I’d be 100% in support of a Constitutional amendment that says you can’t run for President if you’re over 65. And I couldn’t care less if that’s “bigotry”. Call me Agey McAgeist the Granddad Hating Age-Nazi. Couldn’t give a shit. The stakes are too high to allow for the possibility that the most powerful person in the world could be going senile.
This is true at multiple layers of official representation, not just the presidency. Look at the stress created when Dianne Feinstein’s handlers cemented her into office. The seniority was just too valuable to give up. Nancy Pelosi is 84 years old, to name a current example. Congress is full of shambling mummies who are either selfishly enamored of their own power or who egotistically believe nobody else could serve the public in the position better than they do (or some of both), and who will have to be dragged out of office kicking and screaming. As a member of Gen X, it’s intensely frustrating to see the Boomers hanging onto power long past the sell date of their experience and their ideas, totally aside from any uncertainties about their cognitive competence.
But this phenomenon, I think, is ultimately symptomatic of fundamental structural problems with American elections and representation, specifically the dominance of money and the two-party system. Once someone gets elected, they become a magnet for contributions, especially as their tenure continues and they rise in seniority, getting more and more important committee assignments. Incumbency is profitable, and is guarded as such. In addition, the dominance of two parties makes it very, very difficult to reform one’s own problems, because anything you do that weakens your own position is an inherent boon to the single party in opposition. Conventional wisdom says the ongoing argument about Biden’s fitness is a benefit to Trump, and it’s hard to disagree. So, strategically, the best thing to do is shut up and support your team.
Which is why it’s facile to say “the voters” are the safety valve. They’re trapped in the same broken system, re-electing incumbents over and over again, supporting their team member against the opponent using the same zero-sum calculation. Without real choice, the voters are empowered to decide precisely jack shit.
If you don’t address the underlying issues that incentivize the party elders to handcuff themselves to their desks for decades, then enforcing an age limit is just putting a tiny band-aid on a gushing arterial wound. Other existing dysfunctions will persist, and new dysfunctions will arise, while you pat yourself on the back for solving a problem that is not, really, in and of itself, an actual fundamental problem.
A problem with getting presidents to step down is that there is no incentive for them to do so. It is hard to plummet from being the most powerful person on the planet to nothing at all. Rather than just tossing them off the highway, you need to guide them to an off-ramp. They need a consolation prize.
Bullshit.
Even kicking them upstairs is an indulgence.
In this here constitutional monarchy when current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is elected out of office, resigns from office or is kicked out of office by the opposing ALP factional warlords and leaves parliament then he becomes plain Mr Albanese or “Albo” to those who address him personally.
He gets a nice pension, minimal security and ideally his contacts/relationships cultivated whilst in office are utilised in the diplomatic sphere. He might pick up some Order of Australia gong for services rendered, which is fair squeeze. Ex PMs are no longer eligible for peerages or knighthoods. Otherwise he rejoins the great unwashed and queues to vote and buy his groceries like the rest of us. Egalitarianism works like that.
Australia’s oldest PM on appointment was Jack McEwen was a couple of months shy of 68 when sworn in.
Bob Menzies left office one month and six days after his 71st birthday. By then he had served a total of 18 years and 163 days in two tenures. His second was 16 years and 38 days.
We find PMs don’t last much past their “Best By” date when their performance and electability is judged by those closest to source ie their cabinet and parliamentary colleagues who can act to replace with disconcerting speed if so inclined.
Why would they have a younger guy as co-pilot?
The simple solution is for voters to add age to the list of things they consider about who they’re going to vote for (in both primaries and general elections, because by the time of the general, there are probably more important considerations). We the People have spoken, and we have chosen two old guys.
Nothing about human behavior is “simple” like that. If it were, we’d have world peace by now.
I think the problem is that good, young people don’t want to run. Why would you? Your entire life is scrutinized, and frankly we all have something we’d not like to share with the public at large, it’s essentially a thankless job, and you can make way more money in the private sector. Most people who run for President in my opinion, your mileage may vary, are either people who have made this their career or people who need the power. I’m sure there are the few who are doing it for God and country but I bet not many.
In a way, We The People can only choose from the options we’re offered. I think it’s worth looking at why we haven’t gotten more young, appealing candidates.
This may or may not be a big part of the reason (though I don’t think it’s the only part). We may have something of a vicious cycle going on, where good people don’t want to get into politics because it’s so messed up and disrespected, but it’s so messed up and disrespected because there aren’t enough good people in it.
Out of curiosity: if it were up to you, would you also toss aside the existing minimum age requirements for the presidency and the House and the Senate?
How many candidates ran against Biden in the primaries?
How quickly did Biden lock up the nomination, so people in late primary states never had a chance to make a meaningful vote?
I agree with @Cervaise and @penultima_thule It’s a structural issue in the US, where there are so many benefits to incumbency. That rewards older candidates.
Parliamentary systems don’t reward incumbency to the same degree. If I want to kick out the current government, and my current MP is a member of the government, I have to vote for a different party in my riding. Doesn’t matter how good the local MP is. If I don’t want that party to stay in power, I don’t vote for that MP. I can’t split my vote.
Here’s a quick illustration.
- The average MP in the Canadian House of Commons is 51.9 years.
- The average US Representative id 57.9 years.
- The average US Senator is 65.3 years.
Suppose we are looking for a non-partisan constitutional amendment to reduce the chances of a president, who is mentally unstable, from creating a disaster I suggest changing the president as commander in chief to having a small security cabinet which issues major military decisions by majority vote, obviously including use of nuclear weapons.
This addresses not just age-related issues, but also other causes of poor judgment.
But age doesn’t directly affect job performance; level of (physical and mental) health and energy do.
Is prohibiting people past a certain age from holding a job that requires energy like prohibiting women from holding a job that requires physical strength?
Canada has never had a Prime Minister who started a term after 75. The three elected after 70 (Tupper, Bowell, Abbott) were all before 1900.
None of them took office by winning a general election. Not sure how that affects the argument, but thought I would point it out.
They were three of the four PMs that held office after Macdonald died in 1891 after winning the general elections of that year. By that time, the Conservative Party as a whole was old and tired, as a result of Macdonald’s lengthy dominance.
-
Abbott was a senator and was appointed PM after Macdonald died. He served a very short term and quit for health reasons. Died shortly afterwards.
-
Abbott was followed by Thompson, also appointed PM, but a sitting MP. Thompson was probably the Conservatives’ best hope for party renewal, but he died of a heart attack at a garden party at Windsor Castle, aged 49.
-
Bowell was also a senator and was appointed after PM Thompson died in office. He was forced out by an internal party dispute led by Tupper.
-
Tupper, a Cabinet minister, won the nasty party fight and displaced Bowell as PM, then lost the 1896 general elections.
Since we’ve not had a PM assume office over age 70 since 1896, I think that does suggest our current political system doesn’t favour older candidates.
Should add that Mackenzie King was re-elected age 71 in the 1945 elections.
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering about King.
Yes, to avoid hijacking the OP, I would certainly say that King helps to illustrate that incumbency is not a strong factor in our parliamentary system.
-
1921 - King, new leader of the Liberal party, wins a working minority government in the general election and becomes PM.
-
1925 - general election returns a hung Parliament. The Liberals come in second in the seat count, but PM King is able to negotiate a deal with some of the smaller parties and is able to stay in office.
-
1925 - although a sitting PM, King is personally defeated in his own riding and cannot re-enter Parliament until he wins a by-election in another seat in Saskatchewan, vacated by a Liberal MP to get the PM back in Parliament.
-
1926 - King resigns as PM over the combination of a government scandal and his dispute with the GovGen.
-
1926 - King leads the Liberals to a majority government in the general elections.
-
1930 - PM King and the Liberals are defeated by Bennet and the Conservatives; becomes leader of the opposition.
-
1935 - King wins a majority in the general election, defeating PM Bennett.
-
1940 - King and the Liberals win a majority in the general election.
-
1945 - King and the Liberals lose their majority in the general election but are able to stay in power by agreement with Independent Liberal MPs.
-
1945 - Although a sitting PM, King is defeated in his own riding; can’t re-enter Parliament until he wins a by-election in an Ontario seat.
-
1947 - King grooms his successor, Louis St Laurent, and retires.
None of that, including two lost general élections and two personal defeats in his own riding, suggests that incumbency is a strong value in our parliamentary system. Political cunning, which King had in spades, is far more significant.
A few folks in threads on this board have mentioned that, but I wasn’t specifically talking about Biden, I was speaking of the context of discussion in this thread. The OP mentions UK Prime Ministers when they lose elections, and talks about “stepping down”. I was contrasting situations of a President stepping down, whether as a candidate for the next or current election, or needing to resign for health reasons, versus when they step down at the end of their second term.
True. Who here remembers Strom Thurmond?
Seniority and training. Senior pilots typically have less experienced co-pilots, because pilots are flight commanders and Co- pilots are often training for advancement to senior pilot.
Hogwash. There are plenty of young people in the 2020 Dem primary. Reps don’t count, because you said good.