I am 64 and not terribly sensitive about my age, but I’ve mostly been watching the discussions about who is too old to run for political office with bemusement. If I wouldn’t want, say, Joe Biden piloting a warplane on my behalf, I might still be OK with him piloting the country.
The above magazine cover, which includes politicians who are 77, 81, 83, and 80 years old, has gotten more than a little attention on social media for its old-age tropes, and for its ableism (surely we can agree that someone on a walker can still be an effective politician).
(I would make the argument that at least two of these politicians are inappropriate to the task but not because of their ages.)
If you’re a regular reader of the magazine, you might recognize that this cover is by Barry Blitt, a Pulitzer Prize-winner cartoonist.
So what do you think? Are we geezers being too sensitive about this? And yes, I acknowledge that this would be decided on a case-by-case basis, politician by politician. But have it. Should there be an age limit? Do Boomers hang onto power too long? Would age limits be discriminatory? Or would age limits clear the way for young blood?
Yes, I think Boomers have held on to power too long, but I'd opt for term limits rather than age limits. That would accomplish the same thing and more. Politicians wouldn't spend so much time and energy protecting their positions, they would be less attractive targets for those who would want to buy their influence since they wouldn't be around long enough to make it pay off, and they wouldn't be so far away from the impact of their decisions on the wider society. Term limits would also encourage, maybe even force, parties or other coalitions to seek out and help develop the next generation of politicians. that might give us better quality, better informed, better educated younger politicians, the lack of which is as much of a problem as the oldsters. As for the cartoon, I don't find it particularly funny.
The Framers didn't think we needed so many guardrails, because they actually had lives and didn't envision career politicians. We're at a point where we have spell things out: minimum qualifications for candidates (I think Nikki Haley's requirement for psychological health exams should apply to candidates of all ages along with physical exams--results of the exams along with tax returns released to the voting public. (It's like having various checks for other job applications.) IMO, presidential candidates should have to have held some other elected office (even if it's at the local level--selectman, school board) just so we know they have some understanding of campaigns and holding office work.
This is an excellent point. Who knew there would one day be a ruling class (career politicians)? Well, the framers might have guessed that, given the landed gentry of Great Britain, but yes to all of this.
Thank you! Well said. Term limits. Not age limits. The bottom age makes a little sense. Putting a top age cap out there makes less sense to me because of the range of ways the years seem to play out on people. The cover of the magazine does nothing to help the ugliness of our ageist society. I find it offensive.
I find it offensive in the extreme, but totally agree with term limits. We need educated, dedicated younger leaders, but we do NOT need more blatant ageism in a culture that promotes the quest for eternal youth. Ah, a nation of contradictions. Who knew!
I am 65 and looking to go back and finish my PhD! And I've used all kinds of walking aides, and they don't slow me down; nope, they help me kick ass and go faster and straighter. Term limits and cognitive assessments, along with civics tests or the like, sound fair to me. My great granny (actually an great aunt) lived and foraged until 101, so I might have a chance to finish that degree after all!
Politicians hang on to power too long. There should be term limits, not age limits. When I saw this cover—I screamed. I found it offensive. My dad was playing golf in his 80s, walking the course with a push cart for his clubs. Take that Barry and stuff it.
I’m 75 and now need a walker to get around but don’t find this cover offensive maybe it’s because the Dems are in the lead. I’m not for term limits. To me that’s a local decision. That said I think those deciding who their candidates are going to be should take age into account as should those thinking of running. I retired at 68 in part because I had a longtime assistant anxious to move up. I found volunteer work close to home that keeps me as busy as I want to be without all the pressures of a full time job.
I worked with many at the state who I swear would die in their chairs rather than retire. Some did this because they wanted to get the maximum pension payout possible, some stayed because their job became their life. Regardless, I believe in the circle of life, out with the old in with the new. Seniors can be mentors, employee “Emirati” providing institutional guidance and knowledge to the rookies. But as a 71 y.o. I can admit that my fastball ain’t what it once was.
We know cognitive decline is a normal part of aging. While some are more affected than others, I'm not inclined to trust politicians to self assess. I think there should be a top age for high level positions running our government. (That includes the Supreme Court.) We have a bottom age, so it seems as reasonable to add a top age.
I also think there should be pre-tests for candidates. They should understand how the government operates and have a basic understanding of our history, foreign policy, and allies/adversaries.
However, I'm with you that the magazine cover is problematic.
While I think it's in rather poor taste, in a sense, it speaks the truth. While I will vote for Biden, I am of the opinion that a lot of the older politicians live in an echo chamber and are out of touch. We need some "fresh meat"... people that don't have preconceived notions of how "wonderful" life was in days gone by and are a little bit more in touch with today's reality.
It is always uncomfortable to think of a diminution of one’s abilities. And power. I absolutely understand thinking about fresh meat. Is any one else watching Josh Shapiro?
I know that uncomfortable feeling all too well as that was kind of a topic of some discussions re one of my late bro-in-law's sisters and my 77-year old sister with Parkinson's, who...
It’s the biggest anti Biden thing they can come up with and have been selling it for a long time now. I’m very disappointed in how poorly Dems have defended themselves and showcased accomplishments since Biden won. Enough of the other cheek 😡
Ageist. There are a ton of reasons for any of them to be on the cover of the New Yorker. But, using a rollator barely makes the list. There are millions of folks in 80s and 90s that remain sharp as a tack. Therefore, false equivalency.
Like many here, I am all for campaign finance reform. Frankly I wish the campaigns lasted a few months with equal time for debates and spreading real information. That being said, there should be term limits. We need new blood, especially in Washington. The House has been growing more varied in race and gender (although sadly too many Trumpers). The Senators should mentor younger folks. And definitely the Supreme Court needs this. Staying in these positions until you keel over is not healthy for our country. And many of them only see keeping their positions as that which defines them. Sadly making all these changes will be like trying to “pry a gun out of their cold, dead hands”.
I am all for living a healthy life into a later decade, but at some point, stop trying to run things. I am already trying to find good ways to step back (age 69). Go ahead and forage, get your PhD, run a marathon or half- marathon or 5K, volunteer in service to others, use or don't use walking aids (with five hip surgeries, I've ready been there multiple times), work part- or full-time, WHATEVER, but let go of your power over others and lift them up instead.
I'm at that age, myself. I don't see my energy flagging yet but I don't want to hang on to power with my wrinkly hands. It is always time to step aside and let someone else have the podium.
I agree that term limits vs career politicians would be a beneficial change, however, one excellent reason for a hard upper age limit has nothing whatsoever to do with baseline physical or mental fitness.
McConnell, Feinstein, and others were born before the average American had a TV in their home. Do you recall the painfully out of touch 2018 Congressional hearings with Zuckerberg about Facebook? How can people struggling to grasp the basics of social media make good decisions about American lives in the 21st century?
I am in favor of less Gray Hegemony and more age diversity. Less locked into the status quo of old ideas, more open minded vision for a better future.
I’d be happy if there were more younger people in office. What I’d like to know is how many of them are interested and actually trying and succeeding. If there’s an analysis out there I would love to see it. What I do know is that locally there are precious few people under the age of fifty that occupy elected positions. I can’t say how much it’s the older people not getting out of the way or the younger people not being interested but it’s not uncommon for the various political parties to leave spots on the ballot blank because they were unable to recruit candidates.
All that being said, Washington is a special case. Clearly there’s people in the Capitol that hang on longer than they should. I’m not a supporter of term limits but think real campaign finance reform would loosen the stranglehold incumbents have on their positions. Big time donors would prop up pols like congress was some “Weekend at Bernie’s” sequel if they could get away with it.
As for the cartoon, Barry Blitt is 64 so there’s that. I didn’t think it was especially clever. It’s not going to send me into the street screaming “Soylent green is people!”.
BTW, if you don’t get my movie references, it just means you have better taste in film than I do.
"I can’t say how much it’s the older people not getting out of the way or the younger people not being interested" is the Catch-22. Until the incumbent stops running, (especially in local elections) what is the mechanism in place to recruit new blood? From the outside looking in, those blank positions come from someone retiring where there was no process in place to have a steady pipeline of candidates.
That’s the thing. The local parties have made public attempts to recruit. Is their process flawed, are people not interested, turned off, etc? A combination of all of these? I don’t have the answer which is why I wondered if there’s any analysis out there. What passes for it locally is generational finger pointing. I’m guessing it’s more complicated than that.
On the state and federal level money is the biggest barrier to new people whatever their age. Once someone has been re-elected a few times they’ve become fundraising machines and in too many cases, darlings of dark money. That’s hard to compete with which points back to finance reform.
Ha. I just went looking to see what's out there around young people getting involved in politics. Can any one find U.S. info? Most of what I stumbled across had a more global tinge to it.
No, there should not be an age limit, and the use of a walker, or a wheelchair, or eyeglasses, or hearing aids, should not disqualify anyone from public office. If McConnell wants to stay in office until the stroke that finally drops him for good, fine.
I'm ambivalent about term limits. I think it's up to the voters to decide when a representative or a senator needs to be retired.
Well, clearly the cover is effective. It has people having a conversation about age, ability, term limits, etc. I'm in favor of both term limits (25 years?) AND age limits (21 - 75). The concern I have about any politician with a 50 year career, is the gap in knowledge that is necessarily created by such long career. At some point, other qualified people will stop running for candidacy because they're up against such strong name recognition - not necessarily good governance. Knowing they can stay in a position forever, what is the incentive to create a pool of new recruits?
A friend and I were just discussing this topic yesterday. I don't think there should be an age limit, but I do think there should be a term limit. I also think the biggest problem is the lack of interest in many of the next generations to take over office. I'm 55 and I'm still one of the younger ones in my town who is involved.
I wonder what we should be doing to push more young people into this life. I mean, I know in some towns the politicos are mostly under 40, but that's not the case in my town, either.
I wonder too. I haven't seen much interest in the younger generations. I know many of them are concerned with the environment. I wish they understood that politics will effecet the environment to a great extent.
I do not want age or term limits. I do not want to be told I can't vote for an exceptional leader because they have reached a magic number age. I do not want to be told I can't vote for an exceptional leader because they have held a certain number of terms when they are effective and have more to accomplish.
I want to judge candidates individually. I want to vote for those who have been engaged and have done the work at various local and state levels before they try for national office: experience is to me a key factor. I do not want to be stuck voting for candidates whose claim to the office they seek is youth alone, a slick media presence, or their ego.
The Founders *were* the ruling class. The control they had over the lives of everyone except other wealthy white men was almost total - and often not well-wielded. They didn't need term limits because their power continued whether in or out of office. The power they were really protecting was their own - and the founding documents reflect their desire to keep it and pass it on to their sons. However, their crowning achievement was the creation of documents that were extraordinary precisely because they recognized, despite all they did and all they fought to preserve, that change would be needed. They deliberately put in place the options to allow that change. The amendment process isn't perfect by any means, but their inclusion of the process was astonishing and surprisingly thoughtful about the future.
Much of the bind we now find ourselves in has a great deal to do with a deliberate plan, doggedly pursued by the GOP, to usurp power by taking over the levers of power at the state level - using the power of the states to suppress the vote and gain control of state legislatures and courts. Those who tried to sound the alarm (and that includes some of us who are the oldies here) were met with scorn and derision. We were being Chicken Little. Between refusal to see the handwriting ten feet high on the wall and failure to act, we are now in extreme peril. Some of those who would be tossed aside by ableism, ageism, etc. are also some of the very people who were trying to quite literally stop the real steal all along. Is automatically consigning people, who are smart, capable, experienced, and willing to give up so much for the nation, to the ash heap really in our best interest?
Yes, I think Boomers have held on to power too long, but I'd opt for term limits rather than age limits. That would accomplish the same thing and more. Politicians wouldn't spend so much time and energy protecting their positions, they would be less attractive targets for those who would want to buy their influence since they wouldn't be around long enough to make it pay off, and they wouldn't be so far away from the impact of their decisions on the wider society. Term limits would also encourage, maybe even force, parties or other coalitions to seek out and help develop the next generation of politicians. that might give us better quality, better informed, better educated younger politicians, the lack of which is as much of a problem as the oldsters. As for the cartoon, I don't find it particularly funny.
How long will we wait for people in power to limit themselves with term limits? It’s like campaign finance reform.
The Framers didn't think we needed so many guardrails, because they actually had lives and didn't envision career politicians. We're at a point where we have spell things out: minimum qualifications for candidates (I think Nikki Haley's requirement for psychological health exams should apply to candidates of all ages along with physical exams--results of the exams along with tax returns released to the voting public. (It's like having various checks for other job applications.) IMO, presidential candidates should have to have held some other elected office (even if it's at the local level--selectman, school board) just so we know they have some understanding of campaigns and holding office work.
This is an excellent point. Who knew there would one day be a ruling class (career politicians)? Well, the framers might have guessed that, given the landed gentry of Great Britain, but yes to all of this.
Thank you! Well said. Term limits. Not age limits. The bottom age makes a little sense. Putting a top age cap out there makes less sense to me because of the range of ways the years seem to play out on people. The cover of the magazine does nothing to help the ugliness of our ageist society. I find it offensive.
I find it offensive in the extreme, but totally agree with term limits. We need educated, dedicated younger leaders, but we do NOT need more blatant ageism in a culture that promotes the quest for eternal youth. Ah, a nation of contradictions. Who knew!
What Jeanette said.
Agree
I am 65 and looking to go back and finish my PhD! And I've used all kinds of walking aides, and they don't slow me down; nope, they help me kick ass and go faster and straighter. Term limits and cognitive assessments, along with civics tests or the like, sound fair to me. My great granny (actually an great aunt) lived and foraged until 101, so I might have a chance to finish that degree after all!
Wow. What is your field of study? I am incredibly impressed.
Philosophy -- New School
That's all kinds of awesome.
Politicians hang on to power too long. There should be term limits, not age limits. When I saw this cover—I screamed. I found it offensive. My dad was playing golf in his 80s, walking the course with a push cart for his clubs. Take that Barry and stuff it.
I giggled at your telling Barry to stuff it. He's no spring chicken, himself (I checked, thinking this might have sprung from the arrogance of youth).
I’m 75 and now need a walker to get around but don’t find this cover offensive maybe it’s because the Dems are in the lead. I’m not for term limits. To me that’s a local decision. That said I think those deciding who their candidates are going to be should take age into account as should those thinking of running. I retired at 68 in part because I had a longtime assistant anxious to move up. I found volunteer work close to home that keeps me as busy as I want to be without all the pressures of a full time job.
Ha. But had the Republicans been in the lead...I'm kidding. It sounds like you're doing this part of life very very well.
Nice! Dems are in the lead!
I worked with many at the state who I swear would die in their chairs rather than retire. Some did this because they wanted to get the maximum pension payout possible, some stayed because their job became their life. Regardless, I believe in the circle of life, out with the old in with the new. Seniors can be mentors, employee “Emirati” providing institutional guidance and knowledge to the rookies. But as a 71 y.o. I can admit that my fastball ain’t what it once was.
Maybe you should try the knuckleball
That would suit my game perfectly well:))
We know cognitive decline is a normal part of aging. While some are more affected than others, I'm not inclined to trust politicians to self assess. I think there should be a top age for high level positions running our government. (That includes the Supreme Court.) We have a bottom age, so it seems as reasonable to add a top age.
I also think there should be pre-tests for candidates. They should understand how the government operates and have a basic understanding of our history, foreign policy, and allies/adversaries.
However, I'm with you that the magazine cover is problematic.
I was just having this conversation with a work-mate today. I want to go out gracefully, and I want to know when it's my time to step aside.
While I think it's in rather poor taste, in a sense, it speaks the truth. While I will vote for Biden, I am of the opinion that a lot of the older politicians live in an echo chamber and are out of touch. We need some "fresh meat"... people that don't have preconceived notions of how "wonderful" life was in days gone by and are a little bit more in touch with today's reality.
It is always uncomfortable to think of a diminution of one’s abilities. And power. I absolutely understand thinking about fresh meat. Is any one else watching Josh Shapiro?
I know that uncomfortable feeling all too well as that was kind of a topic of some discussions re one of my late bro-in-law's sisters and my 77-year old sister with Parkinson's, who...
It’s the biggest anti Biden thing they can come up with and have been selling it for a long time now. I’m very disappointed in how poorly Dems have defended themselves and showcased accomplishments since Biden won. Enough of the other cheek 😡
I agree entirely.
Ageist. There are a ton of reasons for any of them to be on the cover of the New Yorker. But, using a rollator barely makes the list. There are millions of folks in 80s and 90s that remain sharp as a tack. Therefore, false equivalency.
Like many here, I am all for campaign finance reform. Frankly I wish the campaigns lasted a few months with equal time for debates and spreading real information. That being said, there should be term limits. We need new blood, especially in Washington. The House has been growing more varied in race and gender (although sadly too many Trumpers). The Senators should mentor younger folks. And definitely the Supreme Court needs this. Staying in these positions until you keel over is not healthy for our country. And many of them only see keeping their positions as that which defines them. Sadly making all these changes will be like trying to “pry a gun out of their cold, dead hands”.
In -- frivkin'-- deed
I am all for living a healthy life into a later decade, but at some point, stop trying to run things. I am already trying to find good ways to step back (age 69). Go ahead and forage, get your PhD, run a marathon or half- marathon or 5K, volunteer in service to others, use or don't use walking aids (with five hip surgeries, I've ready been there multiple times), work part- or full-time, WHATEVER, but let go of your power over others and lift them up instead.
I'm at that age, myself. I don't see my energy flagging yet but I don't want to hang on to power with my wrinkly hands. It is always time to step aside and let someone else have the podium.
I agree that term limits vs career politicians would be a beneficial change, however, one excellent reason for a hard upper age limit has nothing whatsoever to do with baseline physical or mental fitness.
McConnell, Feinstein, and others were born before the average American had a TV in their home. Do you recall the painfully out of touch 2018 Congressional hearings with Zuckerberg about Facebook? How can people struggling to grasp the basics of social media make good decisions about American lives in the 21st century?
I am in favor of less Gray Hegemony and more age diversity. Less locked into the status quo of old ideas, more open minded vision for a better future.
More age diversity. I agree.
I’d be happy if there were more younger people in office. What I’d like to know is how many of them are interested and actually trying and succeeding. If there’s an analysis out there I would love to see it. What I do know is that locally there are precious few people under the age of fifty that occupy elected positions. I can’t say how much it’s the older people not getting out of the way or the younger people not being interested but it’s not uncommon for the various political parties to leave spots on the ballot blank because they were unable to recruit candidates.
All that being said, Washington is a special case. Clearly there’s people in the Capitol that hang on longer than they should. I’m not a supporter of term limits but think real campaign finance reform would loosen the stranglehold incumbents have on their positions. Big time donors would prop up pols like congress was some “Weekend at Bernie’s” sequel if they could get away with it.
As for the cartoon, Barry Blitt is 64 so there’s that. I didn’t think it was especially clever. It’s not going to send me into the street screaming “Soylent green is people!”.
BTW, if you don’t get my movie references, it just means you have better taste in film than I do.
"I can’t say how much it’s the older people not getting out of the way or the younger people not being interested" is the Catch-22. Until the incumbent stops running, (especially in local elections) what is the mechanism in place to recruit new blood? From the outside looking in, those blank positions come from someone retiring where there was no process in place to have a steady pipeline of candidates.
That’s the thing. The local parties have made public attempts to recruit. Is their process flawed, are people not interested, turned off, etc? A combination of all of these? I don’t have the answer which is why I wondered if there’s any analysis out there. What passes for it locally is generational finger pointing. I’m guessing it’s more complicated than that.
On the state and federal level money is the biggest barrier to new people whatever their age. Once someone has been re-elected a few times they’ve become fundraising machines and in too many cases, darlings of dark money. That’s hard to compete with which points back to finance reform.
Ha. I just went looking to see what's out there around young people getting involved in politics. Can any one find U.S. info? Most of what I stumbled across had a more global tinge to it.
No, there should not be an age limit, and the use of a walker, or a wheelchair, or eyeglasses, or hearing aids, should not disqualify anyone from public office. If McConnell wants to stay in office until the stroke that finally drops him for good, fine.
I'm ambivalent about term limits. I think it's up to the voters to decide when a representative or a senator needs to be retired.
Well, clearly the cover is effective. It has people having a conversation about age, ability, term limits, etc. I'm in favor of both term limits (25 years?) AND age limits (21 - 75). The concern I have about any politician with a 50 year career, is the gap in knowledge that is necessarily created by such long career. At some point, other qualified people will stop running for candidacy because they're up against such strong name recognition - not necessarily good governance. Knowing they can stay in a position forever, what is the incentive to create a pool of new recruits?
It feels like there's talk about recruiting young people, but what action is being taken?
A friend and I were just discussing this topic yesterday. I don't think there should be an age limit, but I do think there should be a term limit. I also think the biggest problem is the lack of interest in many of the next generations to take over office. I'm 55 and I'm still one of the younger ones in my town who is involved.
I wonder what we should be doing to push more young people into this life. I mean, I know in some towns the politicos are mostly under 40, but that's not the case in my town, either.
I wonder too. I haven't seen much interest in the younger generations. I know many of them are concerned with the environment. I wish they understood that politics will effecet the environment to a great extent.
I do not want age or term limits. I do not want to be told I can't vote for an exceptional leader because they have reached a magic number age. I do not want to be told I can't vote for an exceptional leader because they have held a certain number of terms when they are effective and have more to accomplish.
I want to judge candidates individually. I want to vote for those who have been engaged and have done the work at various local and state levels before they try for national office: experience is to me a key factor. I do not want to be stuck voting for candidates whose claim to the office they seek is youth alone, a slick media presence, or their ego.
The Founders *were* the ruling class. The control they had over the lives of everyone except other wealthy white men was almost total - and often not well-wielded. They didn't need term limits because their power continued whether in or out of office. The power they were really protecting was their own - and the founding documents reflect their desire to keep it and pass it on to their sons. However, their crowning achievement was the creation of documents that were extraordinary precisely because they recognized, despite all they did and all they fought to preserve, that change would be needed. They deliberately put in place the options to allow that change. The amendment process isn't perfect by any means, but their inclusion of the process was astonishing and surprisingly thoughtful about the future.
Much of the bind we now find ourselves in has a great deal to do with a deliberate plan, doggedly pursued by the GOP, to usurp power by taking over the levers of power at the state level - using the power of the states to suppress the vote and gain control of state legislatures and courts. Those who tried to sound the alarm (and that includes some of us who are the oldies here) were met with scorn and derision. We were being Chicken Little. Between refusal to see the handwriting ten feet high on the wall and failure to act, we are now in extreme peril. Some of those who would be tossed aside by ableism, ageism, etc. are also some of the very people who were trying to quite literally stop the real steal all along. Is automatically consigning people, who are smart, capable, experienced, and willing to give up so much for the nation, to the ash heap really in our best interest?
Oh, HELL, yes.