7 ms·

The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. Incumbent candidates rarely lose, especially in Congress... and power is addicting. This leads t

The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. Incumbent candidates rarely lose, especially in Congress... and power is addicting. This leads to the current situation where U.S. Congress median age is pretty far on the cognitive decline curve - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-gets-younger-senate-gets-older-a-look-at-the-age-and-generation-of-lawmakers-in-the-118th-congress/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... . I think there were multiple issues that took down USSR, but aging leadership with inflexible thinking that was not capable of keeping up with times was probably complicit in most of them.

lstodd 2y ago
well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?
- dcow 2y ago
  If you’re old enough to retire and collect old person benefits you are no longer fit to lead not because you are might be incapable but because you are simply not generationally relevant. The office of president has term limits for effectively the same reason and nobody calls those insane.
  - TedDoesntTalk 2y ago
    Term limits on the presidency have nothing to do with age. You could be 35, serve two terms, and you’d still be banned from being president again … at age 43. The ND ban is nothing but ageism.
    - dcow 2y ago
      It’s not. Nobody is saying old people are subhuman scum who shouldn’t be treated kindly and with respect. The argument is that after a certain point you may not have a lived experience that is relevant anymore for being an effective political leader. The same way we wouldn’t put two 80 year olds in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft… the risk there is obvious and clear.
  - pinkmuffinere 2y ago
    Why are you not generationally relevant after a certain age? Would you say the same to Noam Chomsky, Leslie Lamport, and Donald Knuth?
    - earthling8118 2y ago
      Even if someone could do fine, I'd prefer to skip out on them rather than let those who aren't fit through.
      - creer 2y ago
        If there really such a wealth of honest, talented, dedicated people that you are ready to waste proven ones?
        mvid 2y ago
        Yes
    - dcow 2y ago
      We should not strive to be ruled by wise elders. I am not arguing that there is no place for respect or that old people can’t have great influence and utility. Just that they shouldn’t be on the field playing ball.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  That's what's weird to me also. I honestly don't understand? Clearly the problem is incumbency, why are we going after age? It doesn't make much sense. The law is clearly unconstitutional and would be overturned without a change to that document. And a change to that document won't happen. But we can make laws to diminish the power of incumbency that would be in complete compliance with all constitutional parameters. I'm not even talking about the constitutionally questionable things like term limits. (Which, clearly, we could also try since people don't care about the constitutionality of the laws apparently.) I mean, why wouldn't we? Why are we nibbling around the edges? Let's go for the jugular.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    I don’t think incumbency is inherently a problem. Having representatives that have experience is an advantage. The real problem is gerrymandered districts that essentially mean it’s impossible to lose, even if you aren’t doing a good job. And age is still a separate problem, there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same.
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same No there isn't. Both these people will put your society into a world of hurt. They want to serve 20 years. I can guarantee that ain't for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, any more than the district they draw up for themselves to achieve their dream is for the benefit of its constituency.
      - dcow 2y ago
        Age is a problem and it’s not ageist to say so. What we’re talking about here is not a world where a 24 and a 56 year old cannot both play on the same ball team. We’re talking about elderly people. Your grandparents. I love the grandparents of mine that are still alive but my god are they nowhere near fit to lead a freaking country. One still uses the term “the gays”, one is losing their coherence in small ways, one has serious health problems which are the dominating factor in his daily routine. Seriously. I’m not saying you’re subhuman scum if you’re old. I’m saying maybe you’re past the point of political effectiveness and relevancy.
pdonis 2y ago
> The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. The fix for that isn't age limits, it's term limits. Which would also help with many other issues that are caused by politics being a lucrative career.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  If someone is doing a good job why wouldn’t we want to keep them around? If a 30 year old is elected to congress I don’t see why they couldn’t serve for 40 years if they are competent.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    You would. Congressional politics is closer to a complex game than a cognitive exercise. A game that is only learned and won with experience.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > Congressional politics is closer to a complex game than a cognitive exercise. A game that is only learned and won with experience. None of that means the game actually accomplishes what government is supposed to accomplish. The actual result of the game is a huge bloated bureaucratic government that (a) does a poor job of what it is supposed to be doing, protecting everyone's basic rights, and (b) also does a poor job at all the other stuff that gets piled on top by legislators looking to make a mark and get re-elected and having to pander to special interests to do it. As the saying goes: if it isn't worth doing, it isn't worth doing well.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        Was this response supposed to be relevant to the age question under discussion? Because that was the context of my response. Second, my response both implies that the game and the government are indistinguishable and that what it is supposed to accomplish is as much a question that comes with experience as is the knowledge of how to play. The output of a system is always its purpose, which is an upscaled cognate to the maxim that there are no mistakes in politics. The key to overcoming cognitive dissonance is to understand that this may not align with your perception of that purpose nor your perceived interests. Such is Life.

lstodd 2y ago

well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?

dcow 2y ago
If you’re old enough to retire and collect old person benefits you are no longer fit to lead not because you are might be incapable but because you are simply not generationally relevant. The office of president has term limits for effectively the same reason and nobody calls those insane.
- TedDoesntTalk 2y ago
  Term limits on the presidency have nothing to do with age. You could be 35, serve two terms, and you’d still be banned from being president again … at age 43. The ND ban is nothing but ageism.
  - dcow 2y ago
    It’s not. Nobody is saying old people are subhuman scum who shouldn’t be treated kindly and with respect. The argument is that after a certain point you may not have a lived experience that is relevant anymore for being an effective political leader. The same way we wouldn’t put two 80 year olds in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft… the risk there is obvious and clear.
- pinkmuffinere 2y ago
  Why are you not generationally relevant after a certain age? Would you say the same to Noam Chomsky, Leslie Lamport, and Donald Knuth?
  - earthling8118 2y ago
    Even if someone could do fine, I'd prefer to skip out on them rather than let those who aren't fit through.
    - creer 2y ago
      If there really such a wealth of honest, talented, dedicated people that you are ready to waste proven ones?
      - mvid 2y ago
        Yes
  - dcow 2y ago
    We should not strive to be ruled by wise elders. I am not arguing that there is no place for respect or that old people can’t have great influence and utility. Just that they shouldn’t be on the field playing ball.
bilbo0s 2y ago
That's what's weird to me also. I honestly don't understand? Clearly the problem is incumbency, why are we going after age? It doesn't make much sense. The law is clearly unconstitutional and would be overturned without a change to that document. And a change to that document won't happen. But we can make laws to diminish the power of incumbency that would be in complete compliance with all constitutional parameters. I'm not even talking about the constitutionally questionable things like term limits. (Which, clearly, we could also try since people don't care about the constitutionality of the laws apparently.) I mean, why wouldn't we? Why are we nibbling around the edges? Let's go for the jugular.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  I don’t think incumbency is inherently a problem. Having representatives that have experience is an advantage. The real problem is gerrymandered districts that essentially mean it’s impossible to lose, even if you aren’t doing a good job. And age is still a separate problem, there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same No there isn't. Both these people will put your society into a world of hurt. They want to serve 20 years. I can guarantee that ain't for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, any more than the district they draw up for themselves to achieve their dream is for the benefit of its constituency.
    - dcow 2y ago
      Age is a problem and it’s not ageist to say so. What we’re talking about here is not a world where a 24 and a 56 year old cannot both play on the same ball team. We’re talking about elderly people. Your grandparents. I love the grandparents of mine that are still alive but my god are they nowhere near fit to lead a freaking country. One still uses the term “the gays”, one is losing their coherence in small ways, one has serious health problems which are the dominating factor in his daily routine. Seriously. I’m not saying you’re subhuman scum if you’re old. I’m saying maybe you’re past the point of political effectiveness and relevancy.

pdonis 2y ago

> The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. The fix for that isn't age limits, it's term limits. Which would also help with many other issues that are caused by politics being a lucrative career.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
If someone is doing a good job why wouldn’t we want to keep them around? If a 30 year old is elected to congress I don’t see why they couldn’t serve for 40 years if they are competent.
- mrangle 2y ago
  You would. Congressional politics is closer to a complex game than a cognitive exercise. A game that is only learned and won with experience.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > Congressional politics is closer to a complex game than a cognitive exercise. A game that is only learned and won with experience. None of that means the game actually accomplishes what government is supposed to accomplish. The actual result of the game is a huge bloated bureaucratic government that (a) does a poor job of what it is supposed to be doing, protecting everyone's basic rights, and (b) also does a poor job at all the other stuff that gets piled on top by legislators looking to make a mark and get re-elected and having to pander to special interests to do it. As the saying goes: if it isn't worth doing, it isn't worth doing well.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      Was this response supposed to be relevant to the age question under discussion? Because that was the context of my response. Second, my response both implies that the game and the government are indistinguishable and that what it is supposed to accomplish is as much a question that comes with experience as is the knowledge of how to play. The output of a system is always its purpose, which is an upscaled cognate to the maxim that there are no mistakes in politics. The key to overcoming cognitive dissonance is to understand that this may not align with your perception of that purpose nor your perceived interests. Such is Life.