6 ms·

For about the last decade or so, I've held on to the idea that there ought to be a maximum age for elected officials. Ideally, in my view, 60. As I myself have

by ta1357 8y ago

For about the last decade or so, I've held on to the idea that there ought to be a maximum age for elected officials. Ideally, in my view, 60. As I myself have aged, and watched those around me age, I'm really quite struck by just how many people reach 68 or so and spend an inordinate amount of time looking back, fondly, on their prime years. It seems incredibly natural for that sort of nostalgia to arise, as the body decays. I can't help but think it also leads to "back in my day..." style thinking, and the mythical "golden past" to which we need to return. When you've reached such a mental state, I suspect you're no longer as capable of thinking critically about the future as someone younger, someone who still has a future. You've got no skin in the game anymore, and when that happens you're no longer fit to serve in any decision making capacity. Act as advisor, absolutely. But without skin in the game, you'll do precisely what our gov't has done: mortgage our future for gains today, and completely screw over coming generations. It's a weak rationale, I admit. Borne of my own biases against the status quo, for sure. Still I can't help thinking its a good idea. An enforced retirement age for elected officials would be in public interest.

fredley 8y ago
To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy. (However, I do agree with you that there should still be a maximum age, how you would introduce it - especially to a political system where it would cause almost every elected official to lose out - is beyond me)
- rubicon33 8y ago
  It's almost as if - gasp - we need a balance of power! Perhaps a system in which a "House of Future", and "House of Past", compete for resources (votes) would help promote a government that was conscious of making investments that support not JUST the aging generation (house of past).
  - fredley 8y ago
    This is overcomplicating the underlying truth: in the US and other places we have representatives that are not representative.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy. To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. I think because of this that anyone's "experience" is now not only completely irrelevant, but a liability. We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate. Something which old people necessarily lack by definition.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth Er, no. An earlier spot on the same exponential curve, but there hasn't been a “world of linear growth” in the West since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe, more properly, the preceding Second Agricultural Revolution. > and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. Not really; the breakdown of that feature was recognized and commented on widely throughout the 20th Century, notably in the context of: (1) the rise of international revolutionary communism, (2) the rise and increasing dominance of multinational corporations, (3) the rise of international Islamism
  - fredley 8y ago
    To counter this: that's exactly what someone with relatively little experience would say!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Something which old people necessarily lack by definition." Where does that definition come from?
SonicSoul 8y ago
Interesting idea and points but I can think of this judgement point age event horizon varying +-15 yrs each way for individuals so maybe there is another way to determine when someone has passed it ? Sort of like a driver test for policy makers :)
dollar 8y ago
You've rediscovered ageism, congratulations!
- exogen 8y ago
  If we're taking that route, the Constitution itself is already ageist: you need to be at least 25 to be a rep, 30 to be a senator, 35 to be president/VP. So it's already an established idea that age plays some role in fitness for office.
  - pwinnski 8y ago
    Ageism, like most discrimination, is about writing off someone based on factors outside their control, not requiring someone to mature. Young people eventually meet the requirements to enter government service. Forced retirement based on age is a permanent disqualification.
    - exogen 8y ago
      But you didn't address the existing rationalization: explain to me why the minimum ages exist in the first place, and why that same rationalization shouldn't exist for older people in their more out-of-touch and declining years.
      - moate 8y ago
        Both ideas can be wrong. The idea that "we already made ageist mistakes in service requirements so we should be allowed to make more" is fundamentally flawed. I'll wait for actually evidence/data that says that someone who's 32 is incapable of performing job X or that Y% of people over age 60 show marked decline in ability to perform job X before we start endorsing ageist policy. The electorate as a whole is older (The Boomer lump passing through the population charts), and likely more inclined to keep voting for people of their generation rather than someone their kid (or grandkid!)'s age. Or other reasons. Who knows. This chart just shows correlation between the age of our Republic and the term length/age of our elected officials.
aje403 8y ago
“I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.” Honestly, your bias probably comes from hanging around a boring crowd of people. Also, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say you're probably (probably is a kind word) an idiot, along with the people upvoting this. It is dissapointing but unsurprising to see this ignorace as the top comment. Throughout history, as people age, they acquire power and resources. That's irrespective of race or gender and changing lifespans. Why would they, in any society, as a social group, willingly hand off control to an younger (and more incompetent and less experienced) generation who, more often than not, will not achieve the results they're promising?
codingdave 8y ago
If you think older people have 'no skin in the game', you are severely underestimating the value that most older folk place on the quality of life that will be enjoyed by our children, grandchildren, etc.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  It sounds like something a youngster would say. I bet they are in their 20/30s. Not to mention, 60 is pretty damn young. You're cutting off people in the prime of their maturity, especially with longer lifespans. Teddy Roosevelt died at 60 and one of his greatest regrets was that he peaked too soon, and that was a century ago Changing age limits is just a bandage on a bigger wound, which is that US society struggles to produce quality leadership. But that's what dominating the world for a generation will do, it makes you soft.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    If you're not a selfish person, and you get old, assuming you still have your mental health, you'll use the wisdom you accrued to benefit the world; if you are a selfish person, you lack wisdom, and you'll use the knowledge and tricks you acquired to leech the most from the world before you mercifully die. >Changing age limits is just a bandage on a bigger wound, which is that US society struggles to produce quality leadership. But that's what dominating the world for a generation will do, it makes you soft. I agree with this, but I'd replace soft with relentlessly selfish. Instead of realizing the need to work together to make something better, they're in it for personal gain.
    - aje403 8y ago
      Elderly people are not soft. Elderly senators caught the tail end of WW2 and the Cold War. Relentlessly selfish refers to young people who think believe mother nature itself entitles them to the newest iPhone, free housing, healthcare, and debt forgiveness with less financial awareness than the senators they're complaining about.
ekianjo 8y ago
> An enforced retirement age for elected officials would be in public interest. The problem with elected officials is not with age: most of the time their actions are motivated by self-interest (what benefits them or their cast at the end of the day). I would rather want to see complete transparency of their actions/lives/bank accounts and enforce some level of responsibility for everything they do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maxxxxx 8y ago
I think 60 is a little early but I would definitely force-retire them by 70 or 75. I would also set a max age for being president. There is already a min age so why not a max age? But I think your point that old age doesn't make people think about the future is not correct. I don't see a difference in behavior between different generations regarding tax policy, deficits or environment.
nostromo 8y ago
I wonder if Berkshire Hathaway should have forced Warren Buffett to retire at 60, 17 years ago. For reference: he's more than quadrupled his investors' money in the years since he turned 60.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  It would have been prudent of him to train a replacement much earlier. He still could advise but the risk of him dying suddenly and leaving the company leaderless increases with age.
- AQuantized 8y ago
  He's 87, so that would be 27 years ago.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    Thanks for the (huge) correction. It's interesting that the vast majority of Warren's wealth came after he turned 60.
    - Shounak 8y ago
      Maybe inflation is part of the reason for this
- aperrien 8y ago
  Berkshire Hathaway is a private business entity, not a public government with whom we all are required to interact with.
danso 8y ago
As the median age of Americans grows [0], having an age limit would make it increasingly difficult for the demographics of Congress to match the general population. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/us/graying-of-america-is-speeding-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/us/graying-of-america-is-...
erentz 8y ago
I think there’s something to be said for an limit. A term limit on congress of 12 years might be the easier and more straight forward option. This would probably resolve 80% of the age problem as they’d run over their term before they got too old.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  There's some poli sci research that suggests the main effect of term limits in California is to bump people upstairs to compete for positions they aren't worthy of and removes capable leaders from their positions artificially. If your electorate isn't wise enough to kick a bad leader out after 12 years (remember, even today the average term is below 12 years), then maybe that's a problem less with the representative of the voter and more with the voter. That's the big problem here. Political leadership is pretty miserable, but who is electing them? They're just a reflection of society. Kick them out and it is more of the same. Proposition 140, an initiative narrowly passed by California voters in November 1990, imposed sharp limits on the terms of California legislators.1 These limits will have a dramatic impact on that legislature as an institution. Internal structures such as leadership, committees, parties, and staff will be weakened or made external. This weakening of legislative structures will force most external players, including interest groups, to expend substantially greater resources for a return diminished in effectiveness and predictability. Put simply, the cost of doing business will increase while the return will decline. This combination is likely to advantage groups with both resources and a stake in state government but to discourage participation, divert efforts elsewhere and encourage cheating by others. Here's an abstract. This stuff is pretty easily Googleable if you are interested. Also more newsy: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/bill-whalen/article31032606.html http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/bill-whalen/article31032...
  - lele92n 8y ago
    That’s the flip side of term limits. Doesn’t mean the advantage isn’t worth it When they say “weakening” that seems like an emotionally overloaded choice picked for cultural resonance. Is it really a weakening or just a new model to acclimate to and tweak as needed to ensure outcomes? Why is giving any ground or change always coming along with “we won’t be strong in the same way!” rhetoric Duh but that doesn’t negate the argument for change given other data over here We’ve yet to discover a unified theory of reality I highly doubt our system of social governance has found an equivalent It has to change. It will change if history is any indicator Better to have the conversations ourselves then leave it up to experts across the world
ClassAndBurn 8y ago
I agree. Their knowledge and insights would be better as advisement to a new generation of leaders so there can be a continuous learnings and new ideas in government.
toddsiegel 8y ago
Everyone deserves representation, even the older folk (if 60 is even old anymore). I don't think 40-year-olds understand very well the needs of these people (and vice versa, as you point out). Term limits is a much better solution.
scottlocklin 8y ago
Term limits make more sense to me. Ideally a term limit of 1 term. Also the Athenian method of picking representatives by lottery.
- spc476 8y ago
  My girlfriend is a former US government employee and she's afraid of term limits because then the power will shift to the non-elected bureaucrats who know the system ("Oh, don't worry! I've worked for the previous five Congresscritters before you. Here's what you do ... ")
jcadam 8y ago
Bah, I still say service in Congress should be like jury duty. Anyone who meets a certain minimum set of criteria (age, criminal record, education, etc.) is placed in a lottery and names drawn at random from each district. It should be something undesirable that you do because it's your "duty." You serve one term and then you go home.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Yes, because what we really need in Congress is people with even less understanding of the issues they're regulating than the ones we have now. Have you ever watched a reality TV show? That's the "median American" that you're proposing be put in charge of Congress.
- greedo 8y ago
  A variation on Cincinnatus...
imjustsaying 8y ago
Older people objectively know more.
- kickopotomus 8y ago
  To a certain extent, sure. However, as you age, mental acuity and memory both decay. People in their late 60s+ are not as mentally capable as they were decades prior.
DanAndersen 8y ago
If the concern is politicians without skin in the game, how about we instead forbid electing anyone without children? If someone is just an individual without a family or looking toward leaving a legacy for their future offspring, perhaps they're more likely to be over-individualist and not even think about coming generations.

by ta1357 8y ago

fredley 8y ago

To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy. (However, I do agree with you that there should still be a maximum age, how you would introduce it - especially to a political system where it would cause almost every elected official to lose out - is beyond me)

rubicon33 8y ago
It's almost as if - gasp - we need a balance of power! Perhaps a system in which a "House of Future", and "House of Past", compete for resources (votes) would help promote a government that was conscious of making investments that support not JUST the aging generation (house of past).
- fredley 8y ago
  This is overcomplicating the underlying truth: in the US and other places we have representatives that are not representative.
aphextron 8y ago
>To counter that argument: with age comes experience. People who are 65 have witnessed a huge amount more history than people who are 35. They have seen the cycles of the World turn more times, they have more understanding of human nature and how people respond in irrational ways to policy. To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. I think because of this that anyone's "experience" is now not only completely irrelevant, but a liability. We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate. Something which old people necessarily lack by definition.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth Er, no. An earlier spot on the same exponential curve, but there hasn't been a “world of linear growth” in the West since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe, more properly, the preceding Second Agricultural Revolution. > and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. Not really; the breakdown of that feature was recognized and commented on widely throughout the 20th Century, notably in the context of: (1) the rise of international revolutionary communism, (2) the rise and increasing dominance of multinational corporations, (3) the rise of international Islamism
- fredley 8y ago
  To counter this: that's exactly what someone with relatively little experience would say!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "Something which old people necessarily lack by definition." Where does that definition come from?

SonicSoul 8y ago

Interesting idea and points but I can think of this judgement point age event horizon varying +-15 yrs each way for individuals so maybe there is another way to determine when someone has passed it ? Sort of like a driver test for policy makers :)

dollar 8y ago

You've rediscovered ageism, congratulations!

exogen 8y ago
If we're taking that route, the Constitution itself is already ageist: you need to be at least 25 to be a rep, 30 to be a senator, 35 to be president/VP. So it's already an established idea that age plays some role in fitness for office.
- pwinnski 8y ago
  Ageism, like most discrimination, is about writing off someone based on factors outside their control, not requiring someone to mature. Young people eventually meet the requirements to enter government service. Forced retirement based on age is a permanent disqualification.
  - exogen 8y ago
    But you didn't address the existing rationalization: explain to me why the minimum ages exist in the first place, and why that same rationalization shouldn't exist for older people in their more out-of-touch and declining years.
    - moate 8y ago
      Both ideas can be wrong. The idea that "we already made ageist mistakes in service requirements so we should be allowed to make more" is fundamentally flawed. I'll wait for actually evidence/data that says that someone who's 32 is incapable of performing job X or that Y% of people over age 60 show marked decline in ability to perform job X before we start endorsing ageist policy. The electorate as a whole is older (The Boomer lump passing through the population charts), and likely more inclined to keep voting for people of their generation rather than someone their kid (or grandkid!)'s age. Or other reasons. Who knows. This chart just shows correlation between the age of our Republic and the term length/age of our elected officials.

aje403 8y ago

“I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.” Honestly, your bias probably comes from hanging around a boring crowd of people. Also, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say you're probably (probably is a kind word) an idiot, along with the people upvoting this. It is dissapointing but unsurprising to see this ignorace as the top comment. Throughout history, as people age, they acquire power and resources. That's irrespective of race or gender and changing lifespans. Why would they, in any society, as a social group, willingly hand off control to an younger (and more incompetent and less experienced) generation who, more often than not, will not achieve the results they're promising?

codingdave 8y ago

If you think older people have 'no skin in the game', you are severely underestimating the value that most older folk place on the quality of life that will be enjoyed by our children, grandchildren, etc.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
It sounds like something a youngster would say. I bet they are in their 20/30s. Not to mention, 60 is pretty damn young. You're cutting off people in the prime of their maturity, especially with longer lifespans. Teddy Roosevelt died at 60 and one of his greatest regrets was that he peaked too soon, and that was a century ago Changing age limits is just a bandage on a bigger wound, which is that US society struggles to produce quality leadership. But that's what dominating the world for a generation will do, it makes you soft.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  If you're not a selfish person, and you get old, assuming you still have your mental health, you'll use the wisdom you accrued to benefit the world; if you are a selfish person, you lack wisdom, and you'll use the knowledge and tricks you acquired to leech the most from the world before you mercifully die. >Changing age limits is just a bandage on a bigger wound, which is that US society struggles to produce quality leadership. But that's what dominating the world for a generation will do, it makes you soft. I agree with this, but I'd replace soft with relentlessly selfish. Instead of realizing the need to work together to make something better, they're in it for personal gain.
  - aje403 8y ago
    Elderly people are not soft. Elderly senators caught the tail end of WW2 and the Cold War. Relentlessly selfish refers to young people who think believe mother nature itself entitles them to the newest iPhone, free housing, healthcare, and debt forgiveness with less financial awareness than the senators they're complaining about.

ekianjo 8y ago

> An enforced retirement age for elected officials would be in public interest. The problem with elected officials is not with age: most of the time their actions are motivated by self-interest (what benefits them or their cast at the end of the day). I would rather want to see complete transparency of their actions/lives/bank accounts and enforce some level of responsibility for everything they do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

maxxxxx 8y ago

I think 60 is a little early but I would definitely force-retire them by 70 or 75. I would also set a max age for being president. There is already a min age so why not a max age? But I think your point that old age doesn't make people think about the future is not correct. I don't see a difference in behavior between different generations regarding tax policy, deficits or environment.

nostromo 8y ago

I wonder if Berkshire Hathaway should have forced Warren Buffett to retire at 60, 17 years ago. For reference: he's more than quadrupled his investors' money in the years since he turned 60.

maxxxxx 8y ago
It would have been prudent of him to train a replacement much earlier. He still could advise but the risk of him dying suddenly and leaving the company leaderless increases with age.
AQuantized 8y ago
He's 87, so that would be 27 years ago.
- nostromo 8y ago
  Thanks for the (huge) correction. It's interesting that the vast majority of Warren's wealth came after he turned 60.
  - Shounak 8y ago
    Maybe inflation is part of the reason for this
aperrien 8y ago
Berkshire Hathaway is a private business entity, not a public government with whom we all are required to interact with.

danso 8y ago

As the median age of Americans grows [0], having an age limit would make it increasingly difficult for the demographics of Congress to match the general population. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/us/graying-of-america-is-speeding-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/us/graying-of-america-is-...

erentz 8y ago

I think there’s something to be said for an limit. A term limit on congress of 12 years might be the easier and more straight forward option. This would probably resolve 80% of the age problem as they’d run over their term before they got too old.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
There's some poli sci research that suggests the main effect of term limits in California is to bump people upstairs to compete for positions they aren't worthy of and removes capable leaders from their positions artificially. If your electorate isn't wise enough to kick a bad leader out after 12 years (remember, even today the average term is below 12 years), then maybe that's a problem less with the representative of the voter and more with the voter. That's the big problem here. Political leadership is pretty miserable, but who is electing them? They're just a reflection of society. Kick them out and it is more of the same. Proposition 140, an initiative narrowly passed by California voters in November 1990, imposed sharp limits on the terms of California legislators.1 These limits will have a dramatic impact on that legislature as an institution. Internal structures such as leadership, committees, parties, and staff will be weakened or made external. This weakening of legislative structures will force most external players, including interest groups, to expend substantially greater resources for a return diminished in effectiveness and predictability. Put simply, the cost of doing business will increase while the return will decline. This combination is likely to advantage groups with both resources and a stake in state government but to discourage participation, divert efforts elsewhere and encourage cheating by others. Here's an abstract. This stuff is pretty easily Googleable if you are interested. Also more newsy: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/bill-whalen/article31032606.html http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/bill-whalen/article31032...
- lele92n 8y ago
  That’s the flip side of term limits. Doesn’t mean the advantage isn’t worth it When they say “weakening” that seems like an emotionally overloaded choice picked for cultural resonance. Is it really a weakening or just a new model to acclimate to and tweak as needed to ensure outcomes? Why is giving any ground or change always coming along with “we won’t be strong in the same way!” rhetoric Duh but that doesn’t negate the argument for change given other data over here We’ve yet to discover a unified theory of reality I highly doubt our system of social governance has found an equivalent It has to change. It will change if history is any indicator Better to have the conversations ourselves then leave it up to experts across the world

ClassAndBurn 8y ago

I agree. Their knowledge and insights would be better as advisement to a new generation of leaders so there can be a continuous learnings and new ideas in government.

toddsiegel 8y ago

Everyone deserves representation, even the older folk (if 60 is even old anymore). I don't think 40-year-olds understand very well the needs of these people (and vice versa, as you point out). Term limits is a much better solution.

scottlocklin 8y ago

Term limits make more sense to me. Ideally a term limit of 1 term. Also the Athenian method of picking representatives by lottery.

spc476 8y ago
My girlfriend is a former US government employee and she's afraid of term limits because then the power will shift to the non-elected bureaucrats who know the system ("Oh, don't worry! I've worked for the previous five Congresscritters before you. Here's what you do ... ")

jcadam 8y ago

Bah, I still say service in Congress should be like jury duty. Anyone who meets a certain minimum set of criteria (age, criminal record, education, etc.) is placed in a lottery and names drawn at random from each district. It should be something undesirable that you do because it's your "duty." You serve one term and then you go home.

Analemma_ 8y ago
Yes, because what we really need in Congress is people with even less understanding of the issues they're regulating than the ones we have now. Have you ever watched a reality TV show? That's the "median American" that you're proposing be put in charge of Congress.
greedo 8y ago
A variation on Cincinnatus...

imjustsaying 8y ago

Older people objectively know more.

kickopotomus 8y ago
To a certain extent, sure. However, as you age, mental acuity and memory both decay. People in their late 60s+ are not as mentally capable as they were decades prior.

DanAndersen 8y ago

If the concern is politicians without skin in the game, how about we instead forbid electing anyone without children? If someone is just an individual without a family or looking toward leaving a legacy for their future offspring, perhaps they're more likely to be over-individualist and not even think about coming generations.