A recent health scare for Mitch McConnell has raised concerns about the age of America’s politicians.
Too owned is the bigger problem.
Hell, Bernie’s old, but he still has his marbles.
I would suggest it isn’t the absolute age… but the overall health. Trump. Feinstein, Bitch McConnel. They’re not too old. They’re too senile.
I guess this makes Strom Thurmond a pioneer?
It’s both. If you don’t have term limits, that considerably reduces the risk of a newbie with morals coming in, rejecting your lobbying money, and putting your whole operation in jeopardy. If you can keep them around for a long time, they gain power as they gain seniority and so do you.
In theory, yes.
In practice, look at the term-limited Florida Legislature. They’re every bit as corrupt. New faces, but same owners.
Woohoo… A whopping four people interviewed. That said, it’s interesting that the BBC has a Republican and two independents saying there should be some kind of disqualifier, like a term limit or competency tests, while the Democrat’s statement seemed to amount to, “age is just a number”. That doesn’t seem to track with what I’ve seen. From what I’ve seen, very few people are saying, “age is just a number” in the context of politics anymore (I’ve legitimately been seeing republicans starting to question not just Biden, but other elderly politicians, regardless of party).
Seems like the interviews were cherry-picked. Big surprise there…
What a shit sample size.
Even toothpaste surveys uses a minimum of ten dentists.
“Voters weigh in”
You mean like how they do every other November? When they put those geezers in office?
People tend to just vote for the incumbent, which is how we’ve got senators so old they’re stroking out on camera and have conservators, because they refuse to yield power or retire. This is why we need term limits.
If not term limits we really should have age maximums to go with the minimums that already exist. People over 70 shouldn’t be making policy decisions they likely won’t be alive to see tye affects of.
That’s just lazy and not a good excuse IMO. If people actually wanted change they would fight for it.
That’s the thing. Most people don’t. Most people are actually fine with the status quo, and figure their district is doing ok, so leave it as-is. Folks tend to think it’s other places that are the problem.
Then things shouldn’t change. That’s how democracy works
People don’t want change. They want stability and to not starve. If those two qualifiers are met then voters don’t really care what the government does and they’re not inclined to vote incumbents out.
Many people have simply given up. They see the government as trash with nothing that can be done to change it.
Can’t imagine it has anything to do with all the laws that disenfranchise college students and young adults not living in the same town as their parents.
Seriously how the fuck do I get out this small town T-T
I was gonna go to state school, cuz I can afford it, but it’s down the street like 30 minutes. And that town sucks just as badly.
So I just… didn’t. 🥲
Yes.
I don’t think the issue is that politicians are old or not. You may be old but still have fresh ideas. The problem is that without term limits those fresh ideas become stagnant and start to smell of prune juice farts and old tapioca pudding.
you might reasonably assume that if they were too old they’d vote for younger ones
The problem is demographics. Boomers have been the largest voting bloc and that’s only really changing now that they’re getting old and dying. (Currently boomers are 59-77 years. Biden and them are technically silent generation.)
Gen x is to “quiet” to make a big fuss and boomers don’t respect millennials (nevermind gen z) so they’re never going to vote for some one younger than themselves.
It was until ‘19 that boomers were finally outnumbered by a different generation.
Most of us GenXers gave up on trying to make any significant change in anything. Those that are still active have already sided with the enemy.
OK but even so, I don’t support the disenfranchisement of boomers so like, it is not improper that they vote for candidates they think represent them
using that logic… you’re disenfranchising anyone who isn’t a majority generation.
also, keep in mind there’s already limits on age and who can run for office. saying a cap at, say, 65, is “ageist” is laughable… when there’s already a minimum age of 35. Nobody questions the wisdom of that minimum limit, so why do [* checks notes] Old People™️ get to insist on not having a maximum as well?
any argument you make about 66 being okay also applies to 34. Or 75 and 25. Like I said elsewhere, the problem isn’t that they’re old. the problem is that they’re “senile”. their mind is going. It’s a problem.
I do. There are excellent politicians in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who have just sat on the sidelines because of this demographic bubble.
That’s a fast track to social security privatization, why do you want to force my grandma to eat cat food?
Lmfao T-T true tho ouch
If you let people opposed to your ideology vote, they will inevitably vote against your interests. Disenfranchisement is the only real option available to producing meaningful political change that doesn’t involve violence. It’s the same strategy used against the rest of us by conservatives and neoliberals. We’re stupid for not using it against them.
You’re an idiot for thinking this way
Disenfranchisement is the only real option available to producing meaningful political change that doesn’t involve violence
Cool. No leftists get to vote.
Wait you meant just disenfranchise people you don’t like?
The gerontocracy runs the political parties. The party determines the candidates. You will rarely see a candidate on your ballot that wasn’t approved by them. And they will only approve of other old people and those that agree with their policies… which are inherently conservative in nature.
