The word for “old man” in Latin is “senex.” An assembly of old men is a “senate.” The U.S. Constitution is not too insistent on this point, demanding only that members of the U.S. Senate be at least 30 years of age when they take office. Notably, our current president Joe Biden was only 29 when elected to Congress but turned 30 before January 3, 1973, when he was sworn in. A lot of time has passed since then. In November, Biden will turn eighty.
And, yes, Biden is showing his age a bit. We can see it in his posture and gait. We can sense it in a new hesitation before he speaks. His mind is clear, but it’s not quite as sharp as it once was. The Republicans know that Americans are concerned about Biden’s age and they like to exaggerate his decline, often using another “sen” word to describe him: senile.
A just-released CBS News poll shows that voters overwhelmingly (73 percent to 27 percent) support an age limit for elected officials, with the most common cited cutoff being 70 years. If enacted, it would preclude about a third of the current U.S. Senate from seeking reelection. We would not see a repeat of the 2020 election, not only because Biden will be almost 82 on Election Day in 2024, but because Donald Trump will be seventy-eight. For what it’s worth Hillary Clinton will be 77 and Bernie Sanders will be eighty-three.
Ancient Rome was not unique in utilizing a body of elders as advisers. It’s a common feature of many cultures, including many Native American tribes. In general, experience brings wisdom, and long after our bodies betray us and we can no longer be effective hunters, gatherers or laborers, our minds can be an enormous societal asset. If nothing else, it’s way to earn one’s keep. If an individual elder slips into senility, it doesn’t have much effect on the body of elders. At any given time, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House usually have at least one or two people serving who really ought to retire because they’ve become cognitively impaired.
That’s not a luxury we can afford in the presidency, however. It’s not a good idea on our courts, either, and we might want to revisit the whole concept of lifetime judicial appointments.
When it comes to Congress, at least with the Senate, we shouldn’t ignore that the entire concept is rooted in the wisdom of elders. Voters are capable of evaluating congressional candidates and I see no need for a hard and fast age rule. It’s reasonable to prefer a younger candidate because you want a youthful perspective, or to oppose an older candidate who appears to be faltering. But I think people in their seventies make perfectly fine senators and congresspeople. It’s probably best to have mix of people from both ends of the age spectrum, just as it’s best to have people from a variety of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. How better to truly reflect and represent our society?
An age restriction is more compelling when it comes to the presidency, and to judges. But even in these cases, I think 80 is a much better cut-off then seventy.
I’d be okay with setting a cap at 80 for judges and for President. There will, of course, be those who are older than 80 who could still be quite competent and energetic, but I think you have to go with the fat part of the curve here if you’re setting a limit. 80 seems a reasonable cutoff to me.
Since the Constitution only sets minimum ages for our elected officials and no minimum age for judges, what are the chances that the practitioners of “Originalism…only when it suits our preferred preordained result” will go along with this?
It’s a common practice in the Catholic Church for priests at age 75 (or thereabouts, the practice probably varies from diocese to diocese) to shift from pastor to “senior priest-retired” status. To the extent they’re physically and mentally fit, they still engage in some kind of ministry—helping out in a parish (but no longer having all the administrative responsibilities a pastor does), mentoring younger priests, focusing on a particular ministry (retreats and spiritual direction, health—hospitals,nursing homes, hospices), etc. At the highest levels, a cardinal is typically a lifetime appointment but after 80, cardinals can’t participate in electing a new pope.
Obviously, it’s a different institution than those of a national government, but it’s another example of respecting elders and keeping their wisdom available for the common good, while recognizing that there’s value in limiting their roles and responsibilities.
To me it’s just means-testing in a different package. The voters ultimately are responsible for evaluating individual candidates on their personal merits. I’m against term limits for the same reason: it ultimately removes choices from voters.
Look at Dick van Dyke. He doesn’t need to be president by any means, but if he’d gone the political route he would’ve been just fine in the office at age 90. Look also at the arguments for raising the Social Security eligibility and retirement ages based on better health care and longevity trends (not counting the last year or two).
Ageism is a legitimate concern not because many if not most people become shadows of themselves in terms of physical stamina and cognition at the 70-80 year mark, but because there are also tons of exceptions to the rule out there, and the goal posts keep moving as medical technology advances, even if access to these techs isn’t made avalable in an equitable manner.
An age test would ultimately be unfairly discriminatory because it makes no allowance for extraordinary individuals. And an extraordinary individual at the right place in history can be crucial to a state surviving or dying.
Being 72, I disagree. I have slowed down. I’d like to think that I am still sharp, but that isn’t the case. Age 40 or 50 me was a lot better and more with it than age 72 me. Set it at age 75. Although, frankly, 70 is all right with me. 70 is probably the right age. Heck, it is Social Security’s top age for retirement. Plus, our overall longevity has taken a hit of late, so lower is better.