Politicians are getting too old

Should we have a maximum age limit for candidacy? This would cover all forms of office, preventing those older than the maximum age from working in government. The short answer is yes. The question is, what age should it be?

Since the elections of President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, attention has been focused on the cognitive health of our government representatives. For Trump, it has been clear through the current indictments that he has not made intelligent decisions, an indicator of declining cognitive health. For Biden, he has been under constant scrutiny, attributed to age, for his slew of gaffes, worrying the public about his capability to act in office. Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein are all political figures who have faced similar scrutiny and similarly are within the age range of 70 to 90.

Stereotypical candidates for government are old. This is because in most societies, “elders” have traditionally been key decision makers. Old age is associated with wisdom and accumulated knowledge, beneficial traits for any leader. Reducing the age limit might eliminate the benefit of this insight from older members of the community.

Despite this, we have seen evidence that older members have made poor choices, and those managing them have been negligent or exploitative in the oversight of our older political officers. In the case of 81-year-old McConnell, who recently froze up at a press conference, his family fell under scrutiny.

Setting an age limit would create a window of opportunity for office, allowing expiration of old candidates and reducing accumulated competitiveness. In other words, as older, more popular candidates expire, new individuals can step on the scene and benefit the government. While the age limit might reduce the time of talented candidates, it would prevent them from having an overbearing reign and allow new ideas to constantly rotate.

There is no true number that we can attribute to an unfit age. Sixty-five is the statistically recognized age for developing Alzheimer’s disease, but with ever-improving medicine, there is no assignable age to consider someone unfit for candidacy. However, by determining an age in respect to a window for participating in office, we can circumvent likely cases and allow a better rotation of officials in office.

So what should this age be? The maximum age should be 70. This number will certainly be of great debate and will depend on the preferences of the general public. However, 70 extends as an overestimate of the average age for developing Alzheimer’s, 65, average age for retirement, 61, and the fact that many candidates who face issues with age are older than 70. This number would allow 35 years of opportunity to become president and even more years for roles with lower minimum age requirements.

Of course, achieving this change would be no simple feat; it would be a constitutional amendment. Although this number should be non-permanent, requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress and three-fourths approval from the states will make it harder to change even if implemented. However, if implemented, the country would reap benefits by preventing overextension in office and avoiding cognitive issues caused from old age.