The Constitution requires presidents be at least 35, an indication that we have long understood that lacking brain development and knowledge are disqualifying factors on the front end of the age spectrum. We should apply this logic to the other end as well.
Even though there are plenty of folks who live healthy lives longer than the statistical average (I know a woman who is 100 that is more mentally sharp than me some days), we should pick an age where the stats tend to drop off for health indicators, even if it feels a little bit arbitrary. I believe that no one should begin a term after 69, meaning the oldest serving officials would complete their terms at 71 for House members (2-year terms), 73 for presidents (4-year terms), and 75 for senators (6-year terms). For Supreme Court justices, who currently serve life terms, mandatory retirement at 75 would ensure similar protection against decline.
This wouldn't silence elder wisdom; experienced statespeople could serve as advisors, mentors, and public voices without holding the daily responsibilities of office, or leaving constituents voiceless during secret health issues. Just as importantly, it would create space for fresh perspectives in a system that currently suffocates young talent.
Leadership transitions should not be driven by crisis, yet the current system of letting leaders subjectively evaluate their own fitness creates exactly that. The cases in this article - from Granger's memory care to Biden's 'good days and bad days' - show the cost of our reluctance to set clear guardrails. My former Senator Dianne Feinstein didn't get a mention, but she was another recent example of someone who was clearly incapable of her job, surrounded by people lying to the public about her reality.
These situations force us to have icky conversations about folks in wheelchairs screaming angrily about having their photo taken - a spectacle that serves no one. Age limits would actually make politics more respectful to seniors, sparing them from public scrutiny of their decline while preserving their legacy of service.
I would love to see older senators and representatives mentor and cheer on the younger generation to rise up and serve in politics. It seems that they find it difficult to release some of their “power.”Maybe that means term limits should be considered also.
Since we have peaceful transfer of power, shouldn’t we be allowing younger people to fill these positions so they have time to learn before getting on the more prestigious committees?
I have long been in favor of a mandatory retirement age instead of term limits. Term limits, in my view, could punish those like AOC who are elected at a young age. My company has a mandatory retirement age for the CEO. Our previous CEO met this limit, and while it was sad to see him go, it allowed for a carefully planned transition to the next CEO, rather than a scramble to find a new leader. Government leaders meeting the retirement age could still mentor younger members, speak to the public on the importance of civic engagement or other topics, write books, etc, after their time in Congress is over.
We have GOT to institute an upper age limit. Timothy Patrick said it so well. I'd say you can't be over 72 at the time your term will be over to run for office. I know we're living better, longer, but these jobs are (or should be) so taxing it takes a bit more vim and vigor to manage the day-to-day. Hell, I'm 67 and some days I'd be a hindrance!
I think we need to be careful on *both* ends of the spectrum- both youth and old age have their benefits and drawbacks (I would take Grassley over Vance any day, and personally believe Connolly was a better choice than AOC!) Mental fitness should be extremely important, as is “We The People” knowing the condition of our elected representatives and I hope there are ways we can continue to make this transparency a priority and incentivize retiring when it’s the right decision.
Let’s also remember that the age groups with the largest turnout during elections- especially in non-Presidential years- is the 65+ category (followed by 45-64), who probably don’t have as much of an issue with a 75 year old being seated again…
I agree, Liz, that the issue is more about mental acuity than an actual age. The most recent four year term of Biden should serve as a wake up call for the nation! This should NEVER have been allowed to happen. His family and all others who attempted to cover up his lack of mental capacity should all be held accountable.
I am 70 years old and my husband and closest family & friends are in their 70’s & even 80’s. We have talked about this issue. We do realize that age should be a consideration. None of us have a loss of mental acuity but physically we have slowed down some. Respectfully, in that vein, I take issue with your statement “who probably don’t have as much of an issue with a 75 year old being seated again…” In my family & friends previous discussions we all believe age should be a consideration. I agree with Timothy Patrick’s comment above.
I am 62 and I have no brain issues either, but I do believe that with the Presidency or any government entity, the strains of the job itself can mentally age anyone. With the campaigning, the travel to and from DC, the mental and emotional toll on our bodies, brains, and hearts is too much for anyone, let alone the elderly.
Also, yearly well checks should be implemented for all Congress members too! Dementia can hit at any age! We count on our representatives to represent us, if they cannot, then they should be required to resign.
Respectfully, while that may be your belief/experience as a Boomer, polling data and analysis indicates younger generations are *more concerned* with the age of a candidate than older generations (though it’s still not a top concern for either); it doesn’t mean every boomer isn’t concerned and every Gen Z is concerned.
The idea that we are moving toward younger leadership is laughable. 60 and 61 are not “young” and are nearly what is considered retirement age. And I say that as a 51 year old who believes people in their 30s and 40s should have the most amount of say in our government, as it will impact them, their children, and their parents the most right now.
We have no problem saying people can’t service until 25 and 35 respectively depending on the chamber or role. There is no reason we can’t say 65 is the cap because that is near retirement age. That still allows people with aging parents to have a say in policy matters and safeguard elder care/benefits.
And my other solution- which I think would benefit everyone involved but most especially the actual American people-is term limits for both the House and Senate along with the Judiciary. Just literal term limits- you get your x number of years and then you are done, forever. Just like the President.
Federal law enforcement agents who carry a firearm as part of their job description, have a mandatory retirement age of 57! In my opinion if you are considered too feeble minded to use a weapon, you might be considered too aged to make decisions that affect our nation to include the ability to obliterate the world. Mandatory term limits and age limits are overdue.
So many commenters have made great points. I see the value in upper age limits *and* see the value in different measures (listed below) that could allow for greater churn in our leadership without setting an age limit for the following reasons:
- (in)competence isn't dictated by age, and neither is mental acuity
- I struggle with suggesting someone at (insert age) is too old to serve, but not too old to vote on issues (aka, influence outcomes) that largely affect those who are younger
- if the people of a particular district or state want a certain person, who is the federal government to say that person is too old to serve?
Other measures we could consider:
1- consecutive or all-time term limits (these could be 12 years, or two consecutive 6-year terms followed by a mandatory 6-year or longer break before running again, etc.)
2- mandatory congressional committee turnover so no one person is in a role too long
3- eliminating lifetime appointments even if you convert them to long-term ones
4- attendance requirements, etc.
PS- I was hoping as an aside that Sharon would mention the funny X moment between AOC and Trump after she didn't get the committee chair. See here if you missed it: https://x.com/AOC/status/1869518123252273391
I get a little nervous talking about advanced age as a disqualifier. Because ultimately, it seems to me, that we are talking about ability. Ageism and ableism are two evils we need to avoid.
That being said, we only live so long, and the body (and sometimes the brain) doesn't always age well. I wish that everyone was humble and self-aware enough to realize when they were no longer able to faithfully execute the duties of a job. But wishing doesn't solve anything.
Surely there is some kind of compromise. Maybe term limits in general would be helpful.
I just LOVE that Iowa's claim to fame is having the oldest senator... 🤦♀️ Many of us want him out, but not enough voters show up at the primaries to get the job done!
This is a very interesting piece. I like seeing the big picture like this and I hope people wake up and smell the coffee. I will admit that the ida of JD running for president makes me shudder.
I believe there is also another very important thing to consider when discussing the advanced age of our political leaders. The world that they grew up in has changed dramatically and our young generation have struggles that was not experienced by these elders. I have noticed this repeatedly speaking with older relatives, they question why their adult grandchildren don’t “just buy a house already” or wonder why they choose not to have kids or why they worry about climate change. It’s a different world than what these elderly politicians knew back in the day and a whole new set of circumstances for our young generation
I believe a major factor that influences/promotes the phenomenon of "gerontocracy" is not the individual representatives desire to hold-on--rather, Party leadership. Given that the sole responsibility assigned to a political party is to 'win elections', and...incumbency is, statistically, a huge benefit to a candidate's campaign...the respective Party is reluctant to advance 'younger' challengers to the incumbent. So...without a Constitutional Amendment imposing term limits--older candidates/legislators will perpetually prevail.
I remember when the book club discussed how to handle Diane Feinstein’s seat before she passed away when she was unfit to serve. I believe that was also around the time McConnell had his first unfortunate lapse in front of cameras. There were ideas about something similar to an honorable discharge for those who have experienced a growing health concern during their term that doesn’t require resignation or a dismissal with negative connotation like expulsion.
To others’ points: if citizens elect an individual, that person should be the representative regardless of age — the people have spoken. But in the instance of something occurring *during* a term, we should have measures in place with checks to prevent malicious intent.
The Constitution requires presidents be at least 35, an indication that we have long understood that lacking brain development and knowledge are disqualifying factors on the front end of the age spectrum. We should apply this logic to the other end as well.
Even though there are plenty of folks who live healthy lives longer than the statistical average (I know a woman who is 100 that is more mentally sharp than me some days), we should pick an age where the stats tend to drop off for health indicators, even if it feels a little bit arbitrary. I believe that no one should begin a term after 69, meaning the oldest serving officials would complete their terms at 71 for House members (2-year terms), 73 for presidents (4-year terms), and 75 for senators (6-year terms). For Supreme Court justices, who currently serve life terms, mandatory retirement at 75 would ensure similar protection against decline.
This wouldn't silence elder wisdom; experienced statespeople could serve as advisors, mentors, and public voices without holding the daily responsibilities of office, or leaving constituents voiceless during secret health issues. Just as importantly, it would create space for fresh perspectives in a system that currently suffocates young talent.
Leadership transitions should not be driven by crisis, yet the current system of letting leaders subjectively evaluate their own fitness creates exactly that. The cases in this article - from Granger's memory care to Biden's 'good days and bad days' - show the cost of our reluctance to set clear guardrails. My former Senator Dianne Feinstein didn't get a mention, but she was another recent example of someone who was clearly incapable of her job, surrounded by people lying to the public about her reality.
These situations force us to have icky conversations about folks in wheelchairs screaming angrily about having their photo taken - a spectacle that serves no one. Age limits would actually make politics more respectful to seniors, sparing them from public scrutiny of their decline while preserving their legacy of service.
I would love to see older senators and representatives mentor and cheer on the younger generation to rise up and serve in politics. It seems that they find it difficult to release some of their “power.”Maybe that means term limits should be considered also.
Since we have peaceful transfer of power, shouldn’t we be allowing younger people to fill these positions so they have time to learn before getting on the more prestigious committees?
I have long been in favor of a mandatory retirement age instead of term limits. Term limits, in my view, could punish those like AOC who are elected at a young age. My company has a mandatory retirement age for the CEO. Our previous CEO met this limit, and while it was sad to see him go, it allowed for a carefully planned transition to the next CEO, rather than a scramble to find a new leader. Government leaders meeting the retirement age could still mentor younger members, speak to the public on the importance of civic engagement or other topics, write books, etc, after their time in Congress is over.
We have GOT to institute an upper age limit. Timothy Patrick said it so well. I'd say you can't be over 72 at the time your term will be over to run for office. I know we're living better, longer, but these jobs are (or should be) so taxing it takes a bit more vim and vigor to manage the day-to-day. Hell, I'm 67 and some days I'd be a hindrance!
I think we need to be careful on *both* ends of the spectrum- both youth and old age have their benefits and drawbacks (I would take Grassley over Vance any day, and personally believe Connolly was a better choice than AOC!) Mental fitness should be extremely important, as is “We The People” knowing the condition of our elected representatives and I hope there are ways we can continue to make this transparency a priority and incentivize retiring when it’s the right decision.
Let’s also remember that the age groups with the largest turnout during elections- especially in non-Presidential years- is the 65+ category (followed by 45-64), who probably don’t have as much of an issue with a 75 year old being seated again…
I agree, Liz, that the issue is more about mental acuity than an actual age. The most recent four year term of Biden should serve as a wake up call for the nation! This should NEVER have been allowed to happen. His family and all others who attempted to cover up his lack of mental capacity should all be held accountable.
I am 70 years old and my husband and closest family & friends are in their 70’s & even 80’s. We have talked about this issue. We do realize that age should be a consideration. None of us have a loss of mental acuity but physically we have slowed down some. Respectfully, in that vein, I take issue with your statement “who probably don’t have as much of an issue with a 75 year old being seated again…” In my family & friends previous discussions we all believe age should be a consideration. I agree with Timothy Patrick’s comment above.
I am 62 and I have no brain issues either, but I do believe that with the Presidency or any government entity, the strains of the job itself can mentally age anyone. With the campaigning, the travel to and from DC, the mental and emotional toll on our bodies, brains, and hearts is too much for anyone, let alone the elderly.
Also, yearly well checks should be implemented for all Congress members too! Dementia can hit at any age! We count on our representatives to represent us, if they cannot, then they should be required to resign.
Respectfully, while that may be your belief/experience as a Boomer, polling data and analysis indicates younger generations are *more concerned* with the age of a candidate than older generations (though it’s still not a top concern for either); it doesn’t mean every boomer isn’t concerned and every Gen Z is concerned.
The idea that we are moving toward younger leadership is laughable. 60 and 61 are not “young” and are nearly what is considered retirement age. And I say that as a 51 year old who believes people in their 30s and 40s should have the most amount of say in our government, as it will impact them, their children, and their parents the most right now.
We have no problem saying people can’t service until 25 and 35 respectively depending on the chamber or role. There is no reason we can’t say 65 is the cap because that is near retirement age. That still allows people with aging parents to have a say in policy matters and safeguard elder care/benefits.
And my other solution- which I think would benefit everyone involved but most especially the actual American people-is term limits for both the House and Senate along with the Judiciary. Just literal term limits- you get your x number of years and then you are done, forever. Just like the President.
Federal law enforcement agents who carry a firearm as part of their job description, have a mandatory retirement age of 57! In my opinion if you are considered too feeble minded to use a weapon, you might be considered too aged to make decisions that affect our nation to include the ability to obliterate the world. Mandatory term limits and age limits are overdue.
So many commenters have made great points. I see the value in upper age limits *and* see the value in different measures (listed below) that could allow for greater churn in our leadership without setting an age limit for the following reasons:
- (in)competence isn't dictated by age, and neither is mental acuity
- I struggle with suggesting someone at (insert age) is too old to serve, but not too old to vote on issues (aka, influence outcomes) that largely affect those who are younger
- if the people of a particular district or state want a certain person, who is the federal government to say that person is too old to serve?
Other measures we could consider:
1- consecutive or all-time term limits (these could be 12 years, or two consecutive 6-year terms followed by a mandatory 6-year or longer break before running again, etc.)
2- mandatory congressional committee turnover so no one person is in a role too long
3- eliminating lifetime appointments even if you convert them to long-term ones
4- attendance requirements, etc.
PS- I was hoping as an aside that Sharon would mention the funny X moment between AOC and Trump after she didn't get the committee chair. See here if you missed it: https://x.com/AOC/status/1869518123252273391
Great suggestions, Tammy.
I get a little nervous talking about advanced age as a disqualifier. Because ultimately, it seems to me, that we are talking about ability. Ageism and ableism are two evils we need to avoid.
That being said, we only live so long, and the body (and sometimes the brain) doesn't always age well. I wish that everyone was humble and self-aware enough to realize when they were no longer able to faithfully execute the duties of a job. But wishing doesn't solve anything.
Surely there is some kind of compromise. Maybe term limits in general would be helpful.
I just LOVE that Iowa's claim to fame is having the oldest senator... 🤦♀️ Many of us want him out, but not enough voters show up at the primaries to get the job done!
This is a very interesting piece. I like seeing the big picture like this and I hope people wake up and smell the coffee. I will admit that the ida of JD running for president makes me shudder.
I believe there is also another very important thing to consider when discussing the advanced age of our political leaders. The world that they grew up in has changed dramatically and our young generation have struggles that was not experienced by these elders. I have noticed this repeatedly speaking with older relatives, they question why their adult grandchildren don’t “just buy a house already” or wonder why they choose not to have kids or why they worry about climate change. It’s a different world than what these elderly politicians knew back in the day and a whole new set of circumstances for our young generation
I think an even more serious problem than the age of government leaders is their wealth. We are a nation run by plutocrats.
I believe a major factor that influences/promotes the phenomenon of "gerontocracy" is not the individual representatives desire to hold-on--rather, Party leadership. Given that the sole responsibility assigned to a political party is to 'win elections', and...incumbency is, statistically, a huge benefit to a candidate's campaign...the respective Party is reluctant to advance 'younger' challengers to the incumbent. So...without a Constitutional Amendment imposing term limits--older candidates/legislators will perpetually prevail.
I remember when the book club discussed how to handle Diane Feinstein’s seat before she passed away when she was unfit to serve. I believe that was also around the time McConnell had his first unfortunate lapse in front of cameras. There were ideas about something similar to an honorable discharge for those who have experienced a growing health concern during their term that doesn’t require resignation or a dismissal with negative connotation like expulsion.
To others’ points: if citizens elect an individual, that person should be the representative regardless of age — the people have spoken. But in the instance of something occurring *during* a term, we should have measures in place with checks to prevent malicious intent.