The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
When are people too old to govern?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm making a thread because I don't want to continue to dump politics into [chat], and I've just watched the Daily Show monologue.
Thread Rules Up Front
This is not the thread in which we're going to re-litigate the Middle East thread. Mentions of it are banned, allusions to it are banned. If you like think of this as "US domestic policy focused".
This is also a thread where we are going to openly accept that Donald Trump is a bad person, a bad politician, an absolute disaster for America and all the other things. This is not your thread if you don't agree with that.
This is not an election thread in-so-far as it is, but focused on the age topic, though I'd venture discussion of candidacy and party pipeline are relevant.
My thoughts
Age has been a dominating discussion about the upcoming US presidential election, but it has also been dominating discussions of the current make up of the US congress and senate and the supreme court justices.
The US currently has the situation that the two candidates for President will be the oldest candidates ever. The media, the public - everyone - has not been shy about pronouncing descriptions of definitely what age-related deficiencies make them unsuitable to be President onto the discussion.
To a huge extent, I find this discussion in general unseemly. Age comes for us all, and the tone and tenor of the discussion at times feels like it is validating generic "old people are less valuable people" opinions which have been primed for a while as the whole "boomers" meme kicked off. And there's a whole extra dimension to this which is that there's a serious disconnect between age-related mobility issues, versus age-related mental acuity issues, and not a whole lot of daylight in the public's mind of simply applying that standard wholesale to everyone else as well.
But the thing which is really getting me is that between a 77 year old, and an 81 year old, age is being used as this proxy to simply whitewash away any need to discuss policy by the media. And it also is being used to use the "performance art" of politics as a substitute for actual policy: i.e. the conservative machine wants to say Trump is a "strong leader". Why? What is a strong leader? Well in their worldview, it's the man who yells the most from the podium. Is the rudest. That's strong, right?
But Trump's policy platforms are somewhere between dumpster fire - if you listen to the content of what comes off that podium, or complete nonsense and observations of his time in office would confirm that. Or utterly monstrous.
On that basis, Biden should look great: his administration has clearly stated objectives that it has tried to deliver on, and those are generally communicated well - i.e. aid to Ukraine, the attempt (blocked by the courts) of student loan forgiveness, relief checks (partially executed on) etc. These are actual real policy positions we can talk about, and which are managed as they are from the White House.
But that's not what the media, the campaign or it seems the public wants to talk about. What they want to talk about is how old and frail Joe Biden is looking. Because the story is about Trump's cognitive decline, the story can also be about Biden's cognitive decline and my argument would be: both are pointless, for two different reasons - (1) these are the choices we have, and when pressed the answer you might get is "what about Bernie Sanders?" (82 years old) from supporters for alternate Democrats, but (2) because this all manages to avoid discussing actual policy, or decision making within the White House.
It is a potentially relevant topic, but it also fails to actually address anything relevant to government. Can Biden execute the position? Observably yes. Could Diane Feinstein execute the position? Observably no at the end, and everyone knew it. Could George Bush Jr. execute the position? I would argue records of his presidency showed he wasn't really up to it, and he leaned back on formalities to retain a measure of control over the fact that he was completely out of his intellectual depth in dealing with the foreign policy quagmires he ploughed the US into - i.e. appealing to rules of decorum when a general wanted to address a developing immediate situation in Iraq and forcing the man to wait outside. Technically correct, but also the sort of thing you do when you're overwhelmed.
The things I think of as relevant topics here:
1. Does this seem like a reasonable analysis?
2. In the context of the minimum age to become US President being 35 years old, what is the window if you're into the discussion of "too old"? And if we accept that, is "too young" a thing like the current law indicates? Or does it all sort of bring into question what we're even trying to accomplish with discussing age.
3. Is age actually relevant or has this really just turned into a proxy for not talking about dissatisfaction with policy, or as I would argue with Trump - the gish-gallop of his scandals being boring (which is probably it's own thread)?
4. Where do you fit the Supreme Court, or Senators and Congresspeople into such a consideration? The SC I'd argue winds up in the same boat - age proxies for "god awful decision making" more then anything else, and might be the least problematic thing about the lifetime appointment concept.
5. If we accept the idea of mental acuity being important...do we even have a reasonable way to assess that? Or does it just become an endless game of "look I found the wrong word somewhere!" in public appearances? i.e. while Mitch McConnell seizing at the podium or whatever happened is an issue which to a normal person would be "maybe I don't want to die in this job", McConnell does want to die in his job and seems perfectly capable of being awful the way his voters want him to be.
Thread Rules Up Front
This is not the thread in which we're going to re-litigate the Middle East thread. Mentions of it are banned, allusions to it are banned. If you like think of this as "US domestic policy focused".
This is also a thread where we are going to openly accept that Donald Trump is a bad person, a bad politician, an absolute disaster for America and all the other things. This is not your thread if you don't agree with that.
This is not an election thread in-so-far as it is, but focused on the age topic, though I'd venture discussion of candidacy and party pipeline are relevant.
My thoughts
Age has been a dominating discussion about the upcoming US presidential election, but it has also been dominating discussions of the current make up of the US congress and senate and the supreme court justices.
The US currently has the situation that the two candidates for President will be the oldest candidates ever. The media, the public - everyone - has not been shy about pronouncing descriptions of definitely what age-related deficiencies make them unsuitable to be President onto the discussion.
To a huge extent, I find this discussion in general unseemly. Age comes for us all, and the tone and tenor of the discussion at times feels like it is validating generic "old people are less valuable people" opinions which have been primed for a while as the whole "boomers" meme kicked off. And there's a whole extra dimension to this which is that there's a serious disconnect between age-related mobility issues, versus age-related mental acuity issues, and not a whole lot of daylight in the public's mind of simply applying that standard wholesale to everyone else as well.
But the thing which is really getting me is that between a 77 year old, and an 81 year old, age is being used as this proxy to simply whitewash away any need to discuss policy by the media. And it also is being used to use the "performance art" of politics as a substitute for actual policy: i.e. the conservative machine wants to say Trump is a "strong leader". Why? What is a strong leader? Well in their worldview, it's the man who yells the most from the podium. Is the rudest. That's strong, right?
But Trump's policy platforms are somewhere between dumpster fire - if you listen to the content of what comes off that podium, or complete nonsense and observations of his time in office would confirm that. Or utterly monstrous.
On that basis, Biden should look great: his administration has clearly stated objectives that it has tried to deliver on, and those are generally communicated well - i.e. aid to Ukraine, the attempt (blocked by the courts) of student loan forgiveness, relief checks (partially executed on) etc. These are actual real policy positions we can talk about, and which are managed as they are from the White House.
But that's not what the media, the campaign or it seems the public wants to talk about. What they want to talk about is how old and frail Joe Biden is looking. Because the story is about Trump's cognitive decline, the story can also be about Biden's cognitive decline and my argument would be: both are pointless, for two different reasons - (1) these are the choices we have, and when pressed the answer you might get is "what about Bernie Sanders?" (82 years old) from supporters for alternate Democrats, but (2) because this all manages to avoid discussing actual policy, or decision making within the White House.
It is a potentially relevant topic, but it also fails to actually address anything relevant to government. Can Biden execute the position? Observably yes. Could Diane Feinstein execute the position? Observably no at the end, and everyone knew it. Could George Bush Jr. execute the position? I would argue records of his presidency showed he wasn't really up to it, and he leaned back on formalities to retain a measure of control over the fact that he was completely out of his intellectual depth in dealing with the foreign policy quagmires he ploughed the US into - i.e. appealing to rules of decorum when a general wanted to address a developing immediate situation in Iraq and forcing the man to wait outside. Technically correct, but also the sort of thing you do when you're overwhelmed.
The things I think of as relevant topics here:
1. Does this seem like a reasonable analysis?
2. In the context of the minimum age to become US President being 35 years old, what is the window if you're into the discussion of "too old"? And if we accept that, is "too young" a thing like the current law indicates? Or does it all sort of bring into question what we're even trying to accomplish with discussing age.
3. Is age actually relevant or has this really just turned into a proxy for not talking about dissatisfaction with policy, or as I would argue with Trump - the gish-gallop of his scandals being boring (which is probably it's own thread)?
4. Where do you fit the Supreme Court, or Senators and Congresspeople into such a consideration? The SC I'd argue winds up in the same boat - age proxies for "god awful decision making" more then anything else, and might be the least problematic thing about the lifetime appointment concept.
5. If we accept the idea of mental acuity being important...do we even have a reasonable way to assess that? Or does it just become an endless game of "look I found the wrong word somewhere!" in public appearances? i.e. while Mitch McConnell seizing at the podium or whatever happened is an issue which to a normal person would be "maybe I don't want to die in this job", McConnell does want to die in his job and seems perfectly capable of being awful the way his voters want him to be.
0
Posts
After they reach that age they finish out their term/year and retire.
Older politicians should also help younger folks rise up in the party to ensure we don’t end up getting screwed over when they inevitably die/retire. Dianne Feinstein should have been forced out of office a while ago. The fact that so many people were cool with her keeping her seat is pretty damning. Also abortion protections were lost because one old judge refused to retire.
Now are congress going to write a law that forces them to retire? Not unless something drastic happens.
And the terms could be rather long, because they do need to exist outside of the scope of one party or election.
Something like 18 years, where the one on the longest is replaced by someone new, and this happens every two years.
The supreme court has a quite different problem this would resolve; right now everyone is looking for the youngest ideologue who can pass a sniff test in congress so that they can just be there for decade after fucking decade. I actually don't mind an older justice who has had a great career finishing the rest of it at the supreme court.
Clarence Thomas has been on the court for 33(!!!) years. He was only 42 when he got the chair. This ain't great.
I generally do agree with the premise that age should not be the disqualifying factor, but some of the factors that should be disqualifying present themselves more often with age.
I didn't want Feinstein to retire because she was old. She needed to retire because all of the gears were obviously slipping and her staff was basically propping her up and it was disgusting. I would feel the same way if someone had early onset dementia in their 50s. The age wasn't the issue, the dementia was.
Letting age alone being the reason we send someone off to pasture is bad for older folks still capable of doing the job.
And I guess my last rambling point is that this is why Republicans often win; they see an issue that can drive a wedge into the left, and narratively make it "the conversation" happening everywhere. Yes, we talked about how RBG and Feinstein needed to leave as they were too old... and now it is the #1 issue on the election because it hurts Biden. Their media discipline and use of language remains wildly more effective than it should.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Bernie's an important voice for his position in the Senate, but he's the only one in his position because while he should have been spending the past 10 years finding someone else who can take over for him when he dies, instead he's just kept running and when he goes there's probably just going to be a standard Democrat taking his place. RBG refused to retire when she should have and look at who got her SCOTUS spot. Biden should absolutely not be running for another term. He's had four years to prep someone else to run for the office, but he decided it has to be him, and so now I've gotta have genuine concerns about what's gonna happen if the dude drops dead before election day or has a serious senior moment during a debate.
Perhaps if we (Royal we) change the filter and create a system where handing over power is expected and encouraged, it might pay dividends in the future.
Something similar should be done for public office holders. You reach retirement age - you serve out your term and retire. Or you are not eligible for election when its clear you reach retirement age during the next term or something like that.
I really doesn't help that half the senate is past 65ish and loads and loads of representatives are as well.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Term limits would be good though.
That is my biggest problem with their age. People who aren't here in 10 years shouldn't really decide what we do in 20 years and beyond.
For the specific discussion of the 2024 presidential election, it's wild to me that this gets any play at all.
The plan if Republicans win is that we cease having elections and to open concentration camps for people they deem undesirable and the candidate they're running is the same fucking age as Biden.
It's like people get frustrated that the argument about whether to vote and who to vote for is over for the Presidential ticket. We have other shit to do now, we don't need to be in this conversation.
In the micro maybe, in the macro neither she nor those with influence with her will willing to cede power until it was past time.
But really it all comes down to the voters, and age limits and term limits are just ways to take away voters choice.
Maybe more choice is the answer, with easier ways to recall representatives, senators, governors and possibly even the president when the voters are truly unhappy and united.
Instead situations like Kirsten Sinima and George Santos are allowed to fester.
MWO: Adamski
She should have simply not run for reelection the last time
Why should a legislature and the population from the past be able to take away evaluating the details of every candidate from future voters, on the basis of any particular candidate attribute?
Cue congress immediately pushing back SS to 90 years old
Why age? Why now?
Because both men running are old as fuck and forget stuff.
I don't think age is an issue this election since it's a problem for both candidates.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
He also shouldn't have been president
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
they like to use that line "everyone ages differently!"... yeah.. and our two presidents are aging badly.
its not only age.. I actually watched an interview with a german.... official? congressman? im not sure what they have there, not a leader but definitely in the political sphere and he passed the eye test at a solid 65.. but he seemed perfectly normal and trustworthy
part of what magnifies the age topic in the united states is our political system is poisoned beyond all recognition that enables The Parties to push whatever candidate they wish over the objection of common sense, and so not only do you get crypt keepers in office.... you can roll a 1 and get a clinically insane crypt keeper.... this extends all the way down through the congress and now unfortunately even state politics is becoming a national brand
age shouldn't be a question in a properly functioning democracy. informed voters should be able to naturally weed out the chaff. we're not even being given that choice anymore. the age question is the symptom not the disease.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
If there is an actual cutoff, people might be more inclined to prepare for it as opposed to thinking surely they have more time
Consequently, the disproportionare representation of older people in political office is accurately described as a symptom of voter disenfranchisement.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's half of it. The other half is octogenarian representatives won't bow out gracefully for reasons that are easy to guess.
Perks of staying in power well past their prime
- legacy protection and fundraisers and making connections and champagne and bacon-wrapped shrimp
Perks of stepping aside for the next generation
- the dignity of serving the greater good?
Strong agree.
Hard limits on which groups cannot hold public office should be adopted with an abundance of caution, and only if there are no other viable options. Right now, we're at the "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" stage.
People have the general right to elect their representatives. Where those representatives seem to only come from a certain demographic, we should be diagnosing and striking at the biases in our voting system that cause the disparity.
(I'll fight you on term limits though.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If an octogenarian is the best representative of the constituency, then the voters should elect that octogenarian.
If an octogenarian does not representent the constituency, then the voters' nability to oust octogenarians is a sign that the electoral system isn't working.
"Our elections would be better if the bad candidates just voluntarily withdrew" is a pretty damning indictment of our whole system.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We don't usually get the 'best' candidate we get the one who is best known to people.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I totally agree.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.