plenty of people are active and sharp through their 70s. I know law professors who still teaching, and many smart...
What we really want here is competence. Age isn't a measure, but mental health is.
Plenty of people are active and sharp through their 70s. I know law professors who still teaching, and many smart programmers developing software, and businesspeople running companies -- all of whom are in their 80s. Let's not use ageism to remove people who still have much to give. What matters is whether the individual is capable of doing the job -- whether it's firefighting or serving in Congress.
I'm fine with independent testing of mental ability for anybody over a certain age. In fact, I think it should be part of ANY office-holder's information shared publicly, the same way we expect financial transparency.
My own transparency: I'm about to turn 67. Don't you dare tell me that I'm too old to do my job.
The problem always being, especially for people in power, it's easy to game the system and find a rubber-stamper that doesn't actually do due diligance because otherwise it risks disrupting the...
The problem always being, especially for people in power, it's easy to game the system and find a rubber-stamper that doesn't actually do due diligance because otherwise it risks disrupting the status quo. Bear in mind I am an age-protected 40 myself, so I am not approaching this from a fresh 20-something nativity. I'm someone whom has already seen the glimmers of agism.
The core problem isn't one of competence. It is one of unplanned incapability when the consequences of being incapable have drastic implications when they occur. Replacing democratic representation for millions of people is a difficult process compared to, well literally almost any other position.
I have a particularly extreme stance as you might see in my other replies: I support forced retirement across the board at 65. The reasons are complex:
Not being able to earn additional income is a great incentive for building proper CoL-adjusted support networks not tied to employers.
Older staff get paid disproportionately more for the competancy they provide. A sad reality is that at a certain point, we all hit diminishing returns on the value of additional competence. But CoL raises get exponentially higher.
The longer you remain, the harder it is to pass the torch. Some places are far worse at it than others, but institutional knowledge cliffs hurt. Having a fixed retirement age also means being able to set fixed transition plans.
There is plenty of other ways to contribute outside the paid economy while making way for everyone else for seeking fulfillment. Name your job and state, and I can name hundreds of places that would be ecstatic to get your help for free, but can't afford it otherwise. The local library alone would love for you to come and offer free classes on any hobby or profession every week. Which would almost certainly help the world more than anything most people do at their regular job.
In the end, I don't see my vision coming to fruition anytime approaching the present, and it certainly would be a cruel one to mandate retirement without the other systems better established first.
I think beyond mental fitness, there is an argument that many of the old guard senators are chronically out of touch. We saw this recently with Nancy Pelosi whipping opposition to AOC's...
I think beyond mental fitness, there is an argument that many of the old guard senators are chronically out of touch. We saw this recently with Nancy Pelosi whipping opposition to AOC's appointment to chair the Judiciary Committee. We don't need another seat being given up by a sexagenarian and given to a septuagenarian. It's time for age limits. If they wanted to make change they had decades to do it.
We recently had a municipal planning commissioner step down from his role because, i quote "You need to know when you're just not keeping up anymore. I'm still mentally there but I just don't understand where we are at culturally. It's time for your generation to lead because the choices we make will effect you, not me." For someone who was difficult at the best of times it was a fresh, admirable take. I wish some of our federal level politicians could make a similar decision.
Agreed - I'm not really confident in the idea of age limits as a way of assuming a level of mental decline, I think that's tricky to do well and it admits a whole host of discriminatory arguments...
Agreed - I'm not really confident in the idea of age limits as a way of assuming a level of mental decline, I think that's tricky to do well and it admits a whole host of discriminatory arguments that extend beyond just age even if done well. But I think as a policy we should not want people to accumulate power and influence for such a long time. An age limit is a good way to ensure that young (or even middle-aged!) people with fresh perspectives actually get the chance to wield power and shape the future on the public's behalf, and to prevent our government's policies being shaped by a past that is long gone and poorly remembered anyway. But it's also a good way to ensure that nobody can get too powerful simply by playing the game for a long time. Like wealth, political power is something we must try to distribute fairly, and not let become concentrated in people or dynasties. It's not a personal possession. It is not a reward or a prize. Its exercise is a duty.
You are right, but the problem is that "measuring mental decline" is going to be a subjective process that people can corrupt. Age is "objective". On the other points, I do agree with you.
I'm not really confident in the idea of age limits as a way of assuming a level of mental decline, I think that's tricky to do well and it admits a whole host of discriminatory arguments that extend beyond just age even if done well.
You are right, but the problem is that "measuring mental decline" is going to be a subjective process that people can corrupt. Age is "objective". On the other points, I do agree with you.
Out of touch is such an optimistic view. I don’t get why people can easily point out that the opposition has a bunch of haggard ancient power hungry lich puppets who’s strings are pulled by...
Out of touch is such an optimistic view.
I don’t get why people can easily point out that the opposition has a bunch of haggard ancient power hungry lich puppets who’s strings are pulled by corporate interests but someone pelosi whipping against AOC (who I’m not even a huge fan of) ,from her hospital bed, is just out of touch.
The donor overlap between the parties is grossly concerning and Pelosi originally ran on “we need these old out of touch people out of office”.
Ironically I don’t think it’s malice or conspiracy so much as ego and arrogance (see RBG) but they are absolutely power hungry and need to go.
well, you see the real reasons for the contradictions you point out in the first paragraph. Follow the money, and see what the demographic makeup of that money is. And even if we got rid of that,...
The donor overlap between the parties is grossly concerning and Pelosi originally ran on “we need these old out of touch people out of office”.
well, you see the real reasons for the contradictions you point out in the first paragraph. Follow the money, and see what the demographic makeup of that money is. And even if we got rid of that, look at the age makeup of who votes.
It's not even malice at the voter level. Those older voters are just voting in what they think are their best interest.
Oh, absolutely, I think I treaded too lightly. There are a crazy amount of conflicts of interest, financial incentives, and generally fuckery. Absolutely right! Aaaand, they out of touch. Good...
Oh, absolutely, I think I treaded too lightly. There are a crazy amount of conflicts of interest, financial incentives, and generally fuckery. Absolutely right! Aaaand, they out of touch. Good call out!
For representatives and senators, I would prefer a requirement that debates and townhalls be held at regular intervals, to give the public a chance to assess how well they are doing mentally.
For representatives and senators, I would prefer a requirement that debates and townhalls be held at regular intervals, to give the public a chance to assess how well they are doing mentally.
I think it should be a requirement of the job that they hold at least one monthly town hall and answer any and all questions from their constituents, whether they be virtual or in person. They...
I think it should be a requirement of the job that they hold at least one monthly town hall and answer any and all questions from their constituents, whether they be virtual or in person. They should not be allowed to pre-screen questions either.
I would be happy with something in the ball park of your proposal. I'm not going to quibble if it's eight weeks or quarterly, but regular public interactions that demonstrate whether you can still...
I would be happy with something in the ball park of your proposal. I'm not going to quibble if it's eight weeks or quarterly, but regular public interactions that demonstrate whether you can still perform should be required
I think it will hold them accountable that they're still competent, but also that they are actually listening to their constituents and are actively choosing to vote against their constituents'...
I think it will hold them accountable that they're still competent, but also that they are actually listening to their constituents and are actively choosing to vote against their constituents' wishes.
Obviously, the other thing we need to do is kill Citizen's United, and any other laws that allow congress people to take money from corporations.
My biggest concern with constituent engagement is the most overly involved constituents can be extremely different from those that are too time poor to attend town halls etc. Town halls are great...
My biggest concern with constituent engagement is the most overly involved constituents can be extremely different from those that are too time poor to attend town halls etc. Town halls are great media events, but they're not unbiased surveys of community opinion.
Holy shit, this 100%. We have the same 3-5 people zoom in to comment on EVERY SINGLE AGENDA ITEM for every single meeting. Because of the 3 minute comment limit, it means I hear from each of these...
Holy shit, this 100%. We have the same 3-5 people zoom in to comment on EVERY SINGLE AGENDA ITEM for every single meeting. Because of the 3 minute comment limit, it means I hear from each of these people anywhere 18-30 minutes at every fucking meeting. They all say the exact same thing and laud the other commenters. They are all retired. All conservative. And will not be missed when they pass. They managed to torpedo a new skatepark that had the funding earmarked, the location picked, and saw 150 people come in to the planning and city council meeting to speak in favor. They are the bane of my existence!
They are persistent. They take legal action against developments. They pay to pull permits for review. They sue to stall. In that case, they had quickly planted 25 new trees in the proposed...
They are persistent. They take legal action against developments. They pay to pull permits for review. They sue to stall. In that case, they had quickly planted 25 new trees in the proposed location through their friends on the Natural Resources and Beautification Committee and said that if removed the city would have to plant 2 for every 1 they removed as per city code. And sued for an updated EIR. The total cost of the proposed project would have doubled and the city had $150,000 for the construction, not $300,000. They are assholes.
well they need to screen some questions, especially on a virtual townhall. I do agree they shouldn't only get away with softball questions, but I can understand why a rep may not want to bother...
They should not be allowed to pre-screen questions either.
well they need to screen some questions, especially on a virtual townhall. I do agree they shouldn't only get away with softball questions, but I can understand why a rep may not want to bother knowing what a Hawk Tuah is, let alone a need to ban/cancel it (which they don't have the power to do anyway).
I don't want term limits, I want age caps and health disclosures. Any term limit cap that is actually effective against ancient leaders punishes younger ones more.
64 as the max age to be eligible for a national-level ballot. Thus the oldest rep could be no more than 71.
More so than age, I want minimal accountability for what my reps are doing, or not doing.
I don't get paid if I don't show up for work . I don't care if it's extreme paragliding or dementia either.
I am indifferent to the age of Congress but would back dementia tests.
I am however a strong proponent of age caps for the president. It's a different type of job that demands vigor, stamina, charisma, mental flexibility to perform well among other characteristics.
The issue with tests is they're just going to have a cache of doctors that give them a favorable result to remain in power.
Age limit gives it a simple and easy to understand line upon which they cannot cross. While not applicable, and we can debate that as well, to federal judges, many states have mandatory retirement ages for many judicial seats. There's no reason there shouldn't be the same for every political position.
We've got this dementia-raddled rep bogarting a seat she never even uses from a nursing home. We've got crypt-keeper Pelosi pulling strings behind the curtain, from a hospital bed, to get a cancer-laden one-foot-in-the-grave rep pushed into place because she can't stand the idea of a young woman overshadowing her.
Once you're eligible for Social Security and/or Medicare, you no longer are eligible to run for office. Finish your current term and enjoy retirement, the country needs to move on from you.
Many people right now are asserting this. I think some of the reason is demographic changes. The baby boomers loudly complained about rule by the old when they were young. They were a large enough group to be heard and noticed. If my GenX generation complained, we were ignored. Today, GenZ and Millenials combined are resenting the Boomers and the Silents and they have the demographic weight to possibly change things.
This is not a new issue. I remember Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond dying in office at advanced ages. Congress has tended to be an old age home because states and districts profit from returning senior members to represent them.
I just don't think its a problem if congress people rely largely on staff the way it is if a president does it.
I'm curious to see whether limits can be set in place when it is in the interest of serving representatives and senators to not have such limits.
Within reason. I think we can all agree Feinsteinn was well past retirement age. Congress people still need to have the wherewithal to make critical decisions and set priorities for staff.
Feinstein was a very different situation.
As I said elsewhere, I agree with @habituallytired that Congress members should be required to hold debates and town halls. If you can't speak fluently you should be taken out of office and replaced
That last requirement is a nasty monkeypaw where Congress just pumps the eligibility up 20 years.
Hard fix it at 65, can be evaluated in 40 years if medical science has improved the status quo by then.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have accomplished great things post 65 though. I could be convinced to set it at 72 for congress, 60 for the president.
They have, but they're kind of the exception that proves the rule. Out of 100 Senators, 47 are over 65.
Out 118/435 in the house. So about 30% of the federal representation is over the age where we expect most people to retire.
No wonder. To them, their worldview is mostly locked in the 1980s, the way that the world will perpetually be locked in circa 2008 for me.
University professors frequently work into their 80s. There is a special status in law firms called 'of counsel' for members who are older and want to work and contribute but carry a lighter load. In the federal courts, there are retired judges who take a certain number of cases per year because they want to and the system is overloaded.
My father is one of many people who consults part time in the field he retired from.
65 or even younger is an important retirement age for people whose work is strenuous or exhausting but that is far from the entire work force.
I've been taught by 70-something year old professors who were sharper and more capable than the average person has been in their entire life.
I'm really not for the recent rash of ageism when it comes to politics. If it's illegal to discriminate by age in an ordinary workplace by age, then the same standard should be applied to political office.
We already have a simple means of removing people who are no longer fit for office: voting. If people are electing bad choices, that's an indictment of democracy as a fundamental concept and not an indication that we need more complex rules for candidacy.
Air traffic controllers are required to retire at a certain age.
I believe a lot of companies have age caps for CEO. They certainly used to.
I distinguish between type of job when it comes to the idea of an age cap.
University professors, 'of counsel' lawyers, aged-out consultants, and a couple of retired judges don't make sweeping policy decisions that affect 330Million+ people. A few still sharp aged individual exceptions to the rule doesn't make for a good case to not have age limits. 47% of senators are well past their prime and aren't accomplishing the great things that Sanders and Warren have. Setting the rules to keep around the 2% that don't suck, but as a result also protects the 45% that do seems a terrible trade.
We don't allow minors to make the decisions of adults because it's well understood they don't have the full mental faculties to do so, cognitive decline is well established with age. It's not ageism to want to put a stop to the vast majority of well past their prime politicians that cling to power because they have nothing better to do than to force legislation about things they don't understand and write laws to ensure they aren't prosecuted for the many things that are illegal for the rest of us like insider trading.
Only relying on voting to remove from office requires a system that is fair and balanced, something our very flawed democracy does not feature.
@boxer_dogs_dance as well so I don't have to type more than one reply
It's also widely accepted that intelligence/mental acuity follows a normal distribution across the population, so if cognition is the issue, why are we discriminating by age and not attempting to quantify and test the desired capability? (Instead of literally excluding a protected class from representation.) We do have copious tests, with different trade-offs, for things like memory and spatial reasoning.
I'll take a 70 year old who peaked at an IQ over 120, rather than a middle aged median person any day, and certainly over someone under the median.
I'm also not opposed to rescinding the minimum age. I'd prefer a tiered system where experience in lower offices is required to run for higher offices. No presidency unless you serve in the House or Senate first.
One major reason is that IQ tests have a history of being used to discriminate against people of color.
Both race and age are protected classes under the law, so an age limit excluding a protected class would be no different, just arguably less accurate in its aim.
Historically misused but specific in goal or directly discriminatory and less accurate? Or, there's always the third option of "neither, let voters choose who they want."
I don't understand what you mean about an exclusion... There wouldn't be any additional exclusions against an age limit. Because an age limit doesn't discriminate against being black (setting aside systemic issues people wealthy enough to run for president don't deal with).
Yes. Both. Also because we have no accurate and unbiased method for determining these now, as others touched on.
I'd like to direct you to the BFOQ. The Biden/Trump debate is all the evidence that I need to justify 65 as a BFOQ requirement for making judgements for an entire nation.
Because a flat age limit is a lot harder to game (from either side) versus either a psychological evaluation that is going to have a subjective element to it, or a battery of reasoning tests where a potential candidate may be brilliant in some categories, but not others.
Yea, it's not to say that older people are not capable, rather 'what is the impact if it turns out they are not.'
We don't want 70 year old presidents for the similiar reasons we don't want 18 year old presidents. I'm sure there are plenty of 18 year olds who would be capable, but on average the risk is high.
In the end, it doesn't matter as much if a CEO clings to his post to the ripe old age of 110 with a raging case of dementia, because their impact is relatively small compared to having nuclear launch codes.
I'm not necessarily against some sort of age limit, but 65 is FAR too young for such a limit by almost metric.
Specifically re the presidency I am not sure it is.
Also my grandfather was forcibly retired from his company in an era when those policies were common
For the presidency I can perhaps see an argument for more restrictive age limits (though I'm still skeptical that 65 is the most reasonable choice) but given that the current article is about a member of Congress, I don't think it's clear that people calling for an age limit of 65 here are referring exclusively to the presidency.
I don't think that mandatory retirement from employment at a certain age (which already isn't really a thing in the US these days afaik) is equivalent to removing someone's ability to hold public office. They have completely different incentives imo.
65 as the limit for being on the ballot. So a senator would be in office until 71.
65 is the threshold where stroke and dementia risk starts increasing dramatically.
Plus, if they are actually good at doing their jobs, there are plenty of other avenues they could continue to do so.
I'm not remotely convinced that 65 is a sensible place to set an age limit if one were put into place, and I don't think "it's when a risk starts increasing" is a good enough justification for that when the consequence is removing a very fundamental democratic right.
I don't know how fundamental a democratic right that is, especially when we're largely talking here about people who already have had the chance to hold public office. They can still vote like everyone else (I don't think I missed anyone calling for an upper age limit on voting, anyway I don't support one).
The average age for a stroke is 71. Lower for men, higher for women. While I know that a stroke does not make one utterly incapable the way dementia does, I do know that it precludes doing one's job in a full capacity, one that we should expect from elected officials.
Part of the reason that I'm perfectly fine with this limit is that the total sum of people affected is less 600. More than half of whom are millionaires.
I'd like to call this age limit the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" rule.
TBH I'm fully in favor of forced retirement from the workforce at 65 across the board. Fulfillment can come in the form of volunteering or spending time with family. But I also acknowledge that is a pretty extreme stance, one that I don't expect to build support for anytime soon.
I think the majority of people calling for age limits for public office want them to apply across the board.
I only want them for executive positions like the presidency and governors.
Out of curiosity, what do you think a reasonable age limit would be?
I've added some of my own thoughts on it below after asking you a question which is annoying of me. Feel free to disregard, it's just been an eye opening holiday season.
I've spent the holidays with my parents (71 and 72 respectively) and boy howdy this is the first year I've felt like they are "old". My dad is starting to lose words. My mom is getting tired when we're out past 5pm. Like, true old people stuff. It's been really jarring. I know everyone ages differently, and a limit would effect folks that I think are still incredibly with it - like Bernie Sanders - but man watching aging first hand really has me questioning the capabilities of our representatives. I think they would be invaluable as advisors and support, and there is no need to put limits on that. And all of that without taking into consideration their sometimes problematic view points and perspectives on racial, gendered, or other more modern discussions.
I don't feel like I really have the expertise to solidly determine what a good age limit would be from any actual scientific evidence, and as a result I would err on the side of only limiting the very old. So I would set the limit somewhere around 80 at the lowest. This would absolutely not filter out every person with any cognitive decline, but that's more or less impossible with age limits anyway (after all, Fetterman exists). I think it would still be an improvement over the current system, as the most egregious examples are over that age, while limiting the rights of fewer people than a younger age limit would -- I think a policy like this should try to avoid unnecessary false positives as much as it can. I'm hesitant around age limits pretty generally, and I don't think I'm that abnormal when you consider the range opinions the general US populace would have about them. So I also think an age limit that rules out the extremes is also simply more practical than "retirees can't run for office" in terms of actually getting implemented without backlash. Frankly, I think even my high age limit version would be extremely hard to actually get passed into legislation.
My dad just turned 65 this month, and he's definitely doing great cognitively. We have quite different politics (he's a former Reaganite turned centrist Democrat, whereas I'm a Marxist), but he's more cognitively capable of holding public office than I am imo. He's also a lawyer and is unlikely to retire anytime soon (unless my parents are really misleading me about their financial circumstances). Age-related cognitive decline is extremely variable, so it's hard to say when exactly any individual is guaranteed to suffer from its effects. Maybe he'll be like your parents in five years, maybe he'll be just as sharp as he is now, maybe he'll be dead.
Those are great points - it's hard to find a balance. I think if we could find a way to redistribute power away from the oldest folks that might help. Maybe terming out seniority positions within parties. But I don't know.
On your parent's front, I hope they have a long runway ahead of them! I was surprised by my dad, he's played soccer 3 times a week my whole life, so watching the physical and mental stuff has been weird. Literally only in the last year. It all kicked off with a knee replacement. Mom's stuff kicked off from AFIB diagnosis of her heart. Literally 2 years ago they were both working, doing intense-ish activities, and seemed like my parents always had. Sorry, I think I'm just externally processing. :)
Yeah honestly I think term limits are probably a more effective way to ensure there's less entrenched power in the hands of the very old in Congress, if that's the goal. Probably nothing as restrictive as for the president, but it would be valuable to have something.
And every single one that votes to do so is out of office the next term, assuming they don't get Luigi'd for having the gall to even attempt such, and it's reversed with all those that replaced them.
Tests are always a bad idea. It’s hard to fake an age, it’s easy to fake a test result
When the discussion around dementia tests came up a couple of years ago re the president, I saw and agreed with a proposal for a panel of ten working certified neurologists, five nominated by each party.
But that level of caution is only practical for offices at the highest level.
Proposals can be modified. We literally have people talking about packing the supreme court to get around decisions they don't like. The more complex your solution the easier it is to end around.
Tie it to the country's life expectancy. Give them a reason to prioritize health outcomes.
Age limits are a blunt instrument, but does seem like the most straightforward solution.
I agree with age limits. If we have age minimums, we should also have age maximums.
I think this should be the case for any position one would run for. If you are of the age of retirement, you are no longer eligible to represent the people. Theoretically, you already completed your civic duty, and now it is time to rest.
I also strongly believe that age minimums past the age of majority are age discrimination, however, I understand why some are put in place, I just think that if you call age discrimination on those over 40, I think age discrimination should be categorized as anything regarding age. but that's a different story.
Age is orthogonal to the issue of corruption.
I do want some kind of age limit, but for congress, I agree with @sparksbet and would set it at 80, so 72 to run for senator, 78 or possibly 75 to run for congress.
Getting an age cap implemented is a tough political issue. Setting it too low loses potential allies.
I would like to see the general discontent over elderly politicians sparked by feinstein and Biden and Trump result in political changes that can be lasting.
A 64 limit would prevent lots of highly competent, capable, and experient individuals from taking office. This is way too low.
What we really want here is competence. Age isn't a measure, but mental health is.
Plenty of people are active and sharp through their 70s. I know law professors who still teaching, and many smart programmers developing software, and businesspeople running companies -- all of whom are in their 80s. Let's not use ageism to remove people who still have much to give. What matters is whether the individual is capable of doing the job -- whether it's firefighting or serving in Congress.
I'm fine with independent testing of mental ability for anybody over a certain age. In fact, I think it should be part of ANY office-holder's information shared publicly, the same way we expect financial transparency.
My own transparency: I'm about to turn 67. Don't you dare tell me that I'm too old to do my job.
The problem always being, especially for people in power, it's easy to game the system and find a rubber-stamper that doesn't actually do due diligance because otherwise it risks disrupting the status quo. Bear in mind I am an age-protected 40 myself, so I am not approaching this from a fresh 20-something nativity. I'm someone whom has already seen the glimmers of agism.
The core problem isn't one of competence. It is one of unplanned incapability when the consequences of being incapable have drastic implications when they occur. Replacing democratic representation for millions of people is a difficult process compared to, well literally almost any other position.
I have a particularly extreme stance as you might see in my other replies: I support forced retirement across the board at 65. The reasons are complex:
In the end, I don't see my vision coming to fruition anytime approaching the present, and it certainly would be a cruel one to mandate retirement without the other systems better established first.
I think beyond mental fitness, there is an argument that many of the old guard senators are chronically out of touch. We saw this recently with Nancy Pelosi whipping opposition to AOC's appointment to chair the Judiciary Committee. We don't need another seat being given up by a sexagenarian and given to a septuagenarian. It's time for age limits. If they wanted to make change they had decades to do it.
We recently had a municipal planning commissioner step down from his role because, i quote "You need to know when you're just not keeping up anymore. I'm still mentally there but I just don't understand where we are at culturally. It's time for your generation to lead because the choices we make will effect you, not me." For someone who was difficult at the best of times it was a fresh, admirable take. I wish some of our federal level politicians could make a similar decision.
Agreed - I'm not really confident in the idea of age limits as a way of assuming a level of mental decline, I think that's tricky to do well and it admits a whole host of discriminatory arguments that extend beyond just age even if done well. But I think as a policy we should not want people to accumulate power and influence for such a long time. An age limit is a good way to ensure that young (or even middle-aged!) people with fresh perspectives actually get the chance to wield power and shape the future on the public's behalf, and to prevent our government's policies being shaped by a past that is long gone and poorly remembered anyway. But it's also a good way to ensure that nobody can get too powerful simply by playing the game for a long time. Like wealth, political power is something we must try to distribute fairly, and not let become concentrated in people or dynasties. It's not a personal possession. It is not a reward or a prize. Its exercise is a duty.
You are right, but the problem is that "measuring mental decline" is going to be a subjective process that people can corrupt. Age is "objective". On the other points, I do agree with you.
Out of touch is such an optimistic view.
I don’t get why people can easily point out that the opposition has a bunch of haggard ancient power hungry lich puppets who’s strings are pulled by corporate interests but someone pelosi whipping against AOC (who I’m not even a huge fan of) ,from her hospital bed, is just out of touch.
The donor overlap between the parties is grossly concerning and Pelosi originally ran on “we need these old out of touch people out of office”.
Ironically I don’t think it’s malice or conspiracy so much as ego and arrogance (see RBG) but they are absolutely power hungry and need to go.
well, you see the real reasons for the contradictions you point out in the first paragraph. Follow the money, and see what the demographic makeup of that money is. And even if we got rid of that, look at the age makeup of who votes.
It's not even malice at the voter level. Those older voters are just voting in what they think are their best interest.
Oh, absolutely, I think I treaded too lightly. There are a crazy amount of conflicts of interest, financial incentives, and generally fuckery. Absolutely right! Aaaand, they out of touch. Good call out!
Age is orthogonal to corruption. Not every young politician is an idealist and some that are idealists want to bring back undemocratic systems.
For representatives and senators, I would prefer a requirement that debates and townhalls be held at regular intervals, to give the public a chance to assess how well they are doing mentally.
I think it should be a requirement of the job that they hold at least one monthly town hall and answer any and all questions from their constituents, whether they be virtual or in person. They should not be allowed to pre-screen questions either.
I would be happy with something in the ball park of your proposal. I'm not going to quibble if it's eight weeks or quarterly, but regular public interactions that demonstrate whether you can still perform should be required
I think it will hold them accountable that they're still competent, but also that they are actually listening to their constituents and are actively choosing to vote against their constituents' wishes.
Obviously, the other thing we need to do is kill Citizen's United, and any other laws that allow congress people to take money from corporations.
My biggest concern with constituent engagement is the most overly involved constituents can be extremely different from those that are too time poor to attend town halls etc. Town halls are great media events, but they're not unbiased surveys of community opinion.
This Parks and Rec clip sums up many a community meeting: https://youtu.be/areUGfOHkMA
Holy shit, this 100%. We have the same 3-5 people zoom in to comment on EVERY SINGLE AGENDA ITEM for every single meeting. Because of the 3 minute comment limit, it means I hear from each of these people anywhere 18-30 minutes at every fucking meeting. They all say the exact same thing and laud the other commenters. They are all retired. All conservative. And will not be missed when they pass. They managed to torpedo a new skatepark that had the funding earmarked, the location picked, and saw 150 people come in to the planning and city council meeting to speak in favor. They are the bane of my existence!
How did 3-5 people tank it when 150 people spoke in support?
They are persistent. They take legal action against developments. They pay to pull permits for review. They sue to stall. In that case, they had quickly planted 25 new trees in the proposed location through their friends on the Natural Resources and Beautification Committee and said that if removed the city would have to plant 2 for every 1 they removed as per city code. And sued for an updated EIR. The total cost of the proposed project would have doubled and the city had $150,000 for the construction, not $300,000. They are assholes.
well they need to screen some questions, especially on a virtual townhall. I do agree they shouldn't only get away with softball questions, but I can understand why a rep may not want to bother knowing what a Hawk Tuah is, let alone a need to ban/cancel it (which they don't have the power to do anyway).