A mandatory retirement age

[Jazzy]

Do you think there should be a mandatory retirement age for all high-ranking government officials? (Why or why not)?

 

[Ammi]

Yes, I think there should be a mandatory age. You wouldn't want somebody going senile and starting a war, unlikely as it is that would ever happen!!!

 

[Ammi]

.

 

[Albion]

Do you think there should be a mandatory retirement age for all high-ranking government officials? (Why or why not)?

LOL. I'd think that we, as a society, would by now be past discriminating against anyone merely on account of their age. The claim that somebody or other might be senile fails on several accounts.

First, IS he senile or not? Why not advocate that this be answered before some blanket prohibition is made the rule?

Second, the people in a democracy have the right--or should have the right--to elect just about anyone they choose in preference to someone else in the running. Let's say that the American voters chose Joe Biden last time around. They knew what his physical and mental condition was. Should they have been prevented by law from choosing him over Donald Trump? Of course, they should have had the right to choose between those two, taking everything into consideration that they thought relevant.

And Third, it's not necessarily a function of age. Yes, with age comes a general tendency or susceptibility, but not a guarantee. So what would the obligatory "retirement" age be? 65? 70? 80? Something else. ?? It is stupid to set an arbitrary age like that when we know for a fact that there are people beyond whatever age you select who are capable and there are also many who are younger but are already mentally and/or physically defective.

 

[Lamb]

I would prefer an age limit because we shouldn't be holding onto some of these career politicians for such a long time. Let the younger voices get in on making decisions for the people.

 

[Albion]

I would prefer an age limit because we shouldn't be holding onto some of these career politicians for such a long time. Let the younger voices get in on making decisions for the people.

If that's the concern, perhaps imposing term limits would be a better way to go.

To impose an age limit instead seems to me to address the problem the wrong way, considering that a person who's been in the same office for, say, twenty years, is probably more of a concern than someone who was first elected in his later years and has served for maybe six or eight years before hitting an arbitrary age at which he's deemed to be incompetent.

In part, it depends on what the concern is, exactly. For some people, it's competence, the ability to perform properly in old age. But for others, the concern is more about having too much power that's been accumulated through years of wheeling and dealing and knowing how to work the system.

 

[Josiah]

LOL. I'd think that we, as a society, would by now be past discriminating against anyone merely on account of their age. The claim that somebody or other might be senile fails on several accounts.

First, IS he senile or not? Why not advocate that this be answered before some blanket prohibition is made the rule?

Second, the people in a democracy have the right--or should have the right--to elect just about anyone they choose in preference to someone else in the running. Let's say that the American voters chose Joe Biden last time around. They knew what his physical and mental condition was. Should they have been prevented by law from choosing him over Donald Trump? Of course, they should have had the right to choose between those two, taking everything into consideration that they thought relevant.

And Third, it's not necessarily a function of age. Yes, with age comes a general tendency or susceptibility, but not a guarantee. So what would the obligatory "retirement" age be? 65? 70? 80? Something else. ?? It is stupid to set an arbitrary age like that when we know for a fact that there are people beyond whatever age you select who are capable and there are also many who are younger but are already mentally and/or physically defective.

What he said.



.

 

[Lamb]

If that's the concern, perhaps imposing term limits would be a better way to go.

To impose an age limit instead seems to me to address the problem the wrong way, considering that a person who's been in the same office for, say, twenty years, is probably more of a concern than someone who was first elected in his later years and has served for maybe six or eight years before hitting an arbitrary age at which he's deemed to be incompetent.

In part, it depends on what the concern is, exactly. For some people, it's competence, the ability to perform properly in old age. But for others, the concern is more about having too much power that's been accumulated through years of wheeling and dealing and knowing how to work the system.

I would go for term limits plus age limits. We have age limits at the minimum so I'm for a maximum as well.

 

[Albion]

I would go for term limits plus age limits. We have age limits at the minimum so I'm for a maximum as well.

That's true. We do have such age limits for the young.

However, in the case of younger people it means only that they will have to wait several years before possibly entering into a long career of public service, whereas with the upper age limit it's not only arbitrary (65? 70? 75? 80?), but it also means the end of that person's service, whether or not he or she has been affected by dementia, etc.

Bringing the matter down to today's reality, the following announced candidates for the upcoming Presidential election would not be able to meet an age limit for holding that office if it were set at the presumably reasonable age of 70--

These are their ages at present, one and a half years prior to taking office if elected next November.

As you can see, the 2024 election would, under such restraints, be between Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or Tim Scott (R) versus a player to be named later, probably Gavin Newsom of California (D).

• Joe Biden: 80
• Marianne Williamson: 71
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr: 69
• Donald Trump: 77
• Asa Hutchinson: 72
• Larry Elder: 71

 

[Lamb]

That's true. We do have such age limits for the young.

However, in the case of younger people it means only that they will have to wait several years before possibly entering into a long career of public service, whereas with the upper age limit it's not only arbitrary (65? 70? 75? 80?), but it also means the end of that person's service, whether or not he or she has been affected by dementia, etc.

Bringing the matter down to today's reality, the following announced candidates for the upcoming Presidential election would not be able to meet an age limit for holding that office if it were set at the presumably reasonable age of 70--

These are their ages at present, one and a half years prior to taking office if elected next November.

As you can see, the 2024 election would, under such restraints, be between Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or Tim Scott (R) versus a player to be named later, probably Gavin Newsom of California (D).

• Joe Biden: 80
• Marianne Williamson: 71
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr: 69
• Donald Trump: 77
• Asa Hutchinson: 72
• Larry Elder: 71

They should retire from politics!! Fauci finally retired and look at all the damage he caused before doing that.

 

[tango]

I would prefer an age limit because we shouldn't be holding onto some of these career politicians for such a long time. Let the younger voices get in on making decisions for the people.

Term limits would seem like a better solution than hard age limits.

I know we technically have term limits, notionally called elections, but when everything is ever-more polarised it's really hard to see people voting for the other party to make a point that it's really time their party offered up a new candidate. And when both parties have increasingly elderly people in top positions who show at least some signs of struggling on account of their age even as we are expected to believe assurances that all is well (I'm thinking of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell fairly recently) it seems clear that we need some way of cleaning house and getting some different people in there.

Since getting Congress to approve term limits would seem about as likely as getting turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving an age limit seems more likely to happen but, given how many older people have done very well out of a lifelong career in politics, I wonder how many of them would vote for an age limit.

 

[Albion]

And when both parties have increasingly elderly people in top positions who show at least some signs of struggling on account of their age even as we are expected to believe assurances that all is well (I'm thinking of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell fairly recently) it seems clear that we need some way of cleaning house and getting some different people in there.

Those persons do seem to be the leading examples of the "problem" at present, all right. And we should note that all of them have been in office for many years now, meaning that a serious term limit rule appears to be the better way to go when compared with an arbitrary age limit.

But it does depend, to some degree, on what the concern over the present system actually deals with. Is the issue too much power accumulated over too many years in office...or is it the matter of declining mental ability?

Incidentally, I do not subscribe to the notion that younger people are going to be better legislators. There are too many examples of radical, impetuous policies coming from inexperienced and overly ambitious young legislators for that view to go unchallenged. Take a look at Congress and see if this is not true.

 

[tango]

Those persons do seem to be the leading examples of the "problem" at present, all right. And we should note that all of them have been in office for many years now, meaning that a serious term limit rule appears to be the better way to go when compared with an arbitrary age limit.

But it does depend, to some degree, on what the concern over the present system actually deals with. Is the issue too much power accumulated over too many years in office...or is it the matter of declining mental ability?

Incidentally, I do not subscribe to the notion that younger people are going to be better legislators. There are too many examples of radical, impetuous policies coming from inexperienced and overly ambitious young legislators for that view to go unchallenged. Take a look at Congress and see if this is not true.

A term limit would certainly make a lot of sense, it's just hard to see career politicians voting for something that would force them to do something useful when they could spend the rest of their lives living it large on the back of the people they allegedly represent.

I think there is too much power accumulated over time, as well as declining mental ability. It may be that both problems can be solved with one solution although term limits wouldn't stop someone old and senile getting into office for a couple of terms, and age limits wouldn't stop someone being elected at 25 and spending the next several decades in power.

I agree entirely that young legislators aren't necessarily better legislators. (ETA: we don't necessarily need to focus on "young" to focus on "younger" candidates. Someone trying to make a name for themselves is more likely to promote aggressive policies that will only be favored by the hardline of their party, whereas someone who is more mature but not yet senile will hopefully understand more of the nuances of policy, how things can backfire, unintended consequences etc)

Perhaps the way things are done needs a total overhaul. When it often seems like moderate voters have the choice between backing their own party drifting further from the center, or voting for the other party who are drifting further the other way, it's hard to see how much will change. I think of the Senate election in PA where John Fetterman, who at the time appeared barely able to string together a coherent sentence following his stroke, still managed to win the election. Whatever we might think of Fetterman's political stance, the guy had a stroke that could easily have killed him and the fact he survived it seemed like a defiance of the odds. And yet his opponent was sufficiently undesirable to a large enough section of the population that they would rather elect a guy who hadn't fully recovered from a major medical disaster.

I wonder whether the existing system is so entrenched, and so beneficial to those who manage to get their claws in, that they will refuse to change anything at all.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps the way things are done needs a total overhaul. When it often seems like moderate voters have the choice between backing their own party drifting further from the center, or voting for the other party who are drifting further the other way, it's hard to see how much will change. I think of the Senate election in PA where John Fetterman, who at the time appeared barely able to string together a coherent sentence following his stroke, still managed to win the election...And yet his opponent was sufficiently undesirable to a large enough section of the population that they would rather elect a guy who hadn't fully recovered from a major medical disaster.

I do think of this problem from time to time, and it is exasperating when cities or states are in turmoil--or so we are led to believe by the news reports--because the rulers are letting the place go to chaos.

But then they elect them or someone much like the incumbent instead of replacing them in favor of someone else who will try to do what the citizens have been pleading for.

Look at LA or New York or Chicago, for example. Presumably, these cities were in crisis, but then when the voters were given a choice in the next election, with one candidate being similar to the former mayor and another being an avowed proponent of a return to lawfulness...the first one came out the winner and (apparently) nothing much changed--not the crime or the complaints of the people demanding change.

 

[tango]

It's sometimes as if people accept that "elections have consequences" but want to be protected from the consequences.

In a system with only two parties you pick one or the other. You can't have the benefits of your preferred party without having the downsides. As the parties drift from the center it's hard to see much improvement.

Ever-more polarisation means that even if you can't stand the way your town/city/county/state/whatever is going it becomes unthinkable to vote for The Other Guy because, well, they are from The Wrong Party.