I think this is somewhat of a red herring. The issue isn’t replacing them with someone less qualified. When someone starts having episodes such as McConnell’s and Feinstein’s, the issue is having one of the 600 or so most important jobs in US government occupied by someone who seems to be subject to periods of confusion. That alone renders one pretty unqualified IMO.
I would favor a clear max age for accepting office - maybe 75 (if not lower), ensuring no senator is older than 81. And I’d be fine with a similar age limit on federal judges. Or possibly placing them on senior status with a reduced caseload.
Another alternative would be to require some testing, a la older drivers having to test more frequently. But I doubt any effective test could be agreed upon.
I would be interested to see if there have been efforts to quantify officials’ “effectiveness” at various ages. How many Congresscritters aged 80+ are “better than average” of their peers? Congress is weird, also, in that many aged reps/sens might appear more effective than they are, due to the deference owed seniority.
Hell, I’m 62, and I wish more old folk would step out of the way and let younger folk have their chance to mess things up.
That’s not an age. Were the worst senators in US history all age 75 or older? I doubt it. Someone who seems to be subject to periods of confusion should be disqualified at any age shouldn’t they?
Whether some proposed replacement is less qualified or not, shouldn’t the most qualified person have the job? Yes, I think a mind not prone to confusion of the kind demonstrated by McConnell and Feinstein are reasonable qualifications, but there have been other senators of advanced age not subject to these problems. And once again, except for the executive office there are no critical positions that don’t have a backup that can be applied by a superior, or by law.
We have a minimum age requirement. Why not a max? I suppose it would make sense to drop the former, too. (I personally think it would be beneficial to have an age cap.)
The minimum age requirements for Congress are in the Constitution, so changing that would undoubtedly require a Constitutional amendment, which have become extremely difficult to pass in recent decades. I would imagine that setting a maximum age would require such an amendment, as well.
I think your first question is flawed. No, the WORST Senators weren’t ALL over 75. But, as a group, how does the 75+ cohort compare to the 65-75, 55-65, 55-under groups? And how many Senators were among the BEST when they were over 75? Heck, compare individual long-serving Senators/Reps in their 80s to themselves in their 50s-60s.
And, of course, our system in no way results in the most qualified person holding any particular elected position (even if an interim appointment.) Even if we could agree as to what it means to be the most qualifie. I’m not sure why you would bring up such a concept.
I think ageism is a very real thing. Especially when relatively vital 50-60 yr olds are discriminated against in the workplace in favor of much younger folk. But I strongly disagree with anyone who claims a typical person over 75 is as capable as most people a couple of decades younger. Yes, there are exceptions - but I think them pretty rare. And most truly wise and capable aged people lack the stamina for most demanding fulltime occupations. The should definitely be in positions where their wisdom can inform. Perhaps in “of counsel” or “senior advisor” positions. But unless you are a rare genetic superstar, leave the fulltime heavy lifting to them whippersnappers in their 40s, 50s, and 60s!
I might agree with your reasoning for non-elected officials who are not approved by congress as a practical measure. But I believe the voters should be allowed to determine who should have elected office, and those they elect approve of the others.
I wouldn’t mind removing the minimum ages, they don’t make a lot of sense to me, but as noted above that would require amending the constitution. To set a maximum age for elected positions would require an amendment also I hope, because if not then the legislature could start playing with all sorts of other limits on officials for political advantage.
Yeah - we get the elected officials we deserve. But if you feel this, what were you saying about “the best qualified” person getting the job? Unless you equate “getting the most votes” with “the most qualified.”
What will get done, and what I think ought to be done are two very different questions. Perhaps term limits would be a way to effectively impose an upper age limit. I am not sure how many Sens/Reps get elected or the first time when they are in their late 60s-70s. My impression is that the majority of the dodderers are ther from repeated elections in secure districts.
Yeah, whoever it is, that is disturbing to see. speak.exe(Not Responding)
That’s probably one of the reasons he gets enough of his conference to keep him there. Enough who don’t want to have to live through that.
But they are going to have to if no strong, serious heir-pretender gets out there.
Rick Scott made the gesture to challenge Mitch this time around, but that basically was purely symbolic because of “Hey, Rick, weren’t you in charge of the 2022 Senate Republican Campaign Committee, you know, to retake the majority?”
That was my experience with my grandmother. She started to ride in a wheelchair in airports and some crowded places long before she needed it normally. Stamina is important in walking those airports, and you don’t want to have a fall from tripping over anything in unfamiliar circumstances.
Yes! Why can’t an 18 year old run for senate? I would argue that it is better to allow young people to run rather than all these over retirement age folks that have amassed a lifetime of power. I think the end age of politicians should be the same as when you are forced to take your money out of 401s. If you are forced to take out mandatory withdrawals from your retirement account by the government, that is a good indication you should be retired. And that is a full decade before some of these folks.
No politician will approve a max age because they know it could eventually be used against them. “I’m not going to mandate removal of doddering old fools because one day I might be the doddering old fool.”
I agree. I just find it curious. I can be just about as selfish as anyone, yet as I enter my 60s, I’m very aware that I am not at my physical or mental peak (as modest as my peak may have ever been.) I am content with what I have accomplished and acquired, and am willing to anticipate my exit from the workforce. (I also have interests outside of work, and do not get tremendous positive rewards from my work.) I guess I can imagine people who are so selfish, self-important, grasping, and/or egotistical that they wish to hold onto power well past their prime. But I have a hard time getting my head around someone being so out of touch that they cannot appreciate their greatly reduced capacity when they look in the mirror. Especially when they see themself freezing up a la McConnell/Feinstein. IMO, such an attitude is essentially the equivalent of some kind of mental infirmity.
These superannuated Senators and Reps are in a kinda unique position. So long as they avoid some horrendous legal violations outside of their office - like shooting someone on 5th Ave - they are basicaly untouchable. There is next to nothing they can do in the scope of their job that will be viewed as showing that they are no longer capable of their job. I’m not able to think of any other “job” in which an incumbent’s obvious incompetence is so readily covered up.
Feinstein may be so out of it she no longer realizes she’s out of it. McConnell no doubt hopes it was just a transient thing that won’t significantly interfere with what he wants to do.
I wish it were easier for voters to replace an infirm senator. Six years is a long term. But we do have 100 of them.