The pool of candidates capable of enacting generational change is much broader and more pragmatic than the folks serving now — and it isn’t limited to progressives.
We need the enthusiasm and new ideas of youth, and the wisdom and historical memory of age. And a pragmatic "do what can be done now" attitude of everyone.
One good reason for older citizens to be decision makers is that they have lived and hopefully learned from their mistakes and other person's mistakes. I believe that younger generations bring enthusiasm, vitality, and often healthier bodies to the table but often what they propose has been tried and deemed unworkable through wisdom gained through practical experience. Again, I
believe a mixture of ages can be helpful but I would rather follow someone who has gained wisdom through practical, lived experience.
And yet age does not seem to guarantee wisdom. Witness the supposed mature adults advising Trump on the war or economy. They let him enter a no-win scnenario in Iran and on tariffs. And don't tell me he won't listen. If the smart people can't affect an imbecile's actions, then it doesn't matter how old anyone is.
If we're talking about representation, what about the gender split? That's more important to me than age. But not as many women are able to run for office, for myriad reasons. Maybe those are more crucial to our current circumstances than how long someone can get reelected.
In my case, in Oregon, both of my senators are reaching their age ceiling, yet they are the most competent representatives of my lifetime. I don't want them to leave because I believe outside candidate quality is too big a question mark. A more salient solution would be to institute an emeritus program for officials over retirement age. Keep them on in advisory positions so that we don't lose the expertise.
Arbitrary age limits for the purposes of limiting who can serve is not really a solution. Look how old Nancy Pelosi was when she left the congress. Still mentally sharp albeit older. Term limits for all public offices at every level state, federal and local is the more practical solution to this problem of overstaying their welcome so to speak. If we’re concerned about cognitive issues going into public office then we should be cognitive testing everyone not just people over 75 years old. Young adults are just as vulnerable to cognitive issues and or mental illnesses as older adults are. Even Alzheimers can occur in middle age people. If these offices are term limited from the get go then it gives people incentives to run for public office when they’re healthier and perhaps younger. It is not about age but about experience, ideas, perspectives, energy and ability to think critically and strategically.
On the gerontocracy in higher office in the USA, I start thinking about the last decade or so of the Soviet Union. Their premiers were relatively old near the end.
Leonid Brezhnev died in office in late 1982 about a month shy of his 76th birthday after an 18 year term.
Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev at age 79 and died in office after less than a year in office. (For the longest time, it seemed like he dropped off the face of the Earth. I wonder if his tenure inspired "Weekend at Bernie's")
Konstantine Chernenko succeeded Andropov at age 72 (in 1984) and died slightly over a year later.
After that, Mikhail Gorbachev, at the relatively youthful age of close to 60. He was Premier for a year and a half before resigning. The Soviet Union was soon history not long after.
Daniella, will you please talk a bit more about what this would look like? Is it north vs. south? Is it regional? Etc. Because it's hard in the Midwest when Chicago is Dem, Indiana is soo red, Ohio and Wisconsin are swing states. It's the same further out East, when Pa. is a swing state.
We have term limits.
It's called an election.
Selection by choice.
Not fiat.
We need the enthusiasm and new ideas of youth, and the wisdom and historical memory of age. And a pragmatic "do what can be done now" attitude of everyone.
One good reason for older citizens to be decision makers is that they have lived and hopefully learned from their mistakes and other person's mistakes. I believe that younger generations bring enthusiasm, vitality, and often healthier bodies to the table but often what they propose has been tried and deemed unworkable through wisdom gained through practical experience. Again, I
believe a mixture of ages can be helpful but I would rather follow someone who has gained wisdom through practical, lived experience.
And yet age does not seem to guarantee wisdom. Witness the supposed mature adults advising Trump on the war or economy. They let him enter a no-win scnenario in Iran and on tariffs. And don't tell me he won't listen. If the smart people can't affect an imbecile's actions, then it doesn't matter how old anyone is.
If we're talking about representation, what about the gender split? That's more important to me than age. But not as many women are able to run for office, for myriad reasons. Maybe those are more crucial to our current circumstances than how long someone can get reelected.
In my case, in Oregon, both of my senators are reaching their age ceiling, yet they are the most competent representatives of my lifetime. I don't want them to leave because I believe outside candidate quality is too big a question mark. A more salient solution would be to institute an emeritus program for officials over retirement age. Keep them on in advisory positions so that we don't lose the expertise.
same should be true for public boards.... all the old farts sitting on boards just to get paid making no contribution and cheating shareholders....
Arbitrary age limits for the purposes of limiting who can serve is not really a solution. Look how old Nancy Pelosi was when she left the congress. Still mentally sharp albeit older. Term limits for all public offices at every level state, federal and local is the more practical solution to this problem of overstaying their welcome so to speak. If we’re concerned about cognitive issues going into public office then we should be cognitive testing everyone not just people over 75 years old. Young adults are just as vulnerable to cognitive issues and or mental illnesses as older adults are. Even Alzheimers can occur in middle age people. If these offices are term limited from the get go then it gives people incentives to run for public office when they’re healthier and perhaps younger. It is not about age but about experience, ideas, perspectives, energy and ability to think critically and strategically.
(Nancy's still there.)
On the gerontocracy in higher office in the USA, I start thinking about the last decade or so of the Soviet Union. Their premiers were relatively old near the end.
Leonid Brezhnev died in office in late 1982 about a month shy of his 76th birthday after an 18 year term.
Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev at age 79 and died in office after less than a year in office. (For the longest time, it seemed like he dropped off the face of the Earth. I wonder if his tenure inspired "Weekend at Bernie's")
Konstantine Chernenko succeeded Andropov at age 72 (in 1984) and died slightly over a year later.
After that, Mikhail Gorbachev, at the relatively youthful age of close to 60. He was Premier for a year and a half before resigning. The Soviet Union was soon history not long after.
Absolutely corrrect! The geriatrics who chose Biden doomed us all to 8+ years of trumpi and his charlatans. Get the old folk out of the way!!
What are you talking about? The magas who voted for geriatric Trump are the ones who doomed us, sir.
Daniella, will you please talk a bit more about what this would look like? Is it north vs. south? Is it regional? Etc. Because it's hard in the Midwest when Chicago is Dem, Indiana is soo red, Ohio and Wisconsin are swing states. It's the same further out East, when Pa. is a swing state.
Nobody is going to give their all to a job that won't even last a decade.