Term limits and age caps for federal office: if not, then what?

Politics & Elections
1

Current and recent circumstances have caused Redditors to bring up the idea of federal term limits and age caps with somewhat boring frequency. This is just the latest; here is a “classic” one from two years ago. As you can imagine from the site’s demographics, these ideas are quite popular generally; some even want an age cap for suffrage.

Still, opposition does come up quite strongly, though I’m not sure any minds are being changed. Considering the demographics of this website, I can imagine that these are probably significantly less popular here. But it does reflect a growing frustration with several factors people here can probably sympathize with: the age of Trump and Biden, the age of Thurmond and McConnell, lifetime ability to run for office and Supreme Court appointments freezing bad ideas in place, lack of care for long term thinking, etc.

So how do we address these factors, if not by the rather blunt cudgel of term limits and age caps? I’m not sure I really care what’s practical (since if I did, no discussion about meaningful change would be worthwhile), just what’s best for the country and people as you see it. In the threads above, there was some discussion of lobbying as a dependency; delve into that if it’s important enough to your vision.

2

I think both are likely good ideas.

As far as term limits goes while “just vote them out” is a nice idea in theory, we see again and again that it just doesn’t work that way. Politicians entrench themselves and removing them becomes nigh-impossible.

And really old people both suffer cognitive decline and tend to progressively become detached from the present world. Especially if they are insulated in a bubble of privilege at the same time.

3

Term limits and age caps seem like a good idea, but the only people who can decide to do so are the very same people who would be targeted.

Like voting for your own firing, lay off or pay cuts. Almost laughable that your senators and representatives are ever going to move on that idea. Money and power go together, and those who have it will give up neither.

Good luck on this discussion though.

4

That’s exactly why I said

5

Given that ‘if only they’d let my generation run things’ has been a constant for, like, forever, I have to ask which generation is volunteering to be skipped over?

6

The various caps and limits could phase in slowly as a way to defuse the “my generation got skipped” issue.

That one at least is handle-able.

7

Term limits sounds great, but then you’re going to end up with a lot of inexperienced legislators who don’t know how to get anything done. Especially in the house. And while I understand the frustrations with politicians holding on long after age has started interfering with their ability to to their job, we live in an era where the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green, who believes in Jewish space lasers and sinister weather controlling devices, are elected officials. Sure, it’s like Feinstein didn’t know what she was voting on, but is that any worse than MTG?

8

Probably the only realistic way to get it through would be including grandfather clauses, exempting any sitting official who is already in office on the day that the law goes into effect. That way, you avoid the “voting for my own firing.” On the other hand, such a law (at least, the age cap portion) would undoubtedly be challenged on the grounds of age discrimination.

Possibly a more foolproof way would be to make age caps and term limits a Constitutional amendment, rather than a Federal law, but getting new amendments passed is something which is, at this juncture in our country, close to impossible.

I think this is very true. As much as complaining about “career politicians” is a popular thing, the reality is that it does take years in office to learn how to actually get things done.

9

As a voter, I don’t like the idea of my options being limited by arbitrary rules. I would have voted for Obama’s third term in a heartbeat, and I’ll be the one to decide if someone’s too old.

I think we need to address the way we handle representation and our winner-takes-all elections before even talking about term and age limits. I think we’ll see that if we’re able to vote for qualified candidates at every stage and not just a “lesser of two evils”, term limits and the elderly will sort of resolve themselves as people slowly fall out of favor if they’ve overstayed their welcome.

10

Moreover, those years in office mean those pols were there when the country decided to erect all of those ‘Chesterton’s Fences’ the youngens are so eager to tear down.

11

The biggest unfixable problem at the moment is presidential power. I think democracies are better served by parliamentary-style governance, but I have all kinds of pipe dreams. Like eradicating the Electoral College.

Hopefully Trump will be so incapacitated by dementia that he won’t be able to finish his term. Coming after Biden’s decline, that would probably put an end to ancient presidents without any need for new statutes.

12

The voters are generally fine with old politicians, and only get upset when the predictable consequences of electing 80 year olds into office materialize.

Biden and Trump didn’t just get reelected into a position they’d held for decades - voters actively choose them when they were in the 70s over younger presidential candidates. Bernie (who I voted for in 16 and 20) was also too old. My defense for my 2020 vote was by the time my primary rolled around, the youngest democrat in the running was Elizabeth Warren.

13

Put a chip in peoples’ heads when they’re born and short them out when they turn X years old.

What? You said you didn’t want practical.

As someone in his mid-70s I firmly believe that my experience has vastly benefited my ability to understand the complexity of issues and also that my mind is not as agile and able to absorb the contemporary world as it once was. No good way has ever existed to perfectly balance this these commonplace facts. People are living longer than they used to and therefore on average will be productively active longer than on average people were in the past. This is not necessarily a bad thing for society as a whole.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if most of the 70+ politicians were to start retiring and making room for younger replacements. Unfortunately, I keep being reminded daily that a great many of the most idiotic politicians in the country are in their 40s.

In reality, America is overdue for a generational replacement over the next few elections so the issue will resolve itself, not that everyone will be at all happy with the outcome from any side of the aisle.

If you really want something impractical, there is a movement - tiny, to be sure, but getting coverage in mainstream outlets - to lower the voting age to as little as five. That is not a misprint for fifteen. That’ll take care of aging politicians in a hurry.

14

ETA @DeadTreasSecretaries 2 posts up …

Yeah. If the voters really wanted young prodigies, the election of JFK would have been the death knell for the Geritol set forever.

[Narrator: It wasn’t]

15

This is yet another thing I blame Reagan for, with his “youth and inexperience” wisecrack. And also possibly being senile in his last years in office and apparently no one caring.

16

Lotta pols got elected between JFK in '60 and Reagan in '80. A whole generation in fact.

If the public really bought into the youth of JFK as a great idea, almost all the elders would’ve been swept away, and the average age of new reps & senators would’ve been 35 throughout the 60s & 70s. Did. Not. Happen.

I’m not suggesting we wouldn’t be better off w a more youthful contingent. I’m merely asserting it didn’t happen.

Which tells us something about voter preferences whether you or I like the message they’re collectively sending.

17

Most of the presidents we’ve had since JFK were in their 60s and there wasn’t any particularly strong reason to be concerned about their cognitive decline. It’s really only been Reagan, Biden and Trump in recent memory.

18

One of the ripples of Reagan’s election was the election of the 28 year old Paul Ryan who had the brilliant idea that we could replace federal government food assistance programs with charity.
Thankfully, there were a bunch of old folks that lived through the glorious years of that idea, that directly led to food stamps and WIC, that could remind Paul that in their lived experience charity didn’t not solve the problem.

19

A young man named Mike Johnson had a similar idea recently and he was helped in his efforts by multiple members of his opposition dying in office.

20

Remind me. Does the current selection of multi-term experienced House legislators have a good track record in getting anything done?

So what is the learned threshold? Four terms? A generation? Half a century?

You are saying that the 25th is a marker of good governance?

This is just another of those tired memes: “There can only be American solutions to American problems.”

Appreciate that most of you are hard-wired to avoid it, but look outwards and around your goodselves. Is this so substantial an issue in other elected legislatures? How that be?

You already have term limits. They are called elections. The core issue is why do you so overwhelmingly re-elect legislators who are not just in their dotage, but are in their post dotage and into senility? Is it their fault, or to the advantage of their district?

We (Australia) have neither term or age limits on parliamentarians. Nor do most other (as I understand) constitutional monarchies. We don’t have the embuggerance of the invalid and addled clinging like limpets to the trappings of incumbency. There’s nothing in it for them to persist. They have done their service. They have been rewarded for it. They have determined other life balance matters need their attendance, skills and experience. Their electorate has moved on.

The UK parliament bestow on the “Father of the House” (the male member of the House of Commons who has the longest continuous service) the lone duty of electing the new Speaker. In the Antipodes we don’t even allow that quirk of service. They don’t get to be Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means simply because they been breathing longest. If a 80yo has the drive, capability, experience and energy to be the best person to represent their electorate, their parliamentary committee or indeed their country let them have the task. Until they aren’t. Then replace them as soon as practical.

So why does it persist and flourish in the US? Because there is material advantage in tenure. Seniority rather than meritocracy determines the all-important committee positions, controlling the rivers of gold and pork flowing back to the states of their re-electors.

Now, if the voters of Outer Merkinfuckistan consider MTG best represents their interests, all hale to them. If she is, good, if not chuck her out and get better representative. Shouldn’t be that difficult to rustle up a viable alternative, if necessary.

But for her (and others of her ilk) the singular purpose of being an elected legislator is to be a re-elected legislator. ‘Cause there is immunity from insider trading and accumulating perks to both themselves and as importantly their district/state.

Because there is so little expectation of getting things done, being the loudest who stops things getting done represents the most efficacious level of achievement you can build into a long and storied career.

Now you don’t need a Constitutional amendment to end the gerrymandering that facilitates the tenure. Nor is one required to align committee membership to be based on merit (including experience) rather than accumulated number of visits to the executive washroom which materially rewards the tenure.

But the collective “you” are sanguine about it. Therefore we befuddled and increasingly inflicted upon non-merkins are forced to the confounding realisation that whatever “it” is, “it” suites you.