Summary
Rep. Annie Kuster, a 68-year-old Democrat from New Hampshire, retiring after 12 years in Congress, cites a desire to “set a better example” and create space for younger leaders.
Her decision comes amid growing public concern about aging politicians, with about a quarter of lawmakers over 70. Kuster’s successor will be Maggie Goodlander, 38.
Democrats are increasingly elevating younger leaders following setbacks in 2024, which some attribute to the perception of aging leadership, including President Biden’s controversial reelection bid.
Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.
Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.
They are our fucking employees. We should be able to choose the terms of their employment. Seems like a pretty fundamental tenant of a fucking democracy to me.
We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.
Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery…I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.
What moral quandary? No one but pedophiles complains about the fact that age minimums for certain activities exist. Cognitive function is a bell curve and old people are on the back end of it. That’s just a fact of life. What is controversial about it?
Well, with age also comes wisdom, so forcing people out when they might be hitting a stride is rather immoral (and foolish) if you ask me.
It’d be one thing if we were to start applying cognitive tests beyond a certain age…I’d hate to lose the likes of Bernie just based on a number. If someone is sharp and able-bodied well into their nineties or even later, what is the point in pushing them out?
But again, as I say, even this line of reasoning is rather static and fixed in time. This kind of discussion may age very badly if/when age extension/age reversal comes online, and I don’t want us setting something up that will likely come off extremely anachronistic just based on one of the last remaining prejudices that, at this point in time, is still permissible and even fashionable in polite company - and that is ageism. The rules of government are rather famous for not keeping up with the times and it seems foolhardy to try to put something into place that may very quickly become ridiculous.
With age comes wisdom, but at our politician’s ages, so do issues like dementia and Alzheimer’s
Possibly, but also maybe not. You have to treat people as individuals. That’s what cognitive testing would be good for, in any case.
Bernie is 83. He’ll be 89 when he most likely retires. I say as long as he is of sound mind and body, I want people like him in there. If he was forced out at some arbitrary cutoff, we would have missed out on decades of his input.
Not everyone ages equally.
They are our fucking employees.
Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.
We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.
There’s no such thing as a “national referendum”, legally speaking. We don’t vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.
Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?
It would still be age discrimination. The way to go is term limits.
If there can be a minimum age, there can be a maximum age.
How would it be age discrimination? There are plenty of fields where you are no longer able to work at a certain age such as being a pilot or air traffic control. If we can’t trust a 70 year old pilot to fly a couple hundred people then why the hell can we trust a 70 year old politican to steer the entire country with policy?
There is no age limit for pilots. As long as you pass the health checks you can keep flying.
https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-maximum-age-pilot-can-fly-airplane
You can keep flying, just not commercially after 65.
The problem is people like, “their,” geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he’ll be seeking reelection in two years when he’ll be 80. Even though I think he’s been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I’m probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn’t choose to step down.
We can do an article V convention to amend the constitution with these limits in order to circumvent DC politics entirely. But they will tell you that it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and could cost us democracy itself!…I say we go for it anyway.
Oh great, now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example” while their doddering GOP counterparts will lurch around until their 90s with, staffers following them around with portable defibrillators so if they die in hallway somewhere they can be revived before the next vote.
If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.
“Best we can do is younger, neoliberal folks.” - Democratic Party
Well, where are all the people voting progressives in the primary?
Younger folk tend to be more adaptable and likely more in tune with actual working class issues. So more of a chance than before at least.
Well… I’ll be damned. You’ve changed my mind. Thanks.
As long as they keep putting in replacements that’s are younger, this is a good strategy. The problem would be if they lose their seats, but if it puts the GOP further out of touch with voters and pushes Democrats closer, I’m all for it.
It’s progress.
now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example”
Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.
If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you’ve got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there’s a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.
Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.
Yeah, I don’t understand why Democrats always think they must unilaterally disarm. It’s nauseating, honestly. How well did that work out for Al Franken, for example? We still have the orange pedo sitting in the WH here in a few weeks…
Time to elect a 72 year old replacement!
Thankfully, her replacement is 38.
The summary of this article is misleading, and I hit a paywall before being able to read the whole article.
She announced her retirement back in March 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/27/annie-kuster-retiring-house/ and did not run in the 2024 election.
This specific announcement is that one of the reasons is she is retiring is to allow younger folks a chance to lead.
The Dems are so fucking out of touch. The GOP will take advantage of this like they do with anything and everything else.
Edit: yay. Lemmy downvote dogpiles again. Do people not understand by my wording that I am criticizing both practices? The Dems are out of touch. Stepping down is the right move, but it will be taken advantage of by the GOP.
Why can’t this nuance exist without having to explain it to you like you’re 5 years old?
Lemmy downvote dogpiles again.
Again?
Do you think the common element might be you, rather than “Lemmy”?
Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know there is an option in your settings so you don’t see upvotes or downvotes.
Lemmy (AFAIK) doesn’t even show you your total upvotes (karma… whatever it’s called) by default either. None of these imaginary points fucking matter.
So why don’t you do yourself a favor and uncheck these boxes and not give a fuck what others think about your comment.
I know I have.
(Lemmy is rad as fuck)
I agree that it is, but I do see dogpiling a lot. And as some kind soul thought to point out that I’m the common denominator, what they failed to note was that I’m also the common denominator of what I see… my own isn’t the only experience I pay attention to.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll leave them on. I’m not mad about the downvotes; the points don’t mean anything to me. I’m annoyed that for all intents and purposes, one cannot criticize the Dems from the left without having to explain every aspect of every syllable.
If the left are ever going to win or grow or get stronger than the GOP, which employs seriously underhanded tactics, we have to learn to identify our own misgivings. To do that, we have to get over self criticism and stop the knee-jerk reactions.
I bet the private sector is more efficient at their systemic ageism. This will be interesting to see how this pans out if/when things like life extension/reversal come online.
