For the second time in recent months, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell froze in the middle of a press conference, staring off in silence before being saved by an aide. The episode was widely covered by the establishment media — and fairly so, considering his position and power.
It would be nice, and ethical, if the same level of scrutiny was applied to our cognitively compromised president, who regularly wanders off to shake hands with invisible leprechauns, struggles to navigate stairs and forgets the name of his cabinet members.
In any event, it’s understandable that people are getting annoyed by the advanced age of our top leaders. Still, I don’t think age limits, as some have suggested, would be very useful.
For one thing, there is value in experience. There’s little evidence that younger politicians are better equipped to govern. It’s more likely, judging from recent events, that they’re going to be just as injudicious, partisan and perhaps less inclined to respect the constitutional order. Politicians aren’t here to drive modernity or bring us new technologies (or social media accounts with lots of followers); they are here to (lightly) govern the nation within the law. Is a Sen. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Marjorie Taylor Greene going to prove better stewards of those republican values? Color me skeptical.
Now, there are clear cases where age should be disqualifying. California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 90, has reportedly relinquished power of attorney to her daughter. If a person can’t be trusted to legally handle their own life decisions, how can they be entrusted with the power to make decisions over your life? That seems like a reasonable standard to push someone out of office. Then again, even a person in a coma would be better for the country than Adam Schiff or Katie Porter, so you see the problem.
Obviously, mental acuity diminishes with age, but people don’t die in sequential order, and they don’t mature in identical ways. There are plenty of 80-year-olds who are sharp and plenty of 60-year-olds who already struggle. Age minimums for office, as James Madison (probably) argued in The Federalist No. 62, make sense because a person gains a “greater extent of information and stability of character” as they age. Most 25-year-olds shouldn’t even be voting. But a maximum cutoff age is completely arbitrary. It would make more sense to administer a cognitive test (maybe throw in a civics test) than an age limit. I’m sorry, no one is going to convince me that Sen. Chuck Grassley is less competent or knowledgeable at 89 than, say, Sen. Chris Murphy at age 50.
All of this is theoretical anyway, as it would take a constitutional amendment to institute age maximums. Because guess what? A solution already exists. Vote them out. We act as if these septuagenarians and octogenarians have been thrust upon us by some unknown force. We put them there. If three-quarters of voters truly believed President Joe Biden is too old for office, they would find someone else to run. But Democrats would rather pretend that the president, not exactly Cicero in his best days, is an intellectual and physical dynamo because they want to hold onto power. Deep down they know no one in their right mind thinks a fresh-faced Mayor Pete is any better.
The reality is that when it matters, voters across the country love the old-timers — perhaps because they are known quantities or maybe they bring home the money or maybe people genuinely like them. If they didn’t, none of them would be in Washington.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books – the most recent, “Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.” His work has appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reason, New York Post and numerous other publications. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM
Very important , well written article Mr. Harsanyl. In regards the drawbacks associated with old age — I reckon I am qualified to make a statement on that topic , as I am 73. Should probably approach this opinion by considering not just the drawbacks, but the advantages of the experience that accompanies having lived for a period of many moons. One very important matter concerns the language difference, the communication of ideas that is very real between those who developed a high level of knowledge and skills prior to the Internet, and those who were raised with the Internet. It requires much patience to deal with the changes in the meaning of words , and to be diligent about standing up for the truth of various issues considering the Internet version of the English language reflects a way of thinking often, and not just a way of describing things. Good character is what is the determining factor as to whether someone should be in a position of leadership, a position of responsibility. If someone is unable to deal with the ability to do the political maneuvering needed in a leadership position then that is an example right there of the good character issue, they should admit that they are not up to the tasks required and voluntary let someone else better qualified replace them — for the good of the Country. It would be the honorable thing to do. I have considered myself a Reagan Conservative since 1980. The principles of Faith, Family and Freedom are what count insofar as defending the spirit of what the United States of America is all about –the respect for the values in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. And respect for the will of God and Truth. Living with a sense of purpose, maintaining a respectful, uplifting sense of humor, having a code of conduct, regard for ethics and being a responsible citizen. Great work you did with this article David, Well Done ! I do believe I should be a bit more clear about the language matter mentioned earlier — so much revolves around the understanding , the ability to understand the difference in seeing things for what they are due to the introduction of the Internet version of the English language . To get right to the point I am not in favor of the Internet version of the English language. It is something that is not promoting clear thought in many ways, and comparing it to navigation it is like going off course on a regular basis, instead of staying on the right course in order to reach the required destination. In the spirit of Honor, Honesty, Integrity, Courage and Loyalty.
.
“voters across the country love the old-timers”
yeah as in I love when they run out of time. What’s taking so long? Does anyone need help? lol
This article does a very good job of saying what the real problem is, when you strip away all the niceties that most authors have to include to not offend the powers that be within the Washington, D.C. beltway. The problem is and has been, for quite a long time now, that a very large percentage of American voting public no longer votes for people based on either competency, quality or probability of achieving the results the country needs or what was promised during the campaign cycle. Instead, far too many American voters vote by straight party line, with no idea where the individual candidates stand on a myriad of issues. For that matter, many voters don’t even know what most of the issues even are. So, in a lot of cases, we have uninformed voters simply voting and literally hoping for the best. What could possibly go wrong with that methodology repeated endlessly? It turns out quite a lot actually, as evidenced by the make-up of a lot of our government. No country is designed to operate on autopilot.
A large percentage of the American voter base is neither well informed on most issues that either currently impact or potentially will impact the country in the near to medium term future, nor has any real interest in being better informed. Especially if it entails taking more than 15 to 30 minutes a day to simply do a little personal research or even watching some news from overseas to get a broader perspective or more information on important issues. Instead, an awful lot of voters make their voting decisions based off of 30 or 60 second TV or radio ads or what some talking head on TV has said they should support. Apathy and laziness do have consequences as well. Thus, we tend to end up with elected representatives, that in many cases, are neither mentally nor physically up for the job we keep re-electing them to do until some actually end up dying in office. The list of currently mentally incapacitated members of Congress alone is frightening enough. That we have tolerated, since the first day Biden was installed in the Oval Office, a dementia patient as acting POTUS terrifies our allies and emboldens our enemies both foreign and domestic. Again, the American voting public has to make better, more informed and rational choices or this situation in D.C. will only worsen as time goes on.
How about they spare us having to witness elder abuse like we have had to do with Biden since the 2020 election?
In normal world, those exploiting this kind of abuse would be investigated – forget making the entire world watch.
My 80 year old mother has Alzheimer’s and lives with my sister. My 80 year old stepmother goes to work every day and basically runs the law office she has clerked at since high-school.
It’s never been about age.
PaulE does state a problem, people vote for candidates without knowing their stance on issues. I am one of them. I read what a candidate says that they would do and I also read what the opposition says what the candidate has done. Lastly, I look up articles/videos on past performance. The true problem is biased reporting and out and out lying. Give me facts and I can make a reasonable decision, give me lies that are passed as fact, I will make poor decisions that are reflected at the ballots. This is why we elect 80 year old individuals that should be under medical supervision and assisted living, not voting for and/or making policy for out country.
D’accord–vote the impaired older people out and bring in fresh, active replacements that can cope with the burdens of office versus vegetating. Attract our best & brightest for a change.
I must say that this article points out several important points that I’ve never thought about. However, the fact that this Glorious Nation doesn’t have a means of somehow excluding geriatrics that aren’t mentally or physically able to perform the tasks and duties of their respective office, that is a sad state of affairs. We as a nation have suffered the consequences of a party that is HELLBENT on staying in power regardless of the outcome and that outcome has forced Americans into poverty stricken living. It also accuses to me, that the party in question, has no regard for people that don’t earn the enormous incomes they’ve voted for themselves.
In simple terms, they have it and those of us that don’t are expendable.