7 ms·

Dubious congress trades aside, congresspeople should not die of old age serving. There is something wrong with people like Byrd and Feinstein dying while servi

by mc32 3y ago

Dubious congress trades aside, congresspeople should not die of old age serving. There is something wrong with people like Byrd and Feinstein dying while serving. Even without term limits they should have the decency to know when to call it quits and not become a figurehead where most of the work they’re entrusted with is done behind the scenes by others —none of this bullshit whispering in their ear on how to vote. At least have them have to pass significant cognitive tests by a panel of competent professionals who are voted in by both parties (or as many parties as have greater than 5% rep). Weekend at Bernie's should remain a farce and not become reality.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seanw444 3y ago
"Professionals" arbitrarily deciding whose psychological functions are passable in order to allow an elected person to take office sounds horrendous to me, impartial panel or not. If there's anything 2020-2021 and the 4th branch of the gov't taught me, it's that we need to quit putting authority figures in positions of power over the people, for the sole reason of being an authority figure.
- mc32 3y ago
  Why? I don’t want people with decreased mental abilities serving in important gov positions. Do public companies let aging incompetent leaders stay on as senior executives? I'm not asking for stringent qualifications. Bare minimum. Have time awareness, place awareness, be aware of the connection between action and consequences, have control over bodily functions. I'm not asking for a Chess champion or math wiz.
  - jeromegv 3y ago
    The point is that there is no good system that would allow a committee to decide if a politician is fit for office or not. Just look how Trump tried to destroy the electoral system for his own gain before and on January 6th. Now apply his tactics to to a "committee" to decide if a democrat can seek reelection. There is a good system to decide if the CEO is fit or not, it's the board of director. Those are entirely different systems.
  - all2 3y ago
    So vote. Or better yet, run for office. Be the change you want to see.
    - abeppu 3y ago
      Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for this reason; _how_ we vote is informed by our conversations with others, and what policies we put on the table is informed by what we all want and prioritize. But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons: - a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period - tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board. - X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    I also don't want people with decreased mental abilities representing me in government, so I don't vote for them to be elected to those positions. The people of California elected Senator Feinstein for years, so they get what they voted for. Edit: I don't disagree with you in theory, but I don't think the system you propose is practicable.
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
We need age limits for government representatives. The the American Association of Rapacious People can't have that.
abeppu 3y ago
We should seriously consider mandatory retirement ages for all high public offices. We have them in the Foreign Service, and of course it would be bad for a diplomat to be in mental decline while negotiating a complex treaty. Multiple states have retirement ages for judges. The work of a senator or federal judge should be similarly protected from disruption due to the predictable age-related decline of individual office holders.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The fact that we can even have a discussion around this indicates a fundamental problem with mass-market voting, it's just a popularity contest with certain rules. It's probably likely that nobody voted for her in the last 20 years, instead voting for the party she represents. And they're probably roughly satisfied with the results, which means she provided little that an AI couldn't have done (a very simple one, something like VOTE=D). This is likely true of almost all representatives. It's likely hard to find one that you can't simply predict how they will act.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I tend to think it should be up to voters to decide. I feel picking any one number is too arbitrary.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    I think whether and when during a senatorial term senility starts to set, or accelerates in is also pretty arbitrary. Picking one number, based on input from experts in psychology and medicine, and applying it to all high-level public trust jobs, and putting it in law in our normal democratic processes would be no more arbitrary than the rule that the President must be at least 35. I will point out that civilians who want "public trust" positions within the federal government or even as contractors are checked for a range of attributes which may make them potentially unfit for the responsibilities in question. Currently, my understanding is that subsequent to a clearance check, they must sign an agreement to not use substances like marijuana for the duration of their employment. This policy is _also_ not something that Americans voted for. I would argue that Feinstein, who often seemed not to know where she was, or McConnell, who is sometimes unaware that he was making remarks, are far more impaired than someone who occasionally enjoys an edible.
sfpotter 3y ago
They should… have the decency? What? Are you familiar with our government?
carimura 3y ago
it's incredible isn't it? Even beyond cognitive inabilities, average age is like 64 and the median net worth of congress is $1M (probably much higher for senate given cost of campaign). Compare that to 62% of American's reportedly living paycheck to paycheck.

by mc32 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

seanw444 3y ago

"Professionals" arbitrarily deciding whose psychological functions are passable in order to allow an elected person to take office sounds horrendous to me, impartial panel or not. If there's anything 2020-2021 and the 4th branch of the gov't taught me, it's that we need to quit putting authority figures in positions of power over the people, for the sole reason of being an authority figure.

mc32 3y ago
Why? I don’t want people with decreased mental abilities serving in important gov positions. Do public companies let aging incompetent leaders stay on as senior executives? I'm not asking for stringent qualifications. Bare minimum. Have time awareness, place awareness, be aware of the connection between action and consequences, have control over bodily functions. I'm not asking for a Chess champion or math wiz.
- jeromegv 3y ago
  The point is that there is no good system that would allow a committee to decide if a politician is fit for office or not. Just look how Trump tried to destroy the electoral system for his own gain before and on January 6th. Now apply his tactics to to a "committee" to decide if a democrat can seek reelection. There is a good system to decide if the CEO is fit or not, it's the board of director. Those are entirely different systems.
- all2 3y ago
  So vote. Or better yet, run for office. Be the change you want to see.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for this reason; _how_ we vote is informed by our conversations with others, and what policies we put on the table is informed by what we all want and prioritize. But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons: - a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period - tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board. - X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.
- argiopetech 3y ago
  I also don't want people with decreased mental abilities representing me in government, so I don't vote for them to be elected to those positions. The people of California elected Senator Feinstein for years, so they get what they voted for. Edit: I don't disagree with you in theory, but I don't think the system you propose is practicable.

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

We need age limits for government representatives. The the American Association of Rapacious People can't have that.

abeppu 3y ago

We should seriously consider mandatory retirement ages for all high public offices. We have them in the Foreign Service, and of course it would be bad for a diplomat to be in mental decline while negotiating a complex treaty. Multiple states have retirement ages for judges. The work of a senator or federal judge should be similarly protected from disruption due to the predictable age-related decline of individual office holders.

bombcar 3y ago
The fact that we can even have a discussion around this indicates a fundamental problem with mass-market voting, it's just a popularity contest with certain rules. It's probably likely that nobody voted for her in the last 20 years, instead voting for the party she represents. And they're probably roughly satisfied with the results, which means she provided little that an AI couldn't have done (a very simple one, something like VOTE=D). This is likely true of almost all representatives. It's likely hard to find one that you can't simply predict how they will act.
kube-system 3y ago
I tend to think it should be up to voters to decide. I feel picking any one number is too arbitrary.
- abeppu 3y ago
  I think whether and when during a senatorial term senility starts to set, or accelerates in is also pretty arbitrary. Picking one number, based on input from experts in psychology and medicine, and applying it to all high-level public trust jobs, and putting it in law in our normal democratic processes would be no more arbitrary than the rule that the President must be at least 35. I will point out that civilians who want "public trust" positions within the federal government or even as contractors are checked for a range of attributes which may make them potentially unfit for the responsibilities in question. Currently, my understanding is that subsequent to a clearance check, they must sign an agreement to not use substances like marijuana for the duration of their employment. This policy is _also_ not something that Americans voted for. I would argue that Feinstein, who often seemed not to know where she was, or McConnell, who is sometimes unaware that he was making remarks, are far more impaired than someone who occasionally enjoys an edible.

sfpotter 3y ago

They should… have the decency? What? Are you familiar with our government?

carimura 3y ago

it's incredible isn't it? Even beyond cognitive inabilities, average age is like 64 and the median net worth of congress is $1M (probably much higher for senate given cost of campaign). Compare that to 62% of American's reportedly living paycheck to paycheck.