Non-Partisan discussion... when are you too old to be in office?

[Swerd]

@Swerd
While being fantastically optimistic, let's face it that something here should be done. Holding "higher office" is not dissimilar to other jobs where basic performance metrics are expected of employees.

I'll keep my answer short & sweet. Nothing should be done. I strongly believe codifying age limits or basic performance metrics for president are absolutely terrible ideas.

I haven't liked most presidents who've held office in my adult life, but I'll be damned if I can come up with any useful & practical ideas as to what kinds of qualifications should be sought, much less required. And I already know that if you codify these ideas, they will be bent & corrupted within 10-20 years.

I'd be happy if a president showed evidence that he/she can read, comprehend, and think critically & clearly. I want a president who is comfortable hiring a variety of high-level advisors who offer sometimes conflicting advice, and debate it vigorously. I want that president who is able to make difficult political choices. No one is born knowing how to do that, and no one can receive formal training for that, much less be tested & rated for those abilities.

I'd be happy if as many US citizens voted as possible, without any arbitrary or administrative barriers to voter registration. I may sound as fatally optimistic as you, but I can't think of another way to select a president. That's why I oppose any mechanism that dilutes the effect of individual voters, such as the Electoral College. I vehemently oppose any effort, such as is favored by the GOP, that limits the number of voters. I'd really like to see a National Holiday on Election Day, where people are fined if they don't vote.

And now that I've got a full head of steam going, I'll come out and say this. Voting is the most sacred freedom we have in this country. Anyone who is found guilty of tampering with our election process should be shot at sunrise the next day. And to be clear, I'm talking about what our former president, The Orange Peril, and his band of thugs, tried to do after the 2020 election.

Ok, my answer wasn't so short or sweet. [/RANT OVER]

 

[Steve81]

I'll keep my answer short & sweet. Nothing should be done. I strongly believe codifying age limits or basic performance metrics for president are absolutely terrible ideas.

I haven't liked most presidents who've held office in my adult life, but I'll be damned if I can come up with any useful & practical ideas as to what kinds of qualifications should be sought, much less required. And I already know that if you codify these ideas, they will be bent & corrupted within 10-20 years.

I'd be happy if a president showed evidence that he/she can read, comprehend, and think critically & clearly. I want a president who is comfortable hiring a variety of high-level advisors who offer sometimes conflicting advice, and debate it vigorously. I want that president who is able to make difficult political choices. No one is born knowing how to do that, and no one can receive formal training for that, much less be tested & rated for those abilities.

I'd be happy if as many US citizens voted as possible, without any arbitrary or administrative barriers to voter registration. I may sound as fatally optimistic as you, but I can't think of another way to select a president. That's why I oppose any mechanism that dilutes the effect of individual voters, such as the Electoral College. I vehemently oppose any effort, such as is favored by the GOP, that limits the number of voters. I'd really like to see a National Holiday on Election Day, where people are fined if they don't vote.

And now that I've got a full head of steam going, I'll come out and say this. Voting is the most sacred freedom we have in this country. Anyone who is found guilty of tampering with our election process should be shot at sunrise the next day. And to be clear, I'm talking about what our former president, The Orange Peril, and his band of thugs, tried to do after the 2020 election.

Ok, my answer wasn't so short or sweet. [/RANT OVER]

Swerd for President. Steve81 for VP. Let’s do this

 

[Swerd]

Swerd for President. Steve81 for VP. Let’s do this

You're in! But only after you sign a Loyalty Oath to me, and fork over a 6-figure cash contribution. For 7-figures, I'll let you command that firing squad I mentioned.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Failing that, how about an end to pre-emptive pardons? I mean, someone should at least have been tried and convicted, before becoming eligible for a pardon.

Perhaps something more direct is in order. Here's my suggestion for an amendment to the Constitution:

"The President shall immediately be subjected to the application of ten (10) consecutive full-strength tazers live on national TV for each pardon granted under this section."

I'll bet that would cool their enthusiasm for pardons.

If nothing else, it would be entertaining as h*ll.

 

[mtrycrafts]

@Swerd
...

Believe me, I get there are no easy answers about any of this. Not that I really expected there to be any, either.

...

If there were, I would think it would have been done already. Or not.

 

[Swerd]

If there were, I would think it would have been done already. Or not.

This one's too easy, even if it's in bad taste.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-health/index.html

Washington CNN
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is medically cleared to continue his schedule, the US Capitol physician said Thursday, after he froze for the second time in as many months in public.

The statement comes as McConnell moved behind the scenes to reassure his allies and donors he can do his job – even as questions persist over how long the 81-year-old Kentuckian will stay as Republican leader.

Immediately afterwards, McConnell's office staff released a press statement that he will resign from the Senate beginning the day after Labor Day, to become 7-Eleven's National Spokesman for their new Geritol Flavored Slurpee®.

 

[-Jim-]

Gents,

As this is supposed to be "non-partisan" (even though there seems to be lots of partisan rhetoric being pushed around) how about a completely different opinion from someone outside of the USA? Here's my qualifications for commenting:

Yes, I am Canadian. I'm college educated and have a technical background. I've watched US politics for decades through many many Presidents, Senators, Governors, and members of Congress. In my professional life I traveled the US (and the world) extensively and have probably been to more US States than 90% of the folks who live there. All the time I've watched and read US news daily (It's almost impossible to avoid here in Canada by the way.) I have never been a member of any political party, and therefore have no axe to grind.

My first position is it's quite obvious that some people are in office just too long, and some at too an advanced age. There should be no "professional" politicians or unlimited terms anywhere, for any office. The problem in changing that is the politicians are the only ones who can instigate these changes, and they aren't about to cut themselves off from the gravy train. They obviously love the lifestyle, or they go do something else!

The argument is the US Constitution made no allowances for age limits is true, but it was written when the average white male's (they didn't allow minorities freedom to hold power - including women) life expectancy was about 35 years (depending on which website I go to) and even "if men like the Founders lived to age 60, odds were good they'd live to age 75; their average age at death turned out to be about 65" according to another. So when they wrote the US Constitution they had no concept of Dementia, Alzheimer's, or other cognitive conditions that have become common as the average life expectancy approaches 80.

These jobs need folks on top of their game at all times, and government should not be a place to retire into. Peoples lives are at stake some times when they are in power. Folks have said you can't have ageism, but the US already has when the President needs to be at least 35 years old, and Senators at least 30 years old. That's being prejudiced against folks for being young. Some of these jobs age their inhabitants very quickly. Go look at the photos of the people elected in their first term, and when they last held office. Scary.

I'd push term limits and have the maximum age to be elected at 65. Then after that they can go do volunteer work and enjoy their retirement.

Just my 2 cents from North of the Border. With no partisan statements.

 

[ryanosaur]

I'll keep my answer short & sweet. Nothing should be done. I strongly believe codifying age limits or basic performance metrics for president are absolutely terrible ideas.

I haven't liked most presidents who've held office in my adult life, but I'll be damned if I can come up with any useful & practical ideas as to what kinds of qualifications should be sought, much less required. And I already know that if you codify these ideas, they will be bent & corrupted within 10-20 years.

I'd be happy if a president showed evidence that he/she can read, comprehend, and think critically & clearly. I want a president who is comfortable hiring a variety of high-level advisors who offer sometimes conflicting advice, and debate it vigorously. I want that president who is able to make difficult political choices. No one is born knowing how to do that, and no one can receive formal training for that, much less be tested & rated for those abilities.

I'd be happy if as many US citizens voted as possible, without any arbitrary or administrative barriers to voter registration. I may sound as fatally optimistic as you, but I can't think of another way to select a president. That's why I oppose any mechanism that dilutes the effect of individual voters, such as the Electoral College. I vehemently oppose any effort, such as is favored by the GOP, that limits the number of voters. I'd really like to see a National Holiday on Election Day, where people are fined if they don't vote.

And now that I've got a full head of steam going, I'll come out and say this. Voting is the most sacred freedom we have in this country. Anyone who is found guilty of tampering with our election process should be shot at sunrise the next day. And to be clear, I'm talking about what our former president, The Orange Peril, and his band of thugs, tried to do after the 2020 election.

Ok, my answer wasn't so short or sweet. [/RANT OVER]

To me, the cure is voters need to vote.
On that we agree.


If only we all would, and start doing so at the local level.

Primaries need to be done away with, too... at least in that it shouldn't be only a single candidate put forth for each party, chosen by party elites or the vocal minority therein.
Let there be multiple candidates and ranked choice voting.
Let there be a national holiday for voting, along with early access at the polls. All the good stuff. None of the bad.
And by bad, we are saying in agreement that anything restricting voting freedom or diluting the electorate is out.

Please know that I'm not saying something should be done to limit who can run for president. Perhaps only Centrists on either side of the aisle? But seriously...

While personally I am fed up with the current Octocracy we seem to have in effect, it is apparent that there are some in that group who are still fully functional humans. The purpose here wasn't so much to find a way to limit, rather to problem solve how we move beyond.

However it played out, and regardless of how we feel about the actual results, I do think Pelosi stepping aside as she did was a great example of somehow a "responsible" decision being made and put in effect.
Frankly, as a Californian, I wish Feinstein would step aside. While Pelosi seems capable of continuing to work, Feinstein truly seems tapped out.

I hope we can keep a good conversation going about this!

 

[ryanosaur]

An interesting article from Politico that hits on many of the notes we are discussing:

Why Is Nobody Doing Anything About Mitch McConnell? — POLITICO

Washington is paralyzed as the Senate minority leader freezes up.

apple.news

 

[Swerd]

As this is supposed to be "non-partisan" (even though there seems to be lots of partisan rhetoric being pushed around) how about a completely different opinion from someone outside of the USA? Here's my qualifications for commenting:

First of all, @-Jim- and @ryanosaur plus all other readers … I apologize for the heat in my response yesterday. Within US society, the words partisan or non-partisan mean with respect to party politics. In the USA that means Democratic or Republican party politics. My words yesterday were certainly passionate, but I did not mean them to be 'partisan' in the sense I've described. What is considered partisan or non-partisan may be different in Canada, or even in some areas of the USA.

With that said, I do stand by my opposition to broad restrictions to any elected office in this country, such as age or term limits. In the past, even if well meaning, these restrictions can & do have unintended consequences that all people regret, regardless of their party politics.

In the particular cases of Diane Feinstein or Mitch McConnell, we see elderly senators whose obvious declining health clearly threaten their ability to function in office. They should have the good sense to step down. Sen. Feinstein, only when coerced in private, seems to have finally accepted that. But so far, Sen. McConnell stubbornly clings to his power. No one within his party can summon the will to tell him it's time to step down. Their reasons seem to come with the roles they have been expected to fill for years, to embrace their own party while resisting the efforts of their opposing party – for better or worse.

I have directly seen the unintended consequences of broadly worded, well meaning, new regulations on term limits in elected office in the local county government where I live. It forced out of office people who have served well and continued to have broad voter support. They were younger than I am, so there was no question of age or poor health. The only people who seemed to benefit were inexperienced but ambitious (power hungry?) politicians who stepped up to replace them. It certainly did not serve the public well to loose the services some highly experienced elected officials whose good judgement & continuing popular support provided very good reasons to re-elect them.

Because of that, I strongly oppose age limits or term limits. If implemented, it must be carefully thought out in advance by reasonable & responsible people. I don't see that in most of today's highly partisan talk about Biden, Trump, or others being too old for office.

In the US, we already have a constitutional limit to two presidential terms. It was the result of partisan politics in the decade after Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected a 4th time and died months afterwards. He had been re-elected because of his service during severe economic and war time crises. However, that two-term-limit restriction is a done deal, and I don't propose that we change that again.

For what it's worth, I also don't agree with the idea that a sitting US president should be re-elected to another term only because of war time. In my life, I've seen two presidents (Nixon and W) who deliberately sought & won re-election for that very reason. In my own opinion, I thought neither of them deserved it. Therefore, I would never advocate such reasons to re-elect a president, or to prevent them from doing so in the future. The future unintended consequences can be severe & unwanted.

However, I do advocate reforming & revising the existing methods by which we can remove a president from office. The present rules of impeaching a sitting president do not work, primarily because partisan politics has interfered with common sense. I don't know how impeachment should be revised, but it must be very carefully considered.

 

[Trell]

With that said, I do stand by my opposition to broad restrictions to any elected office in this country, such as age or term limits. In the past, even if well meaning, these restrictions can & do have unintended consequences that all people regret, regardless of their party politics.

That’s my position as well.

 

[ryanosaur]

First of all, @-Jim- and @ryanosaur plus all other readers … I apologize for the heat in my response yesterday. Within US society, the words partisan or non-partisan mean with respect to party politics. In the USA that means Democratic or Republican party politics. My words yesterday were certainly passionate, but I did not mean them to be 'partisan' in the sense I've describe above. That may be different in Canada, or even in some areas of the USA.

With that said, I do stand by my opposition to broad restrictions to any elected office in this country, such as age or term limits. In the past, even if well meaning, these restrictions can & do have unintended consequences that all people regret, regardless of their party politics.

In the particular cases of Diane Feinstein or Mitch McConnell, we see elderly senators whose obvious declining health clearly threaten their ability to function in office. They should have the good sense to step down. Sen. Feinstein, only when coerced in private, seems to have finally accepted that. But so far, Sen. McConnell stubbornly clings to his power. No one within his party can summon the will to tell him it's time to step down. Their reasons seem to come with the roles they have been expected to fill for years, to embrace their own party while resisting the efforts of their opposing party – for better or worse.

I have directly seen the unintended consequences of broadly worded, well meaning, new regulations on term limits in elected office in the local county government where I live. It forced out of office people who have served well and continued to have broad voter support. They were younger than I am, so there was no question of age or poor health. The only people who seemed to benefit were inexperienced but ambitious (power hungry?) politicians who stepped up to replace them. It certainly did not serve the public well to loose the services some highly experienced elected officials whose good judgement & continuing popular support provided very good reasons to re-elect them.

Because of that, I strongly oppose age limits or term limits. If implemented, it must be carefully thought out in advance by reasonable & responsible people. I don't see that in most of today's highly partisan talk about Biden, Trump, or others being too old for office.

In the US, we already have a constitutional limit to two presidential terms. It was the result of partisan politics in the decade after Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected a 4th time and soon died months after he was re-inaugurated. He had been re-elected because of his service during severe economic and war times crises. However, the two-term-limit restriction is a done deal, and I don't propose that we change that again.

For what it's worth, I also don't agree with the idea that a sitting US president should be re-elected to another term only because of war time. In my life, I've seen two presidents (Nixon and W) who deliberately sought & won re-election for that very reason. In my own opinion, I thought neither of them deserved it. Therefore, I would never advocate such reasons to re-elect a president, or to prevent them from doing so in the future. The future unintended consequences can be severe & unwanted.

However, I do advocate reforming & revising the existing methods by which we can remove a president from office. The present rules of impeaching a sitting president do not work, primarily because partisan politics has interfered with common sense. I don't know how impeachment should be revised, but it must be very carefully considered.

I didn’t take anything as amiss in your posts. Beyond that, your participation has also helped me think through areas I was stuck on.
This type of conversation is what we need more of: Not another depository for hit videos targeting specific politicians, rather useful discourse which can inform all of our choices when voting.
I know I don’t necessarily want to tear down the two-party system but think the blind adherence to this us-vs-them philosophy, especially in light of the extreme polarization of our political culture, is severely hurting us as a country.
The flip side seems almost a paradigm shift at this point.
Yet allowing for a shift to multiple, perhaps countless parties, open the doors to much more chaos and uncertainty. Eliminating coalition government was a major part of this system. Two visions finding the middle ground and moving toward the greatest good for the greatest number of people is what is supposed to happen. That’s the ideal. More, it should just be the way.
Bah!
It’s too early for this.

 

[isolar8001]

The hell with politics...pancakes are all that matter.

 

[highfigh]

It was like watching his operating system crash and reboot. The last PC we had would do this. It had fatal registry errors and a couple friends that knew the inner workings of DOS said it was hopeless.
It would be really creepy if his eyes just went that royal blue color that windows machines do when they aren't working.

Maybe he's stuck in the middle of an update.....

'Bricked' is an appropriate word for him doing this.

 

[highfigh]

@Swerd
While being fantastically optimistic, let's face it that something here should be done. Holding "higher office" is not dissimilar to other jobs where basic performance metrics are expected of employees. Of course, who is the employer in this scenario is completely unclear as it should be us (the constituency) yet clearly we are disconnected from the process once our tax dollars are collected and we rubber stamp this peanut gallery into office for life.

Believe me, I get there are no easy answers about any of this. Not that I really expected there to be any, either.

It's always seemed that voter apathy is the absolute largest risk we need to overcome. While there are many examples of other problems in our system of government which you brought up, an educated and motivated electorate is our greatest resource to combat many of these issues.
As long as the greater populace is unwilling to deepen their sense of responsibility, it will always prove easy for an incumbent to prevail, even where local sentiment is souring on said person (L.B. in CO?, for example).

The simple truth is that term limits and age limits weren't seen as necessary during the founding of our country because it was always expected people would serve their term, maybe two, and return back to their homes and respective family and career/profession. Government wasn't seen then, at least as I understood it from my schooling, as a career in itself but a term of service one might choose to pursue for a short while.
Arguably, we have seen many instances of the shortcomings of our founding documents. Whether it is the westward expansion, modernization of transportation or countless other unforeseeable advances in society like automatic firearms with high capacity magazines and bump stocks; arguing today that the Constitution needs to be interpreted only by original intent or struck down is completely disingenuous if not outright ridiculous and malicious in intent.

I was always bored with civics and politics in school which does little to serve me here. For every whack-a-mole idea I think of, two more are popping up and laughing at me only to escape back into the machine of government and burrow away at the fabric that government was meant to serve and protect. *shrugs

I think that the Founding Fathers would have shouted "GMAFB!" if they were told that some members of Congress would be in office for more than 40 years.

 

[highfigh]

Gents,

As this is supposed to be "non-partisan" (even though there seems to be lots of partisan rhetoric being pushed around) how about a completely different opinion from someone outside of the USA? Here's my qualifications for commenting:

Yes, I am Canadian. I'm college educated and have a technical background. I've watched US politics for decades through many many Presidents, Senators, Governors, and members of Congress. In my professional life I traveled the US (and the world) extensively and have probably been to more US States than 90% of the folks who live there. All the time I've watched and read US news daily (It's almost impossible to avoid here in Canada by the way.) I have never been a member of any political party, and therefore have no axe to grind.

My first position is it's quite obvious that some people are in office just too long, and some at too an advanced age. There should be no "professional" politicians or unlimited terms anywhere, for any office. The problem in changing that is the politicians are the only ones who can instigate these changes, and they aren't about to cut themselves off from the gravy train. They obviously love the lifestyle, or they go do something else!

The argument is the US Constitution made no allowances for age limits is true, but it was written when the average white male's (they didn't allow minorities freedom to hold power - including women) life expectancy was about 35 years (depending on which website I go to) and even "if men like the Founders lived to age 60, odds were good they'd live to age 75; their average age at death turned out to be about 65" according to another. So when they wrote the US Constitution they had no concept of Dementia, Alzheimer's, or other cognitive conditions that have become common as the average life expectancy approaches 80.

These jobs need folks on top of their game at all times, and government should not be a place to retire into. Peoples lives are at stake some times when they are in power. Folks have said you can't have ageism, but the US already has when the President needs to be at least 35 years old, and Senators at least 30 years old. That's being prejudiced against folks for being young. Some of these jobs age their inhabitants very quickly. Go look at the photos of the people elected in their first term, and when they last held office. Scary.

I'd push term limits and have the maximum age to be elected at 65. Then after that they can go do volunteer work and enjoy their retirement.

Just my 2 cents from North of the Border. With no partisan statements.

The low average life span was for people who didn't or couldn't eat healthy foods and take care of themselves or died because of some kind of accident/disease when they had no resistance- look at the ages of people in history- they were old, some were very old. Pick some names, google them and check out their genealogy- you'll see plenty who lived well into their 60s, 70s and 80s between 1650 and 1900.

At 66, I'm not sure I like the age limit set at 65- I think that's a bit low, knowing many who are older and very able to comprehend everything that comes their way. I would be in favor of cognitive testing, though. Also, term limits. It was never supposed to be a freaking career.

 

[highfigh]

Here's my personal assessment of past presidents that I remember, and whether their age mattered to their presidency.

Eisenhower – Was not a good politician, but was highly experienced and probably not too old.
Kennedy – Too young to die. Maybe too young to keep it zipped up.
Johnson – Highly experienced and very complex. Too hard for me to view objectively.
Nixon – Expletive Deleted. He was probably always an SOB from the day he was born.
Ford – Once he pardoned Nixon, he became a temporary caretaker president.
Carter – Just the right age, not that it mattered.
Reagan – By his 2nd term, he was clearly developing Alzheimer's.
Bush – An experienced politician, but evidently not experienced enough. He angered all GOP by reinstating some taxes, making him a 1-term president.
Clinton – Also too young to keep it zipped up.
W – Dumber than a sack of rocks. Was delighted when Trump unseated him as Worst President Ever.
Obama – The first black man to be president. His age had nothing to do with that.
Trump – See Expletive Deleted (above)
Biden – Could be both experienced & wily. So wily that he takes advantage of being underestimated.

Bottom line? Age may have had something to do with Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton. But two of them were too young, not too old. Age was not an issue with the others.

WRT Kennedy, "Maybe too young to keep it zipped up? read about his activity and medical issues. DEFINITELY couldn't keep it zipped up.

 

[Swerd]

I think that the Founding Fathers would have shouted "GMAFB!" if they were told that some members of Congress would be in office for more than 40 years.

Yes, but that's completely irrelevant, unless you also point out that the Founding Fathers would jump for joy over the prospect of longer lifespans.

Some of those Founding Fathers, including Madison & Monroe, also expected that the Constitution be reformed & revised every 20 years or so. They never imagined it to permanently dictate US law as if etched in stone. And they also might have shouted GMAFB if they saw how partisanship had paralyzed their efforts at making the Constitution become a revise-able document. Of course, they wrote the Constitution before any of the authors saw first-hand the results of politically partisan elections on the national scene.

 

[Trell]

Yes, but that's completely irrelevant, unless you also point out that the Founding Fathers would also jump for joy over the prospect of longer lifespans.

Some of those Founding Fathers, including Madison & Monroe, also expected that the Constitution be reformed & revised every 20 years or so. They never imagined it to permanently dictate US law as if etched in stone. And they also might have shouted GMAFB if they saw how partisanship had paralyzed their efforts at making the Constitution become a revise-able document. Of course, they wrote the Constitution before any of the authors saw first-hand the results of politically partisan elections on the national scene.

The reverence that some people have to the US Constitution as something written in stone and unchangeable do strike me as some kind of creepy fetishism, but certainly useful as some kind of bad-faith underpinning of legal "theories" like "originalism".

 

[GO-NAD!]

For what it's worth, I also don't agree with the idea that a sitting US president should be re-elected to another term only because of war time. In my life, I've seen two presidents (Nixon and W) who deliberately sought & won re-election for that very reason. In my own opinion, I thought neither of them deserved it. Therefore, I would never advocate such reasons to re-elect a president, or to prevent them from doing so in the future. The future unintended consequences can be severe & unwanted.

War is a handy - if cynical - way to boost support for a sitting government. The Falklands war was a Godsend for Margaret Thatcher. Her government was deeply unpopular before the war, but the victory over Argentina got her re-elected. Of course, a loss would have just hastened her defeat. Argentina may have benefitted overall by losing, as it resulted in the collapse of the ruling military junta. Ironically, the Argentine government invaded the Falklands in order to distract the citizenry's building resentment. But, it only made things worse.