Politicians Need A Mandatory Retirement Age
Forget about term limits -- what American politicians need is a mandatory retirement age. Once they hit that age, they would no longer be eligible to be elected to any federal office. This is a radical proposal that would likely require a constitutional amendment, I fully admit, but I still feel the effort would be worth it.
I write because of two recent videos making the rounds, one of a Democrat and one of a Republican. The Republican is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (age 81), who completely froze in the middle of a sentence while talking to reporters. McConnell experienced what can only be described as "brain lock." He stops speaking and stares off into space. His colleagues and aides eventually hustle him away from the podium, but only after almost 20 seconds of very cringeworthy silence. The Democrat is Senator Dianne Feinstein (age 90), who had her own "senior moment" in a committee. They were all voting on something or another, but when Feinstein's name was called she mistakenly thought it was still time to give speeches about either supporting or rejecting the vote. She rambles on for a while until she is stopped by her colleagues and aides, and (embarrassingly) is finally prompted: "Just say 'Aye'." Both episodes show the obvious need for and end to the gerontocracy in Washington.
This wasn't the only such episode for either McConnell or Feinstein, it's worth noting. McConnell has fallen down repeatedly over the past several months, and in one instance suffered a concussion and a broken rib. Questions about Feinstein's mental acuity have been around for years now.
They're certainly not the only ones in this category either, just the two who happen to be in the news this week. There are plenty of other octogenarians wandering around the halls of Congress, although few make it past 90 (as with Feinstein). America's president is currently 80 years old and will be 86 at the end of his second term (if he wins re-election). The frontrunner of the opposition party is currently 77 years old.
To put this in some sort of perspective, anyone who is 80 or older was born either during or before World War II. And virtually everyone of that age is completely and utterly out of touch with what growing up in modern America is even all about. They often have to learn these things not from their grandkids but from their great-grandkids. That is too many generations distant from what normal American families experience, to put it bluntly.
Limiting office by age is already in the U.S. Constitution, for members of Congress and for the presidency (and vice-presidency). But the age limits already written into the Constitution are all lower limits -- age 25 for the House of Representatives, age 30 for the Senate, and age 35 for the president. Nobody younger than those mandatory ages can even run for these offices, because they would not be qualified to serve if they were elected. One can speculate about the precise reasons why the Founders wrote these limits into the Constitution, but the obvious one is that they felt a certain amount of life experience and wisdom was required for each job.
There is nothing to stop instituting such limits at the upper end of the scale as well. The reasoning here would be similar -- after a certain age, your experiences have outlived their shelf life and are no longer relevant to the way America now needs to be governed. Growing up as a child in the 1940s would no longer qualify as relevant experience, to put it another way.
Personally, I would set the mandatory retirement age for politicians at exactly where they have set it for everyone else. The full-benefits retirement age for Social Security was upped (from 65) to 67 years old, so that would apply to politicians as well.
I would draft the language so that nobody would be thrown out of their current office, and politicians could actually stay a little longer than hitting their 67th birthday, by limiting the age requirement the same way the lower age requirement is handled: anyone who is 67 years old on the day they would normally be sworn into office would not be eligible to serve. Period. A candidate for the Senate could be one day shy of his or her 67th birthday when they are sworn in, and could thus serve until they were almost 73 years old -- but nobody whose 67th birthday falls before the swear-in date would even be allowed to run. This would apply to all of Congress and the presidency. This wouldn't get rid of the problem of geriatric federal judges (and Supreme Court justices), since they are guaranteed lifetime appointments, but it would apply to all federal elective offices.
As I said, this would require a constitutional amendment, which means it likely won't happen (since that bar is set so high). Even without considering the ratification process in the states, Congress would first have to pass the amendment with a two-thirds vote in each house. It's doubtful they would ever do so, since they'd be limiting their own time in office. And a full one-third of the current Senate is 70 years old or older. So I do realize the likelihood of this idea ever actually becoming a constitutional amendment is pretty low (if not "non-existent"). But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Pointing out a politician's doddering nature is usually a partisan thing to do, to tear down and ridicule a political opponent. Which is why this week's juxtaposition of both McConnell and Feinstein obviously struggling with portions of their daily duties meant that for once both sides had some cringeworthy video to deal with from within their own ranks.
The president is already limited to two terms (eight years) in office. For the Senate, a window of 37 years seems adequate to attract talented people to the job -- people who can still relate to modern life. For the House, it'd be 42 years. Both of those windows seem large enough to me.
I've never been a huge fan of the concept of term limits, although the goal of those who have pushed them in the past is a worthy one -- avoiding lifetime tenures in elected offices. I wouldn't personally have a problem with someone serving six or even seven Senate terms, and over 20 House terms seems like more than enough for any one politician's career. Longevity in office (within reason) isn't my main bugaboo, in other words.
It's the age of those sitting in those offices that seems to be more and more of a problem. Sure, there are plenty of razor-sharp 80-year-olds and even 90-year-olds out there, and they do all have a long lifetime of experience. But when those experiences drift generationally away from today's growing families, it means that many of these lawmakers just have no idea what they are legislating about. And if it was fine with the Founders to limit public office to those old enough to have the experience to know what they are doing, then it should be equally fine to limit public office to those young enough to still have experience that is relevant to today's society. The way to guarantee this is to limit both Congress and the Oval Office with a mandatory retirement age for politicians.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I would support a mandatory retirement age, but a different age and for a different reason. I heard of a study of car drivers that found that most drivers drive pretty normally up to age 75, but after that some still drive all right while others start to deteriorate. That suggests to me that 75 is a reasonable age to set as a maximum.
Presidents and Congressmen should not be out of touch, but the greatest problem there is not that they are of a different generation, but that many of them are too privileged and isolated to have contact with the experiences and problems of anyone else. Older people with empathy can learn to understand younger people's problems. Young people without it never will.
The main question is simply competence and the ability to stand up to the rigors of the job.
I don't think such a measure would survive voting in Congress if the maximum age were set at 75, but at least not as many Congresspeople would be voting against themselves as they would be if the maximum age were set at 67.
Bad idea.
Okay, now I'll read the piece. Heh.
To put this in some sort of perspective, anyone who is 80 or older was born either during or before World War II. And virtually everyone of that age is completely and utterly out of touch with what growing up in modern America is even all about.
Wow. Just, wow! Presumptuous, anyone?
Andy makes a good point on the details of when the age limit should be. 75 gets rid of presidents and Senators at just about 80 years of age, and that seems to be about where we are now: everyone complaining about Biden and Trump being too old at 82 or 79 to run for another term.
His point about emphathy for and understanding of ones constituents' lives is also good. Age is one factor but another and far more significant is the isolation of privilege and wealth, combined with a lack of emotional breadth and understanding. If an amendment about age limits is hard to imagine getting passed, try adding a wealth limit, or including a social service requirement that's a little more on the ground than just holding a public office.
Finally, if we are going to have all these creative amendments, there's no reason not to redefine the "lifetime" tenure of the federal judiciary. An amendment is an amendment, and the Justices can certainly be asked to step down at the same age as the presidents and the congressmen.
Growing up as a child in the 1940s would no longer qualify as relevant experience, to put it another way.
As if growing up in the right decades is the only relevant experience necessary to govern a modern America. I know you don't believe that, Chris, but, geez Louise, man!
In the final analysis of such a mandatory retirement age, what about the right of American voters to decide who they want to represent them. Isn't this just another way of taking peoples' freedom away?
I just see this more as a solution looking for a problem, notwithstanding all of the current examples provided here that might tend to prove otherwise.
Besides the impossibility that Congress would pass such an Amendment I tend to agree that this notion is ageism and a limitation on voter’s freedom to choose.
Liberal that I am I’d vote for a 90-year old Joe Biden over any Republican candidate.
... or any Democratic one, too! :)
Even if I do disagree with the guy on more than I thought was possible. :(
Yeah, I don't agree with this one either. Plus, science is always pushing the limits of what older people can be capable of at more advanced ages.
How about 70 for max age to get elected, and 87 for MINIMUM age to vote!!!
Heh.
@stucki,
your proposal would undoubtedly make the COUNTING of votes much easier.
Mandatory retirement for age!? Bad for democracy. One person's 60 is another person's 90. Let "We the People" (or Death) decide when a politician should be retired.
As a "for instance," Donald Trump should definitely:
(1) be retired from political life by We the People and
(2) then convicted by some of the People,
although not necessarily in that order and "convicted" not necessarily limited to once and more likely than not, not once but multiple times and then sentenced by some of the People to (some kind of) captivity where his freedom is taken but he'll be gifted with a wonderful free job training program where the short-fingered vulgarian could learn how to use his grubby little hands for something besides stealing from We the People. :)
I am struck by the arguments here that a reasonable old-age limitation 'restricts the voters' freedom' but the constitutional minimum limits that Chris cites in his essay somehow do not 'restrict the voters' freedom', despite preventing the voters from electing a charismatic, talented, and likely 28-year-old to the Senate; or a well-regarded 33-year-old to the presidency. We might also consider the requirement that presidents be native-born Americans, restricting the voters' freedom to elect a brilliant governor or senator to the high office because he or she was brought here at a the age of two.
Lots of things 'restrict the voters' freedom', like weak absentee ballot provisions, unlimited campaign funding by super-PACs, and censorship of social media or the press by self-defined rules of the media owners. An age limit at 67 or 75, forcibly retiring office holders before their 75th or 80th birthdays, could be more like a gift to the voters than a restriction on their imagined freedoms. It won't happen, but not because the principle of the thing subverts the democratic ideal.
John M from Ct.
16
I am struck by the arguments here that a reasonable old-age limitation 'restricts the voters' freedom' but the constitutional minimum limits that Chris cites in his essay somehow do not 'restrict the voters' freedom'...
The definition of "limitation" is "restriction" so there's really no need to argue that... probably why no commenter actually did. Limiting the age on the lower end of the spectrum actually makes sense since there isn't a single natural-born toddler (or teenager for that matter) who is actually fit to serve in any position of the federal government with the exception of the armed forces (and even that is debatable). As for any limitation/restriction on the upper end of the age spectrum, there's honestly no "one size fits all" so why the need to limit it further? Rhetorical question.
We might also consider the requirement that presidents be native-born Americans, restricting the voters' freedom to elect a brilliant governor or senator to the high office because he or she was brought here at a the age of two.
Your term "native-born American" not to be confused with the constitutional restriction "natural-born citizen," which has a wholly different meaning. For instance, Rafael "Ted" Cruz was born in Canada and came to America as a toddler (and arguably still is one), and even he is qualified to run for president. Just my opinion, but we actually should have the leader of America be at least born in America versus allowing Canadian-born toddlers like Cruz to run for president. :)