Andy, this touches on something I've been thinking about a lot lately. We often talk about policy failures, but far less about the consequences of leadership systems that make it difficult for new generations to emerge and compete.
In a recent @CenterVoter piece https://centervoter.com/p/time-to-close-down-the-gerontocracy, I argued that it's time to close down America's gerontocracy—not because age itself is the problem, but because a healthy democracy requires continual renewal. When political leadership becomes dominated by the same aging cohort decade after decade, institutions inevitably become less adaptive, less accountable, and less connected to the realities facing younger generations.
In sports, age (of the body) determines a player's viability. Airline pilots must retire at a certain age for safety reasons. Other businesses have mandatory retirement ages.
And then there are the three branches of the Federal government...
I am 65, so I cannot be accused of not understanding the issue or being swayed by my own age. 70 should be the mandatory retirement age for ANY federal office.
Period.
These fossils like Feinstein, Grassley, Biden and Trump have no business in office - their very existence in office shows their selfishness and runaway egos run amok. Add to that poisonous combination mental decline, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Liberals should be careful about the slope they’re stepping onto. For decades their rallying cry was no discrimination — not by age, sex, or race. Once you start carving out exceptions because you don’t like current political outcomes, you open the door to endless lawsuits, counter‑arguments, and the same whataboutism you claim to oppose.
The idea that “we know better, so we’ll impose age limits now” isn’t a principle — it’s frustration dressed up as reform. And if age is suddenly the great moral test, where was the outcry from Democrats about Biden or Pelosi? Mostly silence.
The deeper problem isn’t age. It’s structural. Our democratic machinery has been strained ever since the populist 17th amendment elected Senators by popular. That turned the Senate into a second House and amplified politics, exactly what the framers were trying to avoid.
Age limits won’t fix that. A better reform would be for Senators chosen by state legislatures, from among their own members. That would re‑establish the guardrails the Constitution intended and, over time, bring balance maturity and restraint back to the federal government, and restore some sanity to politics.
In the past, I've always responded to this with "the voters can impose age limitations by choosing someone else" or "okay, then we elect someone else." But then we elected someone else to replace Grijalva, and the Speaker didn't swear her in for months. So just another data point.
Andy, this touches on something I've been thinking about a lot lately. We often talk about policy failures, but far less about the consequences of leadership systems that make it difficult for new generations to emerge and compete.
In a recent @CenterVoter piece https://centervoter.com/p/time-to-close-down-the-gerontocracy, I argued that it's time to close down America's gerontocracy—not because age itself is the problem, but because a healthy democracy requires continual renewal. When political leadership becomes dominated by the same aging cohort decade after decade, institutions inevitably become less adaptive, less accountable, and less connected to the realities facing younger generations.
Kudos for this thoughtful piece.
Ugh
In sports, age (of the body) determines a player's viability. Airline pilots must retire at a certain age for safety reasons. Other businesses have mandatory retirement ages.
And then there are the three branches of the Federal government...
I am 65, so I cannot be accused of not understanding the issue or being swayed by my own age. 70 should be the mandatory retirement age for ANY federal office.
Period.
These fossils like Feinstein, Grassley, Biden and Trump have no business in office - their very existence in office shows their selfishness and runaway egos run amok. Add to that poisonous combination mental decline, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Liberals should be careful about the slope they’re stepping onto. For decades their rallying cry was no discrimination — not by age, sex, or race. Once you start carving out exceptions because you don’t like current political outcomes, you open the door to endless lawsuits, counter‑arguments, and the same whataboutism you claim to oppose.
The idea that “we know better, so we’ll impose age limits now” isn’t a principle — it’s frustration dressed up as reform. And if age is suddenly the great moral test, where was the outcry from Democrats about Biden or Pelosi? Mostly silence.
The deeper problem isn’t age. It’s structural. Our democratic machinery has been strained ever since the populist 17th amendment elected Senators by popular. That turned the Senate into a second House and amplified politics, exactly what the framers were trying to avoid.
Age limits won’t fix that. A better reform would be for Senators chosen by state legislatures, from among their own members. That would re‑establish the guardrails the Constitution intended and, over time, bring balance maturity and restraint back to the federal government, and restore some sanity to politics.
In the past, I've always responded to this with "the voters can impose age limitations by choosing someone else" or "okay, then we elect someone else." But then we elected someone else to replace Grijalva, and the Speaker didn't swear her in for months. So just another data point.