Nelson Mandela took office a month from his 77th birthday and served for 5 years. He united a divided country and prevented a likely genocide.
11
Given that women on average are healthier than men at any given old age and live longer, wouldn't an age limit be sexist and discriminatory against women?
And keep the minimum ages for House, Senate and President: they ensure a minimum of experience and maturity for progressively more difficult jobs. And forget what Founding Fathers thought: life expectancies were substantially shorter then, and 35 was viewed as beginning the last quarter of your life!
3
People are different. Both my parents lived to be 90 and were sharp far into their 80s. My mother retired at 80 and my father gave up jewelry business at 85 - and then only because his eyesight was failing. My maternal aunt and uncle also lived into their nineties and worked until, respectively, age 80 and (part-time) 85. Neither suffered diminished intellectual capacities. Both my mother and aunt were managing their finances until virtually the day they died. My mother’s account books were much better kept than mine.
My husband and I are in our late 60s and both have demanding jobs. I have three professional commitments and, two days a week, work a 14-hour day. I’m typing this after we both got home from the gym. I see the energy that Elizabeth Warren has and know that, if elected, she will be fine.
Joe Biden is a terrible campaigner, but will not have a steep learning curve if elected and will be an excellent president. Bernie seems fine too. You can’t judge by averages. People who have lucky DNA, have taken care of themselves, and have had good medical care – why we need Medicare for all - are more likely to remain healthy and sharp into their 80s.
I am reminded of a story about Winston Churchill who, when entering Parliament at age 90, overheard an MP remark, “They say he’s senile.” Sir Winston looked at the MP and shot back, “They also say that that he is deaf.”
48
@Rita Tobin
If you can't see you are not the person you were at 45 you are deluding yourself. I'll bet the people around you recognize it.
2
I'm pushing 70 and in really good health, according to my doctors and dentist. I can sit and stand, walk and run, exercise, have plenty of energy and still play a mean game of chess, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't in decline. I think, for the good of our country, I'd like our next president and his/her successors to be ascending or at their peaks, rather than waving goodbye to their best selves.
145
@Tom
I'm your age, but it would be a walk in the park to do better than the current incumbent.
It's not about energy or strength, it's about wisdom.
13
@Tom I'm 73 and can see differences from when I was 70 - taking longer to bounce back from a cold, tackling fewer projects at a time, and tolerating caffeine poorly. On the plus side, I can still talk in coherent, articulate paragraphs, which Biden can't. I know that yelling at people,like Sanders does, rarely leads to productive outcomes. I can still do math to make sure my income and outgo coincide, something that Warren has yet to do w/ her health plan.
13
@John
The very fact that you think you can do it tells me you cannot.
Anyone of any age should have some trepidation about the stamina to do the job. The agility to do the job. The perspective to do the job.
All of which are much different in a 45 year old for example, than a 70 year old.
It's imperative people understand their limits.
1
The problem with an upper age limit is that we are generally increasing our lifespans, the last couple of years notwithstanding.
My father's older brothers died in their 50s. Their parents died at 39 and 44. But Dad lived to 97 1/2 and was able to keep up with me walking until age 85. He could outdo me with crossword puzzles until age 95, despite cognitive decline and a much more limited education (10th grade vs. a master's degree).
I also know a woman who is almost 100. Her body is giving way, but her mind is much the same as it was 60 years ago, though tempered by more experience. I could go on with examples all day.
Extrapolating from particular examples is of course a bit risky, but the point is that many people are quite robust until relatively advanced ages, especially those are bright in the first place.
Upper age limits could deprive the country of exceptional talent without an adequate basis in fact.
7
Airline pilots have a mandatory retirement age. It was just raised to 65 because of a pilot shortage. It was 60.
I am a surgeon. I hope not to be operating beyond 70. There is a lot of evidence showing a decline in skill and judgment.
You can't tell me that it's less taxing to be President than to be a pilot or surgeon.
124
@Victor
Depends on the president. The current one spends most of his time tweeting (hard on the thumbs), cheating at golf and spouting whatever comes to his tiny little mind. It isn't even necessary to remember what lies he's already told, as he will just deny he ever said them when he tells his next lie. Not exactly tiring.
3
So true. And you have medical, scientific information backing up your opinion.
2
I am 76 and mentally alert and capable, BUT I am too old to be president. A younger person needs to be president; they have more skin in the game. They and those they love will have to live with their decisions. People my age make great cabinet appointees and advisors so experience is utilized.
89
@Molly Ciliberti
"they have more skin in the game"
Couldn't an older person have skin in the game? They have a lifetime of experience to offer and a legacy to leave. They may also have children and grandchildren.
11
@Chris Not the same. Time to get out of the way. At most I could have 20 more years versus a younger person’s lifespan. As I said we older experienced folks make great advisors and cabinet members.
6
@Molly Ciliberti
Ironically, the people you speak of as having more skin in the game favor the oldest person in the race by a significant margin. It turns out that the things he has been fighting for forever are popular with those with the most skin in the game for a long time.
We need a new generation to take over from Sanders, but until they do, he's the best we have.
4
I was having this conversation with a friend of mine earlier this week. We both concluded that, yes, there should be term limits for Presidents.
If we are too young for certain things than we should be too old for other things. Many institutions have a mandatory retirement age. This should apply to politicians as well. We both agreed that 70 should be the limit for anyone seeking the office of the U.S. Presidency. Anyone who reaches 70 or older during their first term in office would only be allowed to serve one four year term.
5
Age limit no. However, there should be a vetting process. Trump took millions from Russian Oligarchs for over a decade, thus making him (in my opinion) too invested in a foreign non-ally to be POTUS. It wasn't his age, but we vet people to be managers in companies, why wouldn't we vet a POTUS?
I think taking a psychological and physical test, and releasing your taxes and other very serious tests (drug abuse, etc) should be staples in vetting of POTUS.
7
Not My POTUS has done so much damage to our country, to middleclass we'll need energetic, activly involved and wisdom. Well need progressive individual with strong economic and patriotic understanding. am An somone with a plan that they are always adapting to the contour of Trumage...(Trump-damage).
1
I’m perfectly happy with the Silent Generation remaining absent from the Oval Office. The third decade of the 21st century is no time to make up for that absence. Give me a 50-something president, which is what I’ve lived under all my life but the 80s and currently, and I’ll be satisfied.
former President Carter was framing the question from his own perspective - he couldn't have served at age 80.
if there's anything we know about aging is, it varies a lot across individuals.
What is certain for Mr. Carter, may be no such thing for either Mr Biden or Senator Sanders.
1
I know everyone is now focusing on an age limit, do we really know what is too young or too old in a given individual? We each mature and age differently.
I do not hear anyone suggesting the sitting Leader is "too OLD" of course he gives the press and all of us enough to consider or reconsider his abilities on a daily basis. Between lies and direct statements that he later denys, we often wonder.
I personally wonder if he knows the Constitution the very document he swore to protect. I wonder if he understands the both the Republican and Democratic congress members are his check. He is answerable to them and us.
Thankfully we still have a free press and freedom of speech, this country needs to be back in a strong position of leadership. Lets find someone to lead us within the laws
1
I said this in my previous comments. 95% of Americans retire before they turn 75. When you are 70+, biological limitations begin to set in. First, you are not physically and mentally as sharp and strong as you were before 65 or 70. Second, a lot of unexpected healths issues (heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc.) can suddenly appear. Presidency is the world's physically and mentally most taxing job. Yes, we should have an age limit. 65 to 70 looks reasonable. Let us listen to former president Carter.
1
"And given that the average life expectancy for white males was 76.4 years in 2017, concern about physical longevity has also reared its head."
This is a bit misleading, as the figure of 76.4 years is probably the life expectancy at birth. The expectation for a white male that has attained the age of 70 (for example), in good health with good habits would be (according to an online calculator) 92...so you have to be careful with statistics.
Here's a link the the calculator I used. I had to make a number of assumptions but I tried to hit a good average:
https://www.blueprintincome.com/tools/life-expectancy-calculator-how-long-will-i-live/
4
Based on the excellent discussion by the commentators, we should make the maximun age to run for President 70.
2
Jimmy Carter was an incompetent president. BTW, I voted for him. His opinion on what it takes to be an effective leader should be taken with a grain of salt since he was so ineffective himself at a young age. You had your chance Jimmy and bungled it. Be quiet.
1
@Alex
Being President isnt the only way to be a leader. Carter has become a leader on other issues and endeavors since leaving office. But to your point: since when does his not having been a stellar President disqualify him from speaking his opinion? "Be quiet" is a nasty thing to say.
4
Based on the excellent discussion by the commentators, we should make the maximun age to run for President 70.
Why not make the maximum age 24 and leave the minimum age at 35? It is mental abilities and physical abilities and stamina that matter, not fixation with the calendar.
The example of AOC is wonderfully illustrative of why age should not be considered as a singularly determinative factor in judging an individuals wisdom and competency. Here is a politician who argued that NYC would be better off without having Amazon locate its second headquarters there, despite NYC and virtually every US city having aggressively competed for that incredible economic opportunity. Her primary objection was that Amazon was to receive $3 billion in tax breaks as part of the deal, selectively ignoring that the deal also would have generated an additional $25 billion of tax revenue. Lest there be any lingering doubt about her intellectual incompetency, she then argued that the $3 billion was corporate welfare that could be better spent elsewhere, seemingly oblivious to the fact that without the deal the entire $25 billion disappears!!
As this example so clearly shows, youthfulness, particularly if accompanied by short-sighted ideological exuberance, is no assurance of competent decision making.
2
Interesting comparison. Relating to Ms Schneider’s proposed termination at 65
Three of the greatest British Prime Ministers formed governments when they had passed their 65th Birthday
D’Israeli and Gladstone in the 19th Century and Churchill in 1940 (he also did so in 1951 at 76 years old until 1955 But was well beyond the peak of his powers). Churchill’s immediate predecessor Chamberlain was also above 65,as were the two before him Baldwin and MacDonald by their retirements.Another successful PM, William Pitt the younger, took office at 24 years old! In the British system it is expected that you ascend the “greasy pole” as D’Israeli called it gradually, as first an Member of Parliament (MP), then junior minister (assistant Secretary ) and Cabinet Minister before reaching the summit.
3
There already is an age limit. It is the age beyond which voters will not vote for that individual!! Accordingly, it appropriately is based upon the specifics of that individual candidate, rather than some arbitrary ageist discrimination. No other limit is needed.
For some candidates, the point at which voters conclude that they are too old might be 85 while for others it might be 65. The logic could be based upon a perception of declining competence/memory or it could be based upon the statistically higher likelihood of dying in office, potentially leading to an undesirable VP becoming President.
In setting an upper limit on acceptable age I fear that we run the risk of arbitrarily placing a premium on the speed of thinking, which admittedly may decline over time, rather than the quality of thinking, which likely increases based upon experience and years of reflection.
While wit and debate repartee understandably dominate the news soundbites and appeal to our desire for entertainment, it is to our peril if we underestimate the value of actual accumulated wisdom.
6
One look at Elizabeth Warren's energy level should be the end of this discussion.
Joe Biden seems to be running a campaign that hearkens back to the last century, however, while Sanders and Warren's do not. That's the difference.
5
Then should there be an age limit on Supreme Court judges as well?
If I were to suggest any other group of Americans were not qualified to run for office it wouldn't take but a moment for me to be labeled a bigot.
I guess seniors are the group who are fair game.
8
Judge conduct. All else is bigotry?
1
Yes...Yes...and double times Yes! I'm all for elder mentoring, but sick to death of old, white men saying they represent the face of America, or as in Trump's case ...he knows best. It's time for baby boomers and their seniors to move aside and allow younger minds have a go. They certainly couldn't do any worse. The world is changing and moving ahead, with or without American leadership, which at the current moment seems intent on moving forward into the past.
2
I would prefer a younger nominee, especially one who could run again in 2024. However, the only states that matter are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida, where independents and moderates will decide the election. Trump has been losing independents, and those states are not Bastions of progressives. At this juncture, none of the progressive candidates can win those swing States. The debates have already provided the republicans with their ad campaign: the Democratic agenda of decriminalizing the illegal border crossing, free health care for illegals, elimination of student debt, elimination of private health insurance, taking away guns, and, of course, reparations, all of which require tax increases which the wealthy always manage to avoid. The swing States will hold their nose and reelect Trump. Furthermore, all the arguing about these progressive plans is futile because none of them will see the light of day with a Republican Senate. And this agenda is not likely to help flip red Senate seats. It's doubtful narrow democratic Senate could enact them. But Biden is trusted and liked by the swing voters and independents warts and all. First you have to get elected before you can enact bold change. Despite his age and gaffs, Biden is the right one for this moment in history. Ousting Trump is the first priority. The young have no historical perspective and life experience to understand this reality, and progressives fail to accept that America is centrist.
1
@dba
Biden is, in fact, much LESS electable than Sanders in the Industrial Midwest (Michigan and Pennslyvania)
NAFTA and free-trade orthodoxy is deeply unpopular in the places that have been hollowed out by these policies.
Trump smartly used this to his benefit and attacked Clinton for her support of past Free Trade agreements, and he won those states because of it.
Biden's vote for NAFTA on top of his vote for the disastrous War in Iraq should make him an unacceptable choice.
Biden is a part of the same political establishment that has led to the destruction of middle America. If we promise these voters a return to the "normal" that led to our current circumstances, Democrats WILL lose and we will get 4 more years of Trump.
4
If Ousting Trump is the first priority then Biden is certainly not the answer. We will do or die with Liz or Bernie.
1
Are Biden and Sanders too old to be President? No.
Should there be an age limit for POTUS? Yes.
1
I'm not as old as Jimmy Carter (I'm Biden's age), but I agree with him: Neither Biden nor Sanders should be president because of their signs of deteriorating with age.
I suggest that all you younger folks don't understand what the advancing years bring: decline. Especially after age 80. Contrast clips of younger Reagans, Trumps, Bidens, and Sanderses, with their older selves. Not as crisp, are they?
Warren, at only 70, has a decade, and the huge energy she shows, in which to provide our country with strong leadership.
3
If the retirement age is set at 65, then the Presidency age limit should be set at 60 as a fair compromise. In our seventies with decades of experience and grandchildren in tow, a senior adviser position is most ideal.
1
@Hisham Oumlil
Retirement age is no longer 65, as defined by Social Security. It is close to 67 and will soon be at that age.
Biden's incoherence during the second half of the last debate should have been enough to convince anyone that he lacks the stamina and mental acuity for this job, no matter how positive his intentions. Leaving his age aside, Sanders is a hectoring ideologue. Do we really want a President who is always shouting at us with the fervor of the true fanatic? And Warren is a policy wonk who comes across as dry and sterile.
Of all of the Democratic Party candidates we've seen so far, the one with the most Presidential bearing is Tulsi Gabbard and it's not even close. Here's a woman with dignity, self-assurance (not braggadocio) and, yes, humility, who actually seems to understand what service is all about and is willing to speak truth to power even though as we all know it can be dangerous to do so. We need her voice and will force. Yet the DNC has frozen her out (just like they did Sanders last time when they had already anointed HRC), ignoring the fact that she has across-the-political-spectrum appeal. They haven't learned from last time. Watch her YouTube video of a couple of days ago calling out Trump for putting, or seeming to put, our military at the service of the Saudis and then read through the comments below. There are many from Republicans who don't really want to vote for Trump again but would vote for Gabbard in a heartbeat. Whichever candidate receives the Demo. nod for the Presidential slot absolutely should select Ms. Gabbard to run for V.P.
3
@Gerry Liz and Tulsi or vice versa would be fantastic.
Ah Ageism, the last prejudice liberals practice with glee. It must be because of the young people being such promising go getters. Shame they don't vote very much...
1
Biden, yes. Sanders no.
2
It's not Biden's age - it's his mental and language blunders.
Trump has the same problem.
1
I don’t know about you but I will take a aging Joe Biden over Trump in a heartbeat. (No pun intended)
Lindel seems to ignore the fact the we have a man in the WH who is rapidly destroying our Democratic system so an aging president who will, by the way, have smart younger people around him/her is FAR better than trump
3
Biden, yes. Bernie, no.
1
I can tell you from personal experience that 70 is the new 30.
You might want to view scientific/medical research on this topic.
1
If Biden and Sanders are too old to be President, then so it Donald Trump. This argument will always be weak. I believe that both Biden and Sanders are smarter than Trump and will surround themselves with more people capable to help. Trump has surrounded himself with unqualified sycophants and self-promoting people more qualified to provide commentary on Fox News than to run a government. While not my first choices, Biden or Sanders would be an upgrade.
10
Absolutely!
1
Yes. Next.
1
Biden is too old, possibly because of a decline in his cognitive abilities but definitely because of his older outlook on life. Today's problems, especially climate change and health care, need fresh approaches. I love Obama but times are different now and I think Obama, always a thinker and reader, would have fresh ideas about how to solve our problems if he were running today.
I've always felt that the crankiness of Sanders is a sign of age. I might be wrong.
Warren, however, seems youthful and energetic. She acts much younger than her age. Her ideas and outlook are fresh and appealing. I would vote for her with no reservations.
Trump? Too old. Too corrupt. Too stupid.
4
"Credit: Illustration by Nicholas Konrad"
** VERY ** interesting image, Nicholas! *** BRAVO *** !
1
Old?!! No way!
yes and too white
3
Yes.
Spencer, I am guessing from your photo that you are far too young to be writing for the New York Times.
3
Yes Biden, Sanders and Trump are all too old!!!!!
1
Interesting that the question of being too old to be president arises, even though the nation elected a person too stupid to this position.
3
Yes.
Yes.
No more old white men. Period.
Yes.
Yes.
Both are too old.
1
Don't forget Warren too!
1
interesting article. In non-Bidenite, coherent and non-delusional terms, electability really boils down to how you match up head-to-head with Donald Trump.
Both Biden and Bernie match-up with him very poorly, Biden in particular. Every line of attack you could use on Trump, could be used on Biden, only to greater effect. Trump will be able to parry almost everything you throw at him really easily, unless you get very creative--which neither campaigns have shown the capacity to do. Biden's probably a little dumber than Trump. Trump is probably more physically imposing. Trump is definitely a better smack-talker. Trump is better with his words, and Trump has a stronger base.
If we choose Warren, the lines of attack on Trump are limitless, and she has the personele backing her campaign to hit Trump in ways he will never expect. The other two simply do not. She is already in Trump's head and body. Every day, drip-drip, more and more. It's a sickness the type of dominance that will be exuded over his every move. There is no getting around it. It is his destiny. She will emasculate him. She will do things to him that he will never foresee. She will break him.
The other two simply cannot and do not match-up with him well-enough and do not have the people to thuroughly and comprehensively humiliate him, like Warren can.
Warren's a sure bet. The other 2 are almost certainly losses.
1
AGE limit?
Yes, exclude the geezers. Bernie and Joe.
I am still good with Liz.
1
Sanders. No.
Biden. Yes.
2
There shouldn't be an age limit on being president, but there should be a limit on how mean you can be. I'm not sure how you would measure it, but people like Donald Trump would certainly be disqualified. While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, he secretly knows that they can be led around like bulls with nose rings - only instead of bull rings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants.
If DJT doesn't destroy our fragile democracy, he has published the blueprint and playbook for some other demagogue to do it later. If a democracy like America's is going to exist, there will have to be a paradigm shift in human thought throughout the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is important and what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for dirty tricks and destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
Let’s limit experience!
Frankly, who cares what Jimmy Carter thinks. He only survived one term as president; he failed as a leader, his policies emasculated America. His opinion should not be seriously considered. Thank you.
3
Age is probably the least significant attribute for consideration. For example, George W. Bush was fairly young, and proved to be an incompetent bungler and a war-monger obsessed with Daddy issues.
Anyway, why should we give any credence to opinions from someone as old as Jimmy Carter? He invalidates himself tautologically.
1
Well if they are, so is Trump. So...huh?
2
Pelosi is definitely too old to be Speaker.
1
People age at different rates in youth as well as in the autumn of life. Some people have dementia at the age of fifty and others are still mentally above average in their nineties. Clearly Biden is mentally older than Sanders, but a debate is not the best way to judge this. A better way to make this judgment is to watch an hour long interview with a candidate. How does a poor Jewish kid from the Bronx go to a rural state like Vermont and run on a socialist platform and become a U.S. Senator? How does he build a movement driven by the youngest generation when he is a septugenarian? How does he inspire over a million donors, each of whom has given an average of 3 contributions already.....over 14 months before the election takes place? He does this by listening to others and learning how to communicate with them in a language that crossses all racial and sociio-economic barriers. The brilliance of Senator Sanders set the agenda in 2016 and continues to do so in 2019. He was underestimated in 2016 and continues to be underestimated in 2019. The numerical age of Senators Sanders is not a problem. If that is the only negative evidence that can be said about him, then this is proof of his mental agility and physical stamina.
2
Sanders, Biden and Warren are too old and should drop out. 70 should be the upper age limit and 35 should remain the lower, or entry, age limit. People in their 20s have minimal life experience and aren't ready to lead nations. Alexander Hamilton was from a far different time, and America at the time was a far different country. AOC's work experience is limited to bartending and waiting tables. Knowing how to deal with drunks doesn't enable anyone to lead a country. Look at how The Squad functions as a bull in a china shop. Their failure to understand that it will take more than four votes to take on Pelosi is a measure of their collective immaturity. They also engage in reckless speech, AOC and Omar in particular, without thinking of how it will resonate.
1
If either Biden or Bernie becomes the nominee, we will have two very old white guys doddering around on the campaign trail, with little to choose (aside from asserted policies) between them. Many folks will wonder why exchange one old fool for another.
The dems need to nominate someone who is not 70+ years old and is still sharp and capable of thinking on her, or his, feet.
1
Warren does not seem as old as the three male 70 folks of interest here.
2
If the DNC wasn’t so corrupt, we would see Tulsi and Andrew Yang onstage
2
Jimmy Carter is too old for you to be reporting on what he thinks.
1
To put an age label on someone is the dumbest thing you can do, someone might be loosing it by age 60 or they could have it well past 90.
People need to open their ears and listen to what is being said and then make up their minds if that person has got it or not.
3
What a dumb argument, although I think it's a great idea to get rid of the youth limiting age of 35 to be eligible to run for President. I've met 50 year olds who seem ancient and a 90 something year old who was sharp as a whip. Stop using dumb, useless categories to decide who gets to do what. And while we're at it, the voting age should be dropped to 16 or 14 or even 12 and frankly, I've met intelligent, well informed 8 year olds who would put many adults to shame.
1
How about IQ limits?
2
Yes. Ask the Pilot's Union. This country's pilot is ramming us into the ground.
How ironic for Jimmy Carter to be pontificating about the competence of elderly politicians. In his 50's, Carter was an incompetent, terrible, awful president.
1
This article demonstrates that some critical youthful pundits do not have the mental acuity of Biden.
2
the short answer. . no
1
OK, this is where media gets stupid.
Why didn't you write "Do Biden and Sanders wear too many shoes to be President?" "Are Biden and Sanders too warm to be President?"
You know, the kind of thing you do to women candidates all the time...
But, just for fun, let's parse a bit:
When you say "old" do you mean "doddering", "foolish", "unfocused", "unaware of reality to a Reagan-like degree"?
Because that appears to describe our current President more accurately than the candidates you calumnify here.
Or, when you say "old", do you mean "out of touch", "behind the times", "inflexible and resentfully resistant to new ideas"?
Because that seems to apply better to a few of the more-spring-chicken-like of the stable of wannabes. Middle-of-the-road addicts seeking to stay in the safe-lane throughout the primaries.
Whatever the case, it would be nice, as always, to see a more committed and refined analysis of meaningful policy differences.
You know, the kinds of things "old" journalists used to do.
If journalistic life has seven stages, you boys have reverted to "yellow".
1
Where is the same age concern about trump?! He’s pushing mid 70s. Why isn’t trump’s mania chalked up to age and senility?!
Yes. Bored and tired of both. Warren is the only legit candidate out there.
Yes, I think it is possible to be too old to be president just as I believe it is possible to be too stupid, too egomaniacal, narcissistic, poorly prepared and uneducated.
Yet, we have an incorrect common belief about what "old age" means. Our understandings are based on out of date impressions and personal observations used to draw exaggerated conclusions. Before the creation of the diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease people had no way of separating the concept of old age from people suffering from advanced dementia. Keep in mind, too, that the young have a personal motive to disqualify their elders: jobs
Some years ago in reading rather obscure take outs from medical literature (in my spare time) I uncovered the possibility that, when studying brain tissue samples of the deceased people Alzheimers were being lumped in with those without it. This would mean that medical/scientific conclusions about the effects of old age would be distorted toward a more radical idea, accidentally following anecdotal, popular beliefs.
People live much longer now, people are active well into their 70s and 80s and we must face the fact that we are somewhat in uncharted territory when trying to quantify the impact on the group or any one person.
The age "limit" should be based on common sense. Plus, we need some mechanism to, frankly, select reasonable candidates for the presidency, weeding out those who can't perform. 3 officially pre-nominated candidates+3 wild cards would be a start
2
It's not how old you are, it's how mentally sharp you are. Also, an older person has more maturity and experience. This is where our current President comes in...
Watch video clips of Trump years ago and we see a well-spoken man using multi-syllable words in complex sentences. Today he speaks in cryptic phrases, continually repeats himself, is easily confused, makes up his own false realities and is increasingly erratic.
Donald's father Fred had severe Alzheimer's and one thing known about the disease is there's a genetic factor. I've read opinions by psychiatrists that Trump is showing signs of early-onset.
1
If there is ageism in politics and generally in this country it is clearly against the young. There is open discrimination against children and youth who are even forbidden to live in certain places—for example 55+ communities. I have received adds from adult only cruises promising me that they are kid-free and smoke free throughout. Equating kids with smoke! People commonly use the term illegitimate child when there is no such thing as an illegitimate child as children have no control of their parentage. Regarding politics age restrictions 35 for presidential office is ridiculous and outright discrimination. As is the case for other offices. The eligible age for any office should be the voting age which is currently 18. The voting age itself should be 16 and not 18. Is a 16 year old less cognitively competent to participate in a democracy then someone 95 or even 100+? Our country is widely child unfriendly and even hostile. Over an over the immature behavior of adults is labeled as childish.
1
Yes. I am afraid they won't have a chance against Trump.
1
"Are Biden and Sanders too old to be President?"
Yes - but so what?
Definitely,
Joe Biden is too old to be President.
Sanders, on the other had, although his views are not all shared by me, appears to have his full wits about him.
But, probably he is too old as well.
Lastly, Trump also has lost what wits he ever had to doddering old age.
1
By the way, why isn't Warren mentioned by the author? She is 70 now. If men can be considered senile in their 70s, so can women.
Again, this article, and comments, reeks of age discrimination.
By the way, if you are so worried about politicians being too old, then Congress should be term limited. And, Supreme Court justices are appointed to renewable terms of four years.
3
Biden is slower these days. Sanders is stronger and sharper.
Both are too old except of one of them is the nominee, they have my vote.
I would vote for a mummy who has been soaked for a millennium in formaldehyde over Donald Trump.
1
I think they are too old for the job...!!
I am now 83 and I have had heart problems and stress easily so under extreme stress and pressure I guess I could easily 'kick the bucket' at a bad time.
For this to happen to a world leading president who holds the secret nuclear bomb codes one needs a young fast thinking mind that can take all kinds of pressure in a day's work.
Experience counts so perhaps the USA could develop an 'Upper Council' of wise elder statesmen and women that advise but have no real executive power. They need also to be bipartisan in thinking.
As an example just remember how Hillary Clinton was running herself ragged as Secretary of State and look at her now. I did hope she would not make the presidency as it is another method of rapid aging through stress and politics.Today she looks well and less stressed..!!
When Donald Trump gets into a rage and fires yet another, feel sorry for him as it could be one of those high pressure days when things around the world and in the Middle East are problems that simply do not resolve themselves and he is having problems keeping his hair colour right and matching the artificial tan.
Criticism is cheap but to those in high office they are human, and it hurts.Please pardon my criticisms, they are examples.
STAN CHUN
Wellington. NZ
20 Sept. 2019.
If Biden and Sanders are too old then so is Trump.
"...he would be found to have Alzheimer’s disease five years later." You mean that it was revealed that he had Alzheimers disease 5 years later.
If we are putting age limits upon when you can run for pres., when you can vote; considering age limits upon how old a pres. can be because of aging issues, then should we be allowing the masses of old folk voting in our elections?!
Their ideas are old, inflexible, tainted with age...
Doesn't sound quite as attractive now does it.
The largest cohort of citizens voting are old fogies', voting for other old fogies. If we put a limit upon one, maybe we should also place limits upon the others too.
1
I believe Bernie and Liz could change the world, not just the White House occupant.
1
Yes, their time is past. Warren for President.
1
All the leading presidential candidates are too old. Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Trump who may well be suffering from dementia even now. Yes, I said the same thing in 2016: Trump and Hillary were too old. But what can I do? I'll vote for anyone other than Trump. Anyone!
No, they are not too old. let's stop talking about age while we have a president who has psychological problems.
1
One might also ask if youngsters who write Op-Ed pieces are experienced enough and politically savvy enough to cover US presidential races.
2
We need someone young like the guy in Canada, Trudeau.
He's doing a great job, isn't he?
Yes!!!!
Yes yes yes!
The way forward needs to be led by those who will live with the consequences of our actions. And theirs.
Says this 65 year old. We have done enough damage.
The simple answer for this is the best, YES. The last thing that we need is geriatric presidents. We need younger and more vibrant leaders for this country, not a group of old goats.
Jimmy Carter would know far better than any of us.
What's left to debate?
1
Biden is too old.
Bernie has a young thinking, compassionate brain.
Great minds think alike, Warren and Bernie would be double great.
Biden has a sadness, that creates slow thinking.
I believe Bernie and Liz could change the world, not just the White House occupant.
WHOA!! We don't have to amend the Constitution to elect someone younger. There are a number of younger candidates available for the Dems to choose from. Republicans might be able to elect someone from the three alternatives that have thrown their hat in the ring. I am sort of a fan of the 35 year floor. It gives the president a chance to gain some education and experience in people, economics, politics. I don't hands down object to an older candidate, but they are a higher risk choice as they age. * That said, neither Joe (not bright enough) or Bernie (not political enough to work with Congress) are my choice as the Dem candidate.
The bigger hang-up is in Congress where there is a cabal of old men who follow the money. They on't think about the country. I think the Senators should have two 6-year terms max, then have to step down for two terms before they can run again. Might keep them on their toes.
I am a 70 year old retiree.
*Its not ageism. Its reality.
The maximum age for president of the USA should be 70, meaning that anyone elected at age 66 could not run for a 2nd term. This is as it should be. No matter what a person claims, the brain & body do not possess the acuity they once did. The job of POTUS is too important & demanding, mentally & physically, for someone over the age of 70. Check out the before & after photos of former president Obama to see how the job aged him in 8 years, & he was in his early 50s.
Biden is too old & has multiple health issues. Do the American people want a president who had two brain aneurysms 30 years ago & whose cognitive abilities are clearly challenged, as evidenced by his memory problems & inappropriate behaviors at times? His bleeding eye last week from a burst blood vessel was disturbing.
The minimum age for president of the USA should be 45. At 45, a person has enough life experience & mental maturity to make the wiser decisions as president for 350 million people &, ultimately, the world. The job is far too important to be entrusted to anyone younger.
1
@RBR
Additionally, Bernie is also too old, along with Warren. Time for the middle aged candidate to step up to the podium with real solutions & leadership qualities.
1
If we do not understand that someone serving as President into their 80s is not appropriate, then we do not understand the physical and mental demands of the most important leadership job on earth.
Bernie has his wits about him. Biden is befuddled. Two different worlds.
1
No they are not too old but I think you're too young to be writing this column.
If one can do the job at 20 or at 75 or convince the voters, then that should be fine.
Some at 50 might not be as capable as those at 75.
Just as aside, see the following of the rabbis from Ethics of the Fathers 5:21. They did not consider this binding of course and it was written many many centuries ago:
"Eighteen [is the age] for the [wedding] canopy,
Twenty [is the age] for pursuing [a livelihood],
Thirty [is the age] for [full] strength,
Forty [is the age] for understanding,
Fifty [is the age] for [giving] counsel,
Sixty [is the age] for mature age,
Seventy [is the age] for a hoary head,
Eighty [is a sign of superadded] strength,
Ninety [is the age] for [a] bending [stature],
A hundred, is [the age at which one is] as if dead, passed away, and ceased from the world."
2
If we are going to elect another president who is in their 70’s we better darn well make sure that they have a White House physician who has integrity. If they see that the president is starting to show signs of mental decline they should say so. They might not get an appointment to run the VA, but they would be doing the country a great service if they pointed out that the president had become unfit to hold the office. Right now we have a 70 something demented malignant narcissist running the show and nobody says boo about it.
2
"It depends" Who is the candidate's running mate?
Biden is a very likable guy, however is a diminished version of his former self.
1
I'll take a 70,80,90 year old president who *might* be in office a maximum of eight years- over a 32 year old with a life-time appointment to the Federal Bench or a 43 year old Clarence Thomas's lifetime Supreme Court appointment:
I'll take a fading memory over someone who hasn't developed one.
I am the same age as Biden and just had a brain scan. The doctor reported that "the results are good....for your age." Science knows that people my age begin to have reduced mental strength. Should somebody my age be running for an four year office which you would not even start until January of 2021?
2
Look at photographs of newly elected Presidents and then look at photographs of those same people at the end of their terms. They look decades older, not four or eight years older.
Being President is hard work. Of course, we can’t use the current Occupant as an example, but MOST Presidents have a number of meetings every day, phone calls, ceremonies, state dinners, overseas travel from one time zone to the next. It’s not like a seventy year old citizen who decides not to retire but continues to go into the office everyday. The job of President requires tremendous physical and mental stamina.
I’m seventy-two. There’s no way that I have the memory, physical strength or energy that I did even eight years ago. If I get a terrible night’s sleep, it takes me days to recover fully. I walk into rooms and can’t remember what I came in for. Nothing’s wrong with me, I’m just aging! I’d love to see Biden be Secretary of State. He probably wouldn’t take that job, but being President? I’d be waiting for the next lapse.
Of course, if the nominee is Biden, I’ll vote for him with all my heart. He’ll pick good people to be around him. Anyone is profoundly superior to the dufus that sits in the Oval now.
1
Pardon the hijack, but while we're talking about age, let's also reconsider why the President needs to be a natural-born citizen.
Consider Madeleine Albright: a strong and capable Secretary of State and a citizen since 1957, yet ineligible to serve as President. Does that make sense?
You must change the headline: ""Are Biden and Sanders too old to be President.
It should read "Are Biden, Warren, Sanders and Trump too old to be President".
They are all three almost the same age.
4
There should also be an age limit for Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi's dithering in the face of Republican lawlessness is becoming more horrifying by the day.
2
OK, here goes:
Actuarily, women live longer than men, so their presidential age limit should be higher too - let's say 70 for men and 75 for women.
2
Yes, they are too old.
Thoughtfully,
Internal Medicine MD X 20 years.
1
Isn’t there a Mandatory age limit for Airline Pilots ??? I rest my case. I’m Sixty, and not quite as sharp as 10 years ago. Of course, most of that can be attributed to “living” in Kansas.
Just saying.
2
Yes. Way too old. Neural degeneration begins to affect cognition after 60. No one is immune from that although for some it happens faster than others. Sanders clearly has some snap left, but Biden? Not so much. It would be foolish to nominate a man who is already demonstrating obvious cognitive deficits. He'll be 78 when he takes office, 82 at the end of his first term - it will be much worse then and we'll wind up having an administration run by un-elected hacks.
2
How would Carter know? He wasn't effective when he was much younger.
Are Biden and Sanders Too Old to Be President?
Yes. Nothing else to say.
2
Using this logic isn't Donald Trump too old to be president too? Whatever happened to all those eager young hotshots like Bill Clinton who couldn't wait to become president?
2
Judging from the adolescent ideological rhetoric coming from so many politicians who are so certain they have THE answer to all our problems, I would say we are suffering from a lack of maturity. Although more prevalent in youth by definition, it characterizes the tribal elderly as well. In short, age is not the "problem", adult behavior is.
By and large, there's no reason to have an upper age limit. As has been pointed out, it depends on the individual; some 70 year-olds have a sharper wit than 30 year-olds (see some of the rabid Trump-supporters at his rallies).
A lower age-limit, on the other hand, makes eminent sense. What Mr Nwanevu claims is absolutely absurd; the only political restriction on those under 35 is they cannot run for president, so to claim they don't enjoy full political rights is to stretch it to the breaking point.
The lower age-limit ensures that the candidate has at least had the opportunity to gather some life experience and maturity. (That's made no difference in Trump's case, but for normal people, it does.) A 40 year-old, for example, simply sees the world differently than an 18 year-old, who tends to see everything in stark contrasts, missing the shades of grey (50 or otherwise).
1
It has to be taken on a case to case basis. Cognitive decline sets in at drastically different ages in different people. The composer Elliott Carter still was writing interesting music after the age of 100. Harold Wilson had to resign as UK prime minister in his 60s due to cognitive decline. The main complication with older people is that someone who is unimpaired at one age may be impaired less than four years later, but they may well not be, also. I think it would be foolish to disqualify someone so obviously intelligent, alert and energetic as Elizabeth Warren because she's over 65 (this is regardless of her specific programs, though I agree with many of them myself).
1
No.
1
Young Pete Buttigieg summed it up best. Trust the American people to decide ,not my way or the highway. And who the heck cares what Jimmy Carter believes?
I’m a septuagenarian whose mental acuity, thankfully, remains sharp. But, my back aches, my shoulder needs rotator cuff surgery and I don’t sleep well. Yet my overall health is far better than most men my age. My point in this litany? Running the country requires a sharp mind AND a healthy body.
Seventy, yes. Seventy-seven or 78, no, simply on general principles! Look to the current POTUS and, I believe, the answer smacks you across the face: he is a man who is not at the top of his game.
2
OK Jimmy Carter--the most honest living President-you make sense. Warren for President. She'll bring Biden and Bernie along. And VP--Obama-like will work.
1
Biden looks old and slow,Bernie on the other hand is full of energy and fire.Not all old is the same old.And never forget
Annita Hill and the result.
1
Biden is certainly too old to be president. Sanders isn't.
And before anyone jumps on me - no, I'm not a Bernie Bro. He is not my preferred candidate.
But context ought to be taken into the age question. Bernie Sanders is energetic, dynamic, spry. He may be 78 but he is full of spunk. More importantly, his mental acuity isn't diminished. Seek out a video of Sanders from twenty years ago, and you'll notice he is as articulate and mentally nimble today as he was back then.
The same, however, cannot be said of Joe Biden. In fact, he is far more frail today than just five years ago. He looks older, slower, and his mental acuity has diminished significantly. Though he has always been a talker, today he is prone to meandering ramblings. He repeatedly tells stories that are demonstrably untrue or incoherent. In a word, Biden is sundowning. Visibly.
Of course, Democrats being Democrats, they're likely to choose Biden as the nominee because he is seen as the "safe, electable" candidate. Never mind the fact that every time the Dems give the nod to the "safe" presidential candidate they lose. They're so afraid of their own shadow that they are the only ones not aware that this is a losing strategy. And so now they're poised to nominate the only candidate out there that actually comes across as more senile than Donald Trump. To paraphrase Uncle Joe himself, "folks, you couldn't make this stuff up."
2
Why isn't Trump included in the headline? He demonstrates a greater lack of cognitive ability than either Biden or Bernie.
1
The aging brain is a huge issue in this presidential election. Trump, obviously not well armed to begin with, shows numerous signs of significant cognitive impairment; his rare moments of lucidity emerge from a more prevalent display of impairment: word stews, word repetition, bouts of incoherence that, like all people with dementia, come and go, depending on stress levels. The greater the national and international stress, the more we need a president who does not suffer these impairments. Of course some people in their nineties are as sharp as a tack found by a bare foot, but there is no way to know who these lucky people are ahead of time. We cannot take the chance; there is far too much at stake.
I love Elizabeth as much as the next hopeful democrat, but because of this issue, I cannot vote for anyone her age in the primary.
Carter is correct. They are too old. We have an established retirement age, let's go by that.
He was also correct during the Gore/Bush debacle when he said at the very beginning that the solution was to recount all of Florida.
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
62 would be a good maximum which would have all presidents gone before they reach the 67 year social security age. Better expand the 67 year maximum to all branches of government including the Supreme Court
To vote for someone based on age seems silly to me. it does not take into consideration their positions or policies. Why would a 50 y/o who does not support the policies I support, be better to me than an 77 y/o who does? By the way, Pres. Trump doesn't do anything useful anyway, so what's the point of an age limit?
1
Trump is 73 and in worse physical shape than any of the Democrats. His speech is simpler than it used to be. He muffs simple words. He forgets names. He can't tolerate reading or listening to a briefing, apparently because it's too taxing on his concentration ability.
The Democrats have to be compared to him, not some ideal.
1
Mr. Nwanevu writes, it makes no sense for the acceptable age to be different from the voting age. I tend to agree. Mental sharpness can also be in the young. More so than in the old, many times. Sanders and Biden and Trump are too old! Period. Rest, Gentlemen--let the young do the work!
Jerry Brown served well as Governor of California until he left office at 80. But he had the good sense not to run for another (fifth) term.
3
@Portola
I voted for Jerry Brown every time and, honestly, I wish he was still Governor. In California we owe this man a world of gratitude.
1
This is our last chance to have the best chance at voting for the president who will finish the work of FDR and inspire the young. Bernie’s the only one who can get all of it done. And having taken selfies with him and been by his side many times now, I can vouch for his youthfulness and strength, physical and mental and ethical!
2
Are they too old? Yes! I'm 74 - and they ARE too old.
3
Biden has been mentally old for many decades, if not all of his life. Bernie's mind is vibrant and young. He doesn't make many mistakes, and when he does, he can instantly correct them. Biden isn't even aware of most of his gaffes -- and the camera constantly catches him looking like a deer in the headlights. Vast policy differences aside, there is no comparison between the mental ages of these two men.
3
@Carla
Excellent comment.
On the subject of age limits, there should be an age limit on voting. No one over 65 should be allowed to vote in the US. There are many reasons for this. Mental decline is only one of them. Dementia, senility, Alzheimers call it what you will, clearly affects the elderly's cognitive abilities. Why should they be permitted to inflict their mental decline further on the young?
Voting affects the future. And clearly the elderly have less futre in front of them than the young. Yet the elderly are far more likely to vote and influence elections in a way that favors their demographic.
People who are not likely to suffer the long term consequences of their poor choices should not be allowed to exercise them at the ballot box. Simply put, people over 65 should be disenfranchised.
1
Expand this to no one receiving welfare should be allowed to vote. That gets rid of all seniors (social security, Medicare, Medicaid) as well as all who take more than they contribute. Add in everyone who pay zero income tax. Let those who pay the cost decide the policy.
@John Mortonw
What a comment !do you seriously believe that?
Anyone aspiring to be President needs to be subjected to a thorough mental health exam and cognitive testing to be eligible to take office. Anyone elected to said office if they fail should be replaced immediately either by their Vice President (if he/she passes) or a new election is called. The minimum age for office should be reduced to 25-30 years.
If Biden and Sanders are too old, add Trump to that list, too.
Yes. So is Elizabeth Warren. No more Baby Boomers in government. They had the last 25 years and look what they’ve done with the place. Time for a new generation.
1
We live in a time where people rightfully decry most of the "isms'" Good to know ageism is still alive and well and has the support of many Millennials.
1
@John Jabo--sarcasm is not the answer. The age of candidates ideas--whether they're fresh and timely, or old and mediocre, is one determinant of qualification for office.
Energy level and stamina are important--being President is a 24/7 job, except for Trump, who golfs during hurricanes, using a golf cart, no less, works half days M-F, and rarely on week-ends.
Ability to comprehend national and internatuionsl problems, formulate solutions and explain them articulately is a must. Warren and Sanders have plans and budgets prepared should they be elected, and they understand Americans' current concerns.
Trump has cancelled staff briefings because he is bored or can't concentrate. Written briefings must be one page, for the same reason. He's not mentally agile.
He hurls really dangerous policies at the World, which the Senate gives him passes on, and is bringing down the world economy with trade wars and tariffs, and destroying the environment.
Warren and Sanders have their fingers on the pulse of America. Trump has his finger on the pulse of only the white and wealthy.
Biden represents the DNC, which helped lose the Presidency in 2016. He may seem safe, but he's not current or energizing. He has an uneven voting record in Congress, and gets cranky, defensive and inarticulate about it.
Age is not a problem. If a person has the mental agility, knowledge of governance, charisma and stamina, go for it!
Age limits, definitely. 70 for the President, 75 for the Supreme Court and for judges in general, and 80 for legislators.
Warren, Sanders, and Biden are all too old to run for the presidency.
Speaking of running, Warren making sure she's seen physically running everywhere all the time is doing the opposite of whatever she thinks it's doing. Warren's blatantly overcompensating. She's not acting anything like a normal person in their 40's or 50's, but rather like a septuagenarian at an old age home showing off to her contemporaries who have had knee and hip replacements.
It's doubtful Sanders yells to prove he's youthful. He's a guy who was once young and started to yell instead of speak, and is now old and stuck in the same position. He couldn't stop if he wanted to. What Sanders yelled in the debates is identical to what he's yelled at every stump speech in 2019. He's the really old guy you encounter at a community center who seems like he may still be on the ball until you show up a week later and he's yelling the same exact things in the same way. It's rigor and rigidity, not vigor.
Finally, there's Biden. He's been so profoundly gaff prone his whole life it's difficult to tell when he started to slip. It's why it's a mistake to focus on the gaffs. Biden's not demented, the problem is he's actually okay for about a half an hour, and then totally starts to fall apart; that's the age.
One can argue for an age limit to break up the Democratic gerontocracy. Unfortunately, these top 3 candidates (out of over 20) are not at the top by accident; they're the best candidates the Democrats have.
1
It's a bit unsettling to have a young man (who probably gets carded when he buys a beer judging by the picture next to his byline) suggest that older people are effectively disabled or obsolete. It feels a bit like a white person asking if Obama is too Black to be President.
[Today Jimmy Carter joined the bigotry by suggesting an age limit to keep oldsters from running for President. Someone should point out that he was elected when he was a spry 52 and considered, if not a failed Presidency, a disappointing and ineffectual one. However, Carter when he was older -- in his 70's and 80's -- he likely would have made a better President.]
This is the third or fourth Op-ed or editorial that's raised the issue of age in the past few weeks.
We're not casting a big budget super-hero movie here. We're selecting a suitable replacement for Trump. Regardless of who it might be and how old or young they are, anyone or thing that isn't Trump or Republican will suffice. I'd take Jimmy Carter at 94 if he were nominated.
Next year isn't about choices. It's entirely about ridding history of Trump and a long, national shower to wash away the caked on corrupt and crazy.
Consider Trump who'll be 73 next year. It's not his age that's the problem, is it? It's that he acts with the careless impetuousness of a twenty-something whose experience of life and people is so narrow and pinched he acts as if the White House is a testosterone-fueled fight club.
Age is sage.
6
As a 76 year old retired professor, I regularly measure and find my intellectual ability declining. I know it would be irresponsible, but natural, to seek four or even eight years of high responsibility.
Trump has exposed devastating weaknesses in our ability to limit what presidents do. It seems they can indeed get away with murder, literally and figuratively. I fear he has opened the door to lasting abuse of the office. His post-presidency, whenever it happens, will be a nightmare too. The only saving grace is that he is so old that the nightmare will likely end after years rather than decades.
I don’t know if we can rein in the president’s powers. We relied on unwritten rules and customs, but Trump has shown they mean nothing. That’s our real challenge, not age.
1
I don't think anyone should want to be president, as that much ego and magnified sense of capabilities is a bad sign, psychologically. And folks that old? They should be all wisdom, little action. I'm thinking of some of the legendary pianists in their old age, such as Rubinstein and Horowitz. They were still great, but they were not hitting all the notes. The spirit was the thing.
Carter shows great sense in his 90s.
A few years ago he made an even more significant statement, that especially needs publicity now.
"Jimmy Carter: U.S. Is an ‘Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery’
The 39th president said the ‘Citizens United’ ruling ‘violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system’"
---- Rolling Stone and other news media.
He said it costs huge sums to run for any office today, much more than when he ran for president.
And lets add, the media effect----the media simply reports the fund raising contest as part of the Reality TV spectacle, without any analysis of big money's effect on our politics, what policies are advocated and who benefits from them.
The media gives most publicity to the highest fund raisers, and ranks them constantly on TV. This influences voters in polls, since they're better known.
The higher poll numbers may not be related to the quality of the candidate or his/her ideas for the nation.
If we reversed Citizens United, restored limits on mega donors, and used more public financing set aside for campaigns of both parties, then the ripple effects on our democracy would be tremendous.
Where is an interview with Jimmy Carter on that?
1
“Minimum age requirements make sense because it winnows out frivolous candidacies.”
How so? Donald Trump’s candidacy was frivolous; he didn’t think he would win, he did it for sport, and look what we have.
3
I agree with Jimmy Carter, who said recently that at 80 he would have had difficulty dealing with the myriad of issues that slam the president continuously and keeping in his mind all the data and opinions that advisors and cabinet members have given him. So I don't think a person should be 80 as president, at least in his/her first term. Meaning 75 should be the maximum age at inauguration, that way, 4 years later, the president would be 79. Should he/she be barred from a second term? I guess the electorate (which is notoriously uninformed) should be allowed to decide. Why not let them decide in the first place? Because the candidate is not being inundated with issues like the president would be, so he/she would artificially seem on top of it (or not).
Nature seems to qualify human beings as being adults at puberty and throughout the long history of humankind on this planet for the most part folks started raising families while still in their teens and they died, sometimes, long before they reached 30. Perhaps 30 might be better than 35 as the minimum age to run for president. Our society "prolongs" childhood often beyond even the voting age of 21 because of educational requirements, etc. As for old age, I suggest all candidates for the presidency be given thorough examinations and the resuts made public. Some people obviously are more than capable of serving people as their president in their 70s and 80's, I don't think a legal limit on age would be fair but a public record of any candidate's health is essential. More attention paid to the candidate running for Vice President might also be advisable. For what it is worth and, if I may, my own opinion is that both Biden and Bernie are too old. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury. I see Pete Buttigieg as being a fine president at some future time. Time served as a governor or senator would be good preparation for him to run for president. (Also, don't discount "AOL" - she has a lot of good things going for her.)
If we're dreaming about constitutional amendments, let's dream about universal voter registration and protection of the vote. Let's dream about an end to gerrymandering and the electoral college. Let's dream about taxing earned and unearned, personal and corporate income equitably. Let's dream about protecting clean air, clean water, and taking action on climate change. Age limits? Cheesh.
1
The age of older candidates is not the issue...it's their cognitive competence, ideas relevant to the present and their stamina.
Anyone who has worked on a campaign knows how much stamina it takes. Warren and Sanders have that energy. Biden may have, but, he's not seen as much.
Warren and Sanders have cognitive competence in spades, with both generating fresh plans and budgets that correspond to the needs of this time. Plus, they can think quickly, and articulate ideas and responses on the spot.
Biden's ideas match those of an older DNC, the DNC that chose Hillary. Americans want new plans that help them and the environment. Biden might be able to think quickly, but he can't get his tongue to cooperate, and he sounds sloppy and unclear.
Trump. He has furious outbursts of rage at rallies, rambles incoherently, then holes up, watchrs t.v. and tweets.
A normal President's schedule is 24/7 and requires constantly changing topics and focus, but Trump can't concentrate.
He has eliminated staff briefings and has reduced written briefings to 1 page for that reason. He works less than 8 hours a day, and golfs, by cart, on week-ends. He can't walk the course.
He brings old ideas to the table, 100-year old ideas on race and women.
Trump is not therefore unfit to serve, whereas Warren and Sanders are.
3
It's not just age, there should be a limit on how much each candidates can spend on advertisements and such. Just put everyone on a level playing field. It's often the elites and the richest of the rich that's in office. Congress shouldn't be populated by people that's financial more well off than the average citizen. They just can't grasp how tough it is to survive in the working class or just as a student. We need more diversity across the board in age, economic background, gender, etc.
Also, when the government shuts down, Congress also shouldn't get paid if part of our government workers and military members aren't being paid.
3
@JZ--we need a Constitutional Convention to change campaign finance laws, but that won't happen as long as the Republicsn-controlled Senate benefits from enormous campaign donations thanks to Citizens United.
I agree elections should be government-funded, like here in France. There is 95% less hype, clear statement of programs and budgets, and debates, sponsor-free, on t.v.
I don't think older people need to be eliminated from being President. They just have to display cognitive competence, knowledge of how to govern, bring fresh and relevant plans and budgets that benefit all Americans, think and articulate clearly and logically, and have stamina.
Warren and Sanders qualify under these standards, Biden is iffy, and Trump is definitely not fit to serve.
1
At 82, coming to 83, I am grateful for this Article. While I contend
that our resident President is more subject to valid Psychological
evaluation, I appreciate the inclusion of Jimmy Carter’s comments. I believe Donald Trump would contend that his person and mentality would be Above any evaluation of competence, regardless of his Age. He has chronically manifested the active Symptoms of Sociopathic Personality Disorder, including his amazing propensity for Lying and
fabrication. I personally Lament my Chronic comment that our
President does not know enough to Care or care enough to Know. President Carter, I believe, cared more about our Country and the bearings of the Oval Office....More than he cared about his own Ego. Such is Not the Daily consciousness of Donald Trump.
1
Anyone running for the presidency should be required to establish fitness regardless of age. There may well be 50 year olds who should be disqualified and 75 year olds who are fine.
Physical fitness and age aren't necessarily tightly linked. More worrisome to me are the ingrained "habits of mind" that often accompany age. As an adult developmental psychologist, often advancing years bring with it loss of creativity and a resistance to new or different ways of thinking. But, this isn't inevitable.
Among many older adults who keep their minds engaged and active, they are virtual wellsprings. But it does require effort and attention. Most would agree the presidency requires an ability to assimilate large amounts of data, formulate and re-formulate options, explore alternative ways of defining problems and what obstacles lie in wait. In the current group of candidates, there are some I'd rate high---and others not.
Such intellectual suppleness is often not found in younger persons. But normal aging processes can make it especially challenging to maintain. Bottom line: Let's not be too fixed on the number of years a person has been living.
2
The article misses the key point. It's not how they are now, it's the risk of how they may be in four or eight years.
The problem inherent in electing someone who is, say 78, is that by the end of their period in office they would be 82 or even 86. They may be fine now, but there is no way to know whether and how long they will stay fine. What we do know is that with every passing year the probability of decline in the following four years increases dramatically, and that the decline will likely be subtle but can also leave them unfit to perform the duties of office. Carter is right. Let's not have a repeat of Reagan. This is the most powerful position in the world. To put someone in there with an elevated risk of mental decline while in office is simply taking too great a risk, needlessly. And let's get realistic about the 25th amendment; the politics of that are such that by the time it were invoked, much damage would certainly already have been done.
Nobody is entitled to be president. There are always plenty of perfectly qualified younger men and women out there. Get one of them in the job.
I strongly believe there should be an age limit.
4
The age of a president, his or her capabilities and decisions would be best attested to by the company they keep, the advisers they choose. At this point, considering the confusions shown by Biden, his choices for cabinets posts would be of primary importance. But would he be a proper choice for President? Probably.
All that said, when I hear Pete Buttigieg speak so coherently, I suddenly want to see him as President, but again, his cabinet choices and advisers would tell the whole story.
We are stuck with the absolute requirement of getting Trump out of the White House and that is making our choice mechanisms a bit shaky, but we are on the right track.
Age is only one of the considerations, not all of them.
5
I think it is ridiculous to assume that all people in their 70s and 80s stay as cognitively sharp as when they are younger. Reagan (according to his own son) was showing signs of dementia when he ran for re-election in 1984. Trump (whose father suffered from Alzheimer's) has shown signs of cognitive problems as well. I have met members of the Senate (McConnell, Reid, Hatch) who were clearly frail and not very sharp at all. Their staff members (all in their 20s and 30s) basically did the work and whispered in their ears what to say. I have also met Nancy Pelosi and she is sharp and energetic. I guess it comes down to the person. Elizabeth Warren at 70 has more energy and acumen than people half her age. Biden, at 76, is clearly showing signs of decline. I don't think an age limit would be fair. But we do need a more discrening electorate that can tell the difference between old and doddering.
4
"Political operative" and "organizer" are not compliments.
A politician on the extremes benefits from having almost no track record because their followers love purity tests and hate compromises or reality running in to their policy ideas. This is not something that needs to be encouraged by changing the Constitution. People can only be president for two terms, the public might as well have some confidence in who they are when they run.
Quoting life expectancy is a logical fallacy that should not make it into print. If one is alive at age 75, one is extremely likely to be alive a few years later. This is especially true if they are reasonably wealthy and do not have an obvious and severe health problem. And if a president dies or becomes seriously ill, they have a qualified vice president in place and an army of advisers - the system is designed to function even if that unfortunate event happens. It should not matter that much to voters.
First it was the Electoral College (a reasonable debate), now the lack of an age limit to disqualify the leading candidate (not so reasonable) paired with the delusion that AOC might be able to win the presidency if not for the age minimum (humorous).
We do not have a nationality or even an official language. We have the Constitution, and every inconvenience it imposes on us exists for a reason. Kicking every tire on established rules for political advantage is what we frequently accuse Trump of doing and is not something to imitate.
2
@Alan Life expectanch for a 76 year old American male is around 12 years. For a man with with money and a doctor companion, it would undoubtedly be greater, even if he is confronted with the pressures of being president. Bokat-Lindell misses this point badly. However, his main point if reasonable. Of course, there's no chance of an amendment setting, for example, 65 years old, as the limited got a candidate. Our old candidate is good while the other side's old candidate is too feeble.
It’s not always just the chronological age, it’s the lack of self awareness that being a white male produced in the last Century. Both Biden and Sanders have ego and anger issues when questioned about their past and present. Like they shouldn’t have to answer? A lot of their supporters are just as bad. Biden supporters think they get to decide for others whether Joe’s actions and words are offensive. A lot of Sanders supporters have switched to Warren, where they have their style of candidate but not having to defend his anger and finger.
20th Century Joe and Burntout Bernie are
too pale, male and stale.
1
I'd be ok with a candidate for Pres. being of voting age.
As far as too old...if they can do the job and are voted in; they qualify. I know way to many oldsters who still function and reason at a quick level.
Age, gender, or race shouldn't be disqualifiers.
Let the voters choose their President.
1
Carter’s point about natural decline of cognitive function with age has merit, but you have to consider the baseline. Rather than an age limit I suggest a minimal intellectual competence requirement for a President. Candidates should have to demonstrate at least basic proficiency (if not mastery) in key areas (including history, math, vocabulary, logic) and pass the citizenship exam. Our current President would not have qualified even as a young man, never mind as a septuagenarian.
3
Why stop at President? Surely the same should hold for Vice President?
Senate?
House of Representatives?
How many of us would like to see the same measure applied to the Supreme Court? Right now?
1
I don't think there should be a constitutional or statutory age limit. Let the voters decide. That said, as a 64 year old in good health and still working, age is a factor for me and I will not support any of the septuagenarians. Time for the baby boomers (and pre boomers) to get out of the way and make way for the next generstion.
3
I’m 75, living in three languages an active interesting life but when I’m with younger people I see I’m old in many ways. I don’t believe we need to fix ages in law but what have happened to the respected elders who wisely encourage the next generation?
6
We do seem stuck in a bit of a dilemma here. Yes, seventy something is pretty old for any job which requires mental alertness, physical stamina and the ability to switch between complicated situations. On the other hand our political system and the Democratic Party in particular have not done a good job of nurturing new talent.
We now find ourselves caught in a choice between gray and green with not much in between.
I am a staunch Sanders supporter but the last debate did raise questions in my mind about his physical stamina. OK it was his voice, not the worst thing in the world, his mental acquity seems as strong as ever. Biden looks the picture of health until the moment he opens his mouth in an unscripted setting and starts to ramble. Warren looks and sounds great but I can't help but notice that she tends to weaken towards the end of these long debates. Then there's Trump who will continue on in his eternal Trumpiness until he expires from a massive coronary.
As for the younger candidates, those in their prime presidential years seem to have come up short in the charisma department and the young guns in the resume department.
As people live longer it's understandable that those in power will not want to step down--especially those who feel they deserve this final honor or who have spent their entire lives crying out in the political wilderness and are only now being taken seriously but we need to think seriously about this.
After the election.
2
There already is an age limit. It is decided by each voter when they step into the polling booth. That is as it should be.
5
Isn't this nice, an op-ed laying out a case fro age discrimination. It si bad enough that age discrimination is rampant in the United States. It is worse yet that Gen Y and Gen Z feel that anyone over 40 is too old to work in IT, and other fields. Now, we have people supporting age discrimination for who can be president. Of course, this will extend to everything else.
Just like racial and ethnic discrimination; age discrimination is equally bad.
Are Biden and Sanders too old to be president? No.
By the way thanks to advances in medicine, and technology, people who are in their 70s today, are equivalent to those in their 50s, 80 years ago.
8
During the 2016 campaign, I went to two incredibly massive rallies for Bernie Sanders; one in Prospect Park and the other in Washington Square Park. The vast majority of the multi-cultural crowd in both places were young people.
Biden will never get that kind of support from the younger generation. So, the answer to your question is, Biden is too old, Bernie is not.
7
I am old. I know the disabilities that slowly arrive with age. But age is not so much a matter of years as a matter of health. A person over 70 is only old in years; he/she can be vigorous, insightful, intelligent, and wise. But many are not: not Trump for sure; perhaps not Sanders or Biden either. Warren does not seem in any way limited by her 70 years. But it could happen. We have always wanted our Vice Presidents to be able when needed to take over. Some have done very well: Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, even for some LBJ. Some have not. The age problem should be settled with wise nominations for Vice President.
2
There should be a mental, psychological, physical and knowledge test. We have a president who would fail at least three of them. I lived through Reagan, and we knew something wasn’t right with him at the end of his tenure. Trump makes a man with dementia look like a philosopher. The age limit is not as important as mental fitness. Bernie and Warren are still sharp as a tack. As far as a minimum, lower it to 32. Most citizens from 18 to 32 don’t even think their vote matters, that’s the biggest problem. Regretfully, I think Biden should step down, or announce Warren as his running mate right now.
4
@Harry B I guess the age test then is the election.
My solution would be quite radical, but very justifiable seeing the growing divisiveness of the nation’s presidential politics. That would be to turn the office into very much a figurehead position with very limited powers. Or alternatively, scrap the entire current system in favor of a parliamentary style government. Changing either the upper or lower age restrictions would involve a Constitutional Amendment anyway, so retooling the executive branch would be just as easy. As for the Senate’s seeming lock on one particular party, younger Americans may just start having to move to more rural states like Ohio or Kansas, instead of from there to the big coastal cities like New York.
President Carter is correct to the extent that most of us, if not all, will eventually reach an age where our cognitive abilities are much less robust and our physical stamina wanes or disease debilitates us. But that doesn't mean we couldn't start out highly competent at an advanced age. It's time and wear and tear that makes us less able, witness Ronald Reagan. As for making certain our president is back-stopped by talented people, that might prove a myth if there is a president who listens to nobody in office. Right now it appears to me that the 25th amendment, the impeachment process and the Congress are toothless in the face of our naked emperor.
4
I am 72 and had a long, and stressful, career. I am enjoying retirement, where my stress level has finally dropped to the point where my blood pressure is normal.
If someone asked me to take on a pressure packed job with a four year obligation, I would tell them to go jump in the lake. Four days is about the maximum commitment I would be willing to make.
5
I am 59 years old. I'm not the person I was even 10 years ago.
Yes there should be an age limit. I'm not sure 65 is even early enough. If for no other reason than we need new ideas and flexibility.
What I see in all of the older characters is a tenacity and a doggedness, an unwillingness to budge from the positions. The inability to listen.
When I listen to Pete Buttigieg, he lives in a different place than the over 70 crowd. It's so pronounced to me. He talks like a person of the 21st Century. His point of view is 21st Century. He sees different problems and different solutions.
I want a younger president.
I don't want hollering old people who never shut up or fall asleep in their soup. Yes they have a great deal of value as advisers and mentors. But running the country? No. Not to me.
10
@mj I’m 57 and in the best shape of my life and regularly finish the Saturday crossword which I couldn’t do 15 years ago. But I absolutely agree that there are times when I feel time starting to catch up. I’m not sure about a hard limit but the current battle of the ancients isn’t where we should be.
3
I don't think the number matter's however ideas and mind set do. I would prefer a person from a younger generation. I am 72 and I try to have modern thoughts however many older ideas are ingrained in me.
1
Look, I don't really care that much about how old Biden and Sanders are. What I DO care about it their mental/cognitive ability. And while Sanders seems to be all there and sharp as a tac, Biden clearly isn't. And I really like the guy. But I cringe every time he can't string a coherent sentence together at the debates or town halls. I feel bad because I know someday it will happen to all of us. His time to run was 2916. He'd be president right now. But alas, his time to be president has passed.
13
Smear campaign this is. Warren Buffet, among others are far older. This comes down to competency, compassion, skills, and ability to lead. Why is age discrimination being given airtime when the current evidence in the WH - of mania and chaos - should be a far greater sign of a real issue?
11
No, there should be no age limit. Its impractical and ageist. Instead, the power of the office of the presidency needs to be diluted. Our current president has taken advantage of expectations by bucking traditional, uncodified limits to his power. These limits need to be codified and the presidency pushed along toward a less dynamic role. Dynamism needs to return to Congress instead.
6
"Are Biden and Sanders Too Old to Be President?"
What should be considered is their age at the end of their first term, 81 and 83 respectively.
So the answer is yes to both presidential hopefuls, your time has come and passed.
Warren 2020
4
Growing older gracefully is the key to staying young. The geriatric triumvirate leading the Democratic race is simply past its sell by — Joe looks the part but by the end of a talk he gave to a wildly enthusiastic crowd last year, he seemed tired, off message and frankly, old. Grandpa Bernie is cranky, more mouth than achievement, full of sound and fury. Warren’s sartorial choices reveal a person who knows what she knows and the trouble with people like that is they don’t respond to new ideas and new information outside that context.
These are not people who seem up to the task of dealing with the new and changing America, each hide bound by their conviction that their age brings them an upper hand. As an active fit and healthy 68 who has served on the board of an academic institution for nearly thirty years, I requested several years ago to become an emerita trustee, happy to be an eminence grise with a voice but no vote. Surely people well into their 70s should have the good sense and grace to realize that the time is now for younger, energetic leaders who can go the distance and who are more in tune with where the country is going, not where it has been. Frankly the hubris of these geriatric candidates is stunning.
I will support whoever gets the Dem nomination but I sincerely hope it’s someone under the age of 70.
7
@MK
Yet 3+yrs. ago the younger cohort voted for Sen. Sanders (in the primary) over both Clinton 'n Trump...COMBINED!
This primary, Sanders still leads in those same 18-40 age bracket.
Maybe it isn't age as much as ideals.
Many of the younger candidates are rehashing the same old same ol' status quo incrementalism.
That is soundly being rejected by the up 'n coming.
Their choice is loud and clear. Again.
By the by...achievement in a bought 'n paid oligarchy/plutocracy gov. isn't such a high standard is it. Now if you want to take a look at how Sen. Sanders manages to negotiate, bargain and get progressive ideals passed and inserted into amendments you'll be happily surprised.
Saying Sanders efforts in the Fight for $15, assisting those workers in doubling their wages from the largest employers in America is not achievement, says more about you and your position in life than it does Sanders efforts and working for others doesn't it.
1
Bernie has been around a long time, a little late for my money on working for minimum wage (which has been an important issue for me personally, by the way). He is a class warrior, he is an opportunist ( an independent except when it suits him to run as a Democrat.) He is much more of a character than a substantive guy from what I can see. We don’t need another cult of personality candidate nor do we need a scold, nor do we need a millionaire who rants against millionaires and billionaires. Here’s what I learned from serving in an elected position: your ideas mean nothing unless you can build consensus to move your football down the field. Making noise is great but show me a touchdown.
@MK
A little research would have shown you Sanders discussing min. wage back when he was a 4 consecutive times elected Mayor in the early '80's. Min. Wage increase was a platform he ran on in '86 in an attempt at governor.
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
An opportunist...maybe. Also a team player in not being the 3rd party spoiler. Would you of truly preferred that? That is a guaranteed loser for Dems. He also fund-raises for the Dem. Party and down stream candidates.
He has held many top chairs for Dems.
Not a substantive guy? There are only a handful (maybe) of more progressive politicians who have served in the last 40yrs.
Nobody has fought more consistently for workers and the progressive ideals. Fighting the duopoly, a bought 'n paid oligarchy/plutocracy of corrupt party's doesn't give one much success. But fight on and make forward progress he has.
Sanders has been one of he least wealthy politicians for decades. As his 10yr. taxes showed. It wasn't until his book in '16 that he became a true millionaire. Those book sales are now passed and so has that income.
Consensus's…? Read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway/450597/
Touchdowns...Read.
https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1147713369127956481
Scold...? That would be your interpretation.
Or are is his viewpoints cutting to close to your bone.?! Hmmm?!
1
Yes, without question! And the same limits should be for all branches of the federal government. The Senate, Congress, and especially the Supreme Court. No more life terms, for this branch, perhaps that concept was meant for people living at a time when life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky.
Everyone else retires at 65-70, so should politicians. Joe, please say it ain’t so.
4
The older the presidential nominee the more important the choice of the vice presidential one. I think voters definitely look to who might have to step in should the health of their first choice fail. With an older candidate, the running mate becomes all the more important.
6
YES. They are too old (so is the donald). Name one thing that anyone can do better in their 70's than they could in their 40's or 50's. You can't, because there isn't one.
To quote a small portion of The late, great George Carlin's take on aging: "...So you become 21, turn 30, push 40, reach 50, make it to 60. You've built up so much momentum that you HIT 70! After that it's a day-by-day thing: you HIT Wednesday!"
There should be term limits AND age limits for politicians who are running a country the size of AMERICA!
BTW I am a 74 year old man, in relatively good health, who knows first hand that things are not the same as they were even 10 years ago. We need young people with fresh ideas and less baggage.
15
Yes!
Politicians getting plastic surgeries, hair plugs and sessions in the tanning booth do not fool any one. People gush about how great these older folks look, how youthful. Really? Until they come up with a way to make hands not show a persons age, keep them away from the surgically altered face!
And thanks for bringing in the eternal wisdom of George Carlin!
Yes, the best Presidents in my lifetime have been Obama, Clinton, and maybe JFK. All youngsters in comparison to the three Dems currently running in their 70's. It should be an energy intensive, exhausting, job and as someone almost 70 I realize that I've lost a step or two.
11
With my husband and I being in our seventies and surrounded by same, I would prefer that 70 be a limit because, say Elizabeth wins, she would be 74 by the time she ended her first term. You can see Alex Trebek struggling publicly with cancer. It is his choice he is a powerful man and presides over Jeopardy, but I think it would be a mark of greatness if he handed on the baton. Hand on the baton to younger generations.
6
Yes (there should be an age limit.) Max age 70 at nomination, 72 as of election day. Cognitive inpairment can start earlier than that although most are able to cover up and compensate for a while. I abhor age discrimination but for POTUS just as for fighter pilots we need sharp thinking and good judgement under pressure.
8
As a voter, I have an age limit for candidates for which I will vote. The senior Senator from Alabama Richard Shelby is in his mid-80s. In the last primary, I voted for his competition because I personally feel that it is time for him to retire. He is around the same age as my mother and I just how quickly her heath has changed.
8
YES.
YES.
and YES.
What is perhaps more astounding is that they think they should be president at that advanced age.
Perhaps at 60, I should start thinking about riding in the Tour de France?
14
Without needing a hard age limit it seems clear that we can do better than elect someone in their late 70’s to be president. Anyone at that age has lost a step or two.
27
@Todd Agreed. I am 76, and I can do anything I could do half this age, but in twice the time and with half the accuracy.
I don't think an upper age limit is formally needed. I believe that we have to leave this decision to the voters to decide for themselves. People age in different ways at different rates. Some are old at 60. Some not until 80. It's not "one size fits all".
Re: a minimum age limit, while it is true that people also mature at different rates I think that the benefit of this requirement is to insure that the candidates would have at least a certain amount of experience in the world. I'd hate to have an 18 y/o president!
10
Mssrs. Sanders and Biden aren’t necessarily too old to be president, but their clear decline—on regular display here in Iowa—would seem to be a strong argument against them in the upcoming caucuses. As someone who grew up close to my four grandparents until their deaths, I often wonder if some of my fellow Democrats have spent time around the elderly.
I, for one, know that people age much differently, and that the effects of ageing can be sudden, profound and final. And I can tell you that there’s no way I’ll be supporting Joe or Bernie after what I’ve seen from them recently.
14
Yes. (And this comes from a 65 year-old.) But not purely due to their ages. I feel that if ever there was a time when we need a younger, fresher, clearer mind to lead the nation (indeed, the world) out of the political muck of the past it’s NOW.
16
@Ken Nyt
Elizabeth Warren's mind seems remarkably fresh and clear. She knows a lot and she seems to have the capability to organize that knowledge and make sense of it. Her "plans for everything" are a roadmap to what she would like to accomplish, but she has enough flexibility to adjust the paths to her goals.
I would argue that what we really need at this point is wisdom and judgment to shovel out the political muck. There are other candidates who show indications that they have these qualities and I'm hoping the primaries will bring them into the forefront.
There will be powerful forces seeking to undermine any Democratic candidate. Big money buys the best strategies and PR. Let's not get caught in the weeds of age as the crucial qualification.
There are clear medical data that most -- not all, but most -- persons incur losses in various mental capacities when they reach their '70s. Those losses of capacity are usually cumulative. To ignore these laws of averages because they don't apply uniformly to all 70-plussers is reckless.
3
Sanders, no. He's clearly sharp as a tack and able to answer questions as they are asked without jumbling ideas and concepts in a borderline incoherent word salad. Joe, it looks like he is too old for reasons previously stated.
It's not an obvious line for everyone, and some people are never too old, but some are.
9
Maybe the founders thought that with age came a certain level of life experience and wisdom that would be important and necessary for someone to hold different levels of high elected office. They may also have thought that nature and common sense would take care of being too old to run for, or hold, office. At this point, the system does not seem broken. Why, then, fix it?
1
@jpduffy3
When the Founders were alive the average life expectancy was 40 tops, so setting an upper age limit was unnecessary.
I'm 74, fit, and in good health and I know I don't have the stamina to be the President.
Joe and Bernie should leave the field to candidates under 70.
16
Democrats should seek a president who would be at the top of his or her game through two terms. They may both be fighting fit now, but would that still be true in 2028, when Biden would be 85 and Sanders 87, having spent eight years immersed in the most stressful job on the planet? Time to look to the next generations - Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bullock and the rest.
17
I do not mind how old a presidential candidate might be on the upper end of the aging spectrum. With age can come a level of wisdom unattainable by youth. I am only concerned that they have remained relevant to the issues of the day, and can manage themselves in accordance to existing reality.
I would, though, look for them to be fostering a cadre of younger folks to replace them if the need arises, as this would represent that they understand the odds of their mortality in relation to their advancing years. But above and beyond all this I need to see signs that they remain flexible in the face of changing circumstances.
This is the issue, overall, is it not? It's one all politicians, all leaders, face over time. To go with an popular adage, can an old dog truly learn new tricks?
In observing the antics of the Bidens, the Warrens, the Sanders, the Trumps, et.al., I'm not entirely sure the answer is yes. The solutions they proffer, while sometimes good, seem rooted in moments from their past. I think the term for this is hidebound?
I'm not clear that age, especially if wisdom was never attained, is ever entirely comfortable with change as demanded by the future; but flexibility and adaptability is a requirement since driving into it by way of looking in the rear-view mirror is never advisable.
John~
American Net'Zen
2
Let’s remove the subjective aspect of age ability and make it objective: how about a competency test as well as physical demands and mental acuity? Granted, it would only reveal competence at the time of candidates announcing their campaigns...but I’m thinking smart educators, scientists, and psychologists should be able to come up with something fair.
5
Biden, yes; Sanders, no.
This is a superfluous discussion because candidates for political office come under the microscope like no other. Let the voters decide. This is the true fitness test.
No upper age limits. Individuals age at different rates and political candidates are subject to the scrutiny of their constituents.
Minimum age requirements make sense because it winnows out frivolous candidacies.
Politicians, as with other vocations, should be subject to years-of-service guidelines rather than age requirements strictly speaking.
5
Choosing (voting for) a president is a complex decision and age must be one of the factors.
5
Yes, there should be maximum age limits for presidents, members of Congress, and supreme court justices. As a retired head of a small organization, I know there are cognitive, stamina and other limits once you turn 70, and the presidency of the US requires enormous energy as well as a freshness of mind. It also requires considerable experience, which is why I favor the minimum age for Pres. There are plenty of opportunities for younger people to contribute public service in other ways. I am not sure anyone considers Sanders a serious candidate, but Biden, Warren, and Trump all and in different ways exhibit problems associated with older age and less flexible mindsets.
6
@MEC
" I am not sure anyone considers Sanders a serious candidate..."
That sells short the largest volunteer campaign ever. Double anyone else's running.
That ignores the largest "small donor" fund raising by far of any other candidate. Again.
That belies the most money raised this primary by any candidate.
It would seem millions of Americans disagree with you.
1
Both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are examples of why mental agility, compassion, and vision, are not limited by age, but depend on each individual, their gifts and their background. They are sharp, quickwitted, and extremely well-versed in the subjects they talk about. Therefore the minimum age limit should be the same as the voting age, and there should be no maximum limit; instead, voters should be mature enough as to deduce a potential candidate's mental capacity from the way they present themselves. Much as I'm against punishing people for their age, I do not think that Joe Biden's gaffes can be ignored by Democrats, and it would be a big mistake to nominate him for the presidency, no matter his present poll numbers (imagine the kind of gaffes he will be making 3 or 4 years from now!).
7
I have kept careful records since turning 70 of my 4-5 times a week jogging. The Swedish Universal Health Care system also keeps detailed records of every single time I have been in contact with a physician or nurse, every blood sample taken, every investigation etc. I can access these records and some things can be put into graphic form.
There are steady changes that take place and occasional more substantial things that have to be checked. I also have been keeping My So-Called xth Life journals and still work as English language reviewer and editor for some very high level medical researchers, a good way to see how my brain seems to be functioning.
From all samples I see, only Elizabeth Warren has the mental, physical, and articulation abilities to be our president in 2020 if we focus on her, Biden, and Sanders.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
14
Biden and Sanders are not too old. They are too unprepared for being president in the current times and too rigid in their ideology.
7
"...older candidates might bring a heightened awareness to issues of inequality and discrimination, a wealth of policy expertise, and the adroitness and diplomacy that comes with years of experience in the government."
There's hope for Trump yet!
1
We should have a legally required, standardized evaluation of candidates' physical health and mental sharpness by an independent body (not candidates' own doctors, who may be biased). These results should be released to the public, and the voters can do as they wish from there.
6
Life experience should count for something in evaluating the worth of having an old president. Perhaps it’s a stretch to claim wisdom comes with old age, but perspective does. Having that beats imagining some Young Turk with an itchy trigger finder at the helm. Old age also reminds you your time is limited. That makes older people sensitive to life as a gift, right for a country that values the pursuit of happiness. Knowing they won’t be around forever also makes many older people go out of their way, albeit creakily, to do things right. A sage old timer humble enough to delegate well could make a fine president.
4
Had an age limit of 65 been present in 2016, we wouldn't be discussing Single Payer now.
6
@The North . Bernie only brings discussion. He's never had a legislative victory. I know of no Vermonter, except his most precious, cult-like, progressive MEN who appreciate his "discussions." I guess if one is happy with Donald, one is happy with Bernie's repeat performance.
3
@Jodi Harrington
Photos of his rallies would appear to belie your near sexist claim.
This question should be asked in the context of how elder politicians have compromised themselves with their incessant deal making and pandering to special interests. Who else is beyond tired of the stale offerings in economy class tha our relentlessly self promoting politicians offer the electorate?
4
Yes, I am 79 and going strong
The easy question to deal with is the minimum age of 35.
A president needs to have adequate government experience and maturity (despite Trump’s void in both departments). It takes time to acquire these qualifications. I have observed the actions of immature managers in the business world. It was not pretty.
Starting with the 2024 election it would be good to have a maximum age of 75 for the President and 60 for the VP. Remember that as we age our memory and stamina decline. But our power to reason continues to improve.
6
Surely there's got to be a viable candidate to beat Trump: Sanders and Biden are too old. However, Sanders has a stronger character compare to Warren, but he's really old, and sadly it shows. Yang seems to connect and draw the crowd but really appears too gimmicky (personally, I doubt UBI's bubble would work) so, my surest bet would be Warren, unless Sanders could appear younger.
2
We vote for a president with the hope they serve 8 years. We are too focused on the current age of the candidates and not nearly focused enough on the age they will be when leaving office.
Warren will be 79, Biden, 85, Sanders, 87
I'm 60. During my life I have seen my great grandparents, grandparents, and now parents, along with their siblings and peers decline rapidly in their 80s. Assuming they were able to survive that long. In my immediate circle, making it to 80 is a 50/50 proposition. I have never seen anyone survive into their mid 80s without suffering from either physical or cognitive decline. Usually both.
The presidency is an extraordinarily difficult job. Demanding intense physical and mental concentration. Compare any photo of a president when they take office and when they leave. This job ages you.
The top three candidates must realize that the chances of just surviving an 8 year term are exceptionally low, and if they survive, the chances of them maintaining both their physical and cognitive abilities is almost non existent.
They need to step aside and let the supremely talented younger candidates gain the name recognition they deserve. Let the likes of Buttigieg, Booker, and Harris shine.
Fixing what this president has broken will take so much work. It will take someone young and strong to make that happen.
20
@Steven Rosen
That is why quarterbacks have a team around them.
Just as all CEO's have middle managers and Pres. have cabinets and attendants.
The current crop of younger candidates while good, are obviously not The People's choice.
And for good reason; many are just rehashing the status quo, bought 'n paid pol's and or weak in charisma.
Let the voters decided.
Maybe look to whom the younger cohort backs.
That old guy, Bernard Sanders.
Just like last primary.
2
Is it a valid concern, and fair to discuss? Yes. Is there a good way to legally enforce age limits? No. So let's move on. There are many more pressing and interesting things to discuss, even in the field of presidential technicalities.
2
Numerous studies have documented the idea that humans peak physically at 27, and willingness to take risks declines sharpy a decade later.
However, the Presidency is not a physically demanding job. We can think and speak and reason well into the 80s but it is worth noting that 65 is the break-even age for mortality in the US: that means on our 65th birthday are equally likely to be dead or alive on our 66th, and the likelihood of dying increases each year. By the time we have our 75th birthday, we're much more likely to be dead on our 76th.
This topic interests me as a statistician and also personally. I suffered a heart attack which left me clinically dead for a few minutes: luckily, that occurred in a hospital ER. Now, eight stents and a triple bypass later, I just celebrated my 79th. I've played golf for 55 years and have lost 2 yards off my average drive...per year! I ran 12 marathons between age 37 and 42, but I'd be hard put to run 60 yards now.
I got my Ph.D. at 23, but I'd not put myself in the same category of intellect as some of my departed colleagues, like Amos Tversky and Marty Feldstein.
Finally, to my mind, the greatest Presidents were neither physically or mentally outstanding, but they all overcame great obstacles and understood that you have to keep going, doing your best, regardless. As a great tennis coach said, just win the last point. Warren's story of overcoming makes her most qualified.
Age is just a number.
5
@Nat Ehrlich
As you say, "age is just a number."
I too am 79. If the average age to die in America is 65, then that's because too many people die very young. We the privileged citizens can live longer and take advantage of advances in medicine to live better.
So although the risk of physical and mental decline increases with age, some us can work to improve the outlook for all Americans. And some, like Joe Biden, can serve the people from high office.
1
I turned 75 recently and just finished and filed a brief in federal court. I earned a Ph.D. from an Ivy and a JD from a large midwestern law school. I taught at a Big Ten school and later changed careers to practice law. Yet the truth is: I couldn't possibly handle the sheer physical and mental rigors of the presidency. I don't mean playing golf all weekend and tweeting at all hours of the night. And I don't mean governing by the seat of one's pants or following the advice of whichever face on Faux News said most recently. I mean actually reading and studying memoranda and proposed legislation and budgets, and asking intelligent questions to people with greater expertise, and following up with work into the night. But I can't imagine doing all that and still handle air travel around the world without jet lag regardless of Air Force One's conveniences. If Biden and Sanders are anything like me, they are, as I am, too old to govern well.
34
@lhc Couldn't agree more.
What we need is not some arbitrary age cutoff, but a neutral mental health professional to thoroughly assess the faculties of the candidates.
I suspect if voters had that kind of information (along with their tax returns by the way), we wouldn't have had the last few years of Reagan (where the country was run by his unaccountable staff as he succumbed to the early stages of Alzheimers) or any of the years of Trump, who has extreme mental issues that, if made clear, would preclude his getting the job.
8
The demands of the job (the travel alone is enough to kill a 30-year-old) are best for a younger person. So yes, they're both too old.
9
"Emily Swensen from Utah wrote in that standard metrics used to determine healthy weight, such as body mass index, are flawed because they don’t distinguish between fat and muscle: 'They are decades old, imprecise and don’t reflect modern body types such as athletic women.'"
Knowledgeable people understand that BMI is a rough measure of fitness. Most people who think they are outliers because of unusually dense bone structure or developed musculature are wrong. Individuals who really care about tracking their fitness, measure their body fat percentage and muscle mass.
I guess the question extends to: Are Warren and Trump too old to be President? Yes. They are all too old. The only one of the four (Trump, Warren, Biden and Sanders) whose mind isn't addled is Warren's. But she's too old as well. 70 is too old. People who are 70 need to be retired. My father was an admiral in our Navy. He's 67 and far too old to run anything anymore.
His mind isn't what it once was. I've obviously known him my entire life, and he has lost a step or two. The human mind deteriorates over time. Almost all of us accumulate wisdom less rapidly than we lose our faculties late in life. It's unfortunate but true. No one wants to follow an octogenarian general into battle. We all know why. There is too great a chance that he has lost his mind.
If I can't trust a man to sit through a 2-hour meeting without a diaper, I can't trust him with my vote.
7
Social Security incentivizes people to retire at 67. That's long enough to have worked. Bernie, Biden and Liz are past the Sell-By date.
10
As a newly minted 70 year-old lawyer, I don't feel that I'm any less competent or effective at my profession than I was at 50. However, the presidency is another matter entirely and I agree with President Carter. The current occupant of the Oval Office along with the top three Democratic contenders are all too old.
11
The people who appear to be the most resistant to installing an age requirement are self-entitled older baby boomers (1946-1956) older boomers and members of the silent generation (1925-1945) who selfishly want to hang on to any thing and any degree of power they feel is rightfully theirs.
14
"Once the issue of race and IQ is raised, people who perceive and are concerned by its severe social cost are, in a sense, trapped. They may quite properly dismiss the work [...]. But they do so in a racist society in which, furthermore, people are trained to consign questions of human and social importance to 'technical experts,' who often prove to be experts in obfuscation and defense of privilege—'experts in legitimation,' in Gramsci's phrase. The consequences are obvious. Or they may enter the arena of argument and counterargument, thus implicitly reinforcing the belief that it makes a difference how the research comes out, and thus tacitly supporting the racist assumption on which this belief ultimately rests. Inevitably, then, by refuting alleged correlations between race and IQ (or race and X, for any X one selects), one is reinforcing racist assumptions."
Now, simply replace the words race, racist, and racism in renowned linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky's statements above with the words age, ageist, and ageism while also recognizing that we live in a society that also discriminates against older people.
As such, and more than anything else, this piece serves to reinforce ageist assumptions and the severely discriminatory ageism that further shreds the social fabric of the U.S.
3
@Tom Wilde Our society also discriminates against young people. We don't let 5 year olds drive cars. We also discriminate based on intellectual and athletic ability. Slow people can't compete in Olympic races, people who did poorly in high school don't become medical doctors. There is nothing wrong with discrimination on the basis of ability and competence. If someone truly lacks the mental ability to be president due to old age, that's just part of being old and we shouldn't elect them as president.
I think you are confusing racism with good sense.
Yes, @James ~
We do indeed prohibit 5 year olds from driving and we typically do choose those who demonstrate keen intellectual and athletic abilities to lead their respective fields and teams. Likewise, we wouldn't choose a person (young or old) with cognitive impairments to be the president of our country. And I agree with you that these choices come out of what we call 'good sense,' and hence no one is arguing against our making these choices.
But we mustn't muddle "good sense" choices with actual discrimination, which by our popular definition means that people are judged inferior to others merely based on their skin color or their age (as a specific number) as a criterion for selection—which is what Chomsky (and I) are discussing here.
Ageism, like racism, is a most pernicious form of discrimination in our society, and as I am saying here (via Chomsky's statements on another form of vicious discrimination in the U.S.), this very article serves first and foremost to reinforce the assumptions on which ageism is based.
Ageism is a widely recognized form of discrimination all over the world, and we ought to make choices that expose it so that we can work to eradicate it.
@Tom Wilde I saw the article as a fairly balanced discussion of the arguments for and against age limits. Certainly that would mention common stereotypes, but I didn't think the article promoted those stereotypes.
There is a fine line between age requirements based on "good sense" and ageism as you describe it. Hence the example that 5 year olds can't drive. We could certainly have as an agreed to public policy based on good sense that say someone over age 80 shouldn't be president. Or we could agree to know age limits and let the voters decide (overall and case by case). Even reading the comments from people over age 60, its debatable whether someone over age 70 could have the mental fitness for the job or whether that's just a stereotype. Certainly some are senile in their 70s and others are physically fit and seem mentally sharp into their 90s. It's debatable.
My point of course is that age discrimination is practiced, and there is a good reason for it with the thin line between sensible policy and discrimination based just on a number.
If you feel there are good instances of ageism which is generally bad policy and simple discrimination, that might clarify your point. (You have 1500 characters. Go!)
Critically, the U.S. system lacks the mechanisms to assess mental, cognitive and physical fitness and remove a president once in office. Trump has illuminated this gap all too well.
We don't live forever and cognitive and physical decline are realities. Things will change and sometimes rapidly. It is riskier to bet on someone pushing 80 without these assessment mechanisms in place.
FWIW, I hadn't seen Biden speak for some years but I caught part of the debates the other day. I was shocked frankly. He is clearly not fit to be president. If we didn't have Trump, would Biden even be considered a viable option?
13
In a president, we need someone with good judgment, and judgment improves with experience and therefore with age. I’m for Biden.
3
I don't know a single person age 70 or older who has not, at one time or another, made some comment about not being as mentally sharp as he/she used to be. There should be no problem with a presidential candidate completing a simple recall and comprehension test to assess mental fitness. And it is a test that should be re-administered if an incumbent chooses to run for re-election.
10
Obviously it should be up to the voters. Some people are extremely productive into their nineties while others seem to experience cognitive decline by fifty. Usually, in any case, one can compile a long list of objections to candidates before reaching the issue of their chronological age.
8
I am 73. I am firmly on the age limits side. For public office the limit should be 65 years. I would also add term limits for all politicians - no more than 15 years.
By the way, I like Nancy Pelosi, but I am sure that she is hesitant to impeach because of her age. And I didn't hear anything convincing from Biden regarding why he wants to be President.
There you have it - we need younger more energetic leaders.
18
@Amos absolutely!
Joe Biden is too old to be president, but Bernie Sanders is not, even though I believe Sanders is older than Biden.
I was convinced of this watching the CNN climate forum a week or two ago. Biden sat there rambling and not able to track the question or even his own answers, followed by Sanders who brought an intense and focused sense of energy and commitment to all the questions asked of him.
It was clear to me then that Biden's best days -- or as good as they ever were -- were behind him. Sanders, on the other hand, is like the Energizer bunny... he just keeps going.
21
@avrds Both of the are too old to e president! Period!
2
@avrds Sanders just repeats his few ideas again and again. He is inflexible and set in his ways. Too old!
2
the constitutional age requirement may originate from a similar restriction in plato's "republic," where a person cannot enter the leadership caste in "offices of war" before the age of 35 and cannot become a supreme leader before the age of 50.
at issue in testing the fortysomething potential leaders was "whether, when they are drawn all manner of ways by temptation, they will stand firm or flinch."
i raise the point because cognitive abilities or the yeasty spirit of youth are not really the issue: it's that long "experience with life" is necessary for wisdom.
say what you like about ageism, i don't believe many people associate wisdom with a 25th birthday. nimble mind, tactical insight, clever stratagems, focused attention, quick study, sure. but wisdom? who among us today can even recognize it, much less possess it?
as for the upper age limit: i trust people who have been there. carter has been there. voluble cognitive scientists and feisty opinion leaders have not. the wise may perhaps see a useful distinction there.
4
Most law firms have mandatory 70-and-out, so why not politicians? And no lifetime appointments for judges, especially when modern medicine keeps removing the nails from coffins.
16
I am approaching the age of 70 and I am bewildered by what I read, hear, and experience about age.
As a mathematics professor, I am highly concerned about "losing my marbles." What if I find myself in the middle of a lecture to graduate students unable to solve some basic stuff like diagonalizing a matrix?
It seems to me that any serious professional will have similar concerns specific to their field or activity.
So, I find it hard to believe that people like Biden or Sanders would be unable to spot their possible age-related shortcomings. And even if they did, they would probably be alerted by their advisors.
So, I suspect that a lot of this discussion is driven by pure and simple ageism: you want younger candidates, so you try to discredit the older ones on the basis of their age.
But my recent experience opened my eyes on something important: as a white male I never experienced racism or sexism. Now, for the first time, I experience an "ism". The good news is that most of us will one day experience that one. Believe me, it is an eye opener.
9
I think the time is relatively short before biotech advances make a hard-coded upper age limit in the Constitution obsolete. So though I'm currently concerned about people over 70 in the Presidency, I don't think it makes sense any more to try to amend it.
2
Yes, they are. We need for this president to serve two terms. I don't care how fit they appear today, we have to think about whether they can survive a nasty election over Trump, successfully lead the country for four exhausting years, endure what will be another grueling re-election campaign, and then do it all over again. Under this scenario, Biden leaves office at 85, Sanders at 89. I will vote for either of them if they are the nominee, but this scenario concerns me greatly.
I've known people who were incredibly active in their 80s. And when they declined, it happened almost overnight.
20
And if Trump were to win again (yikes), he'd be president until 78.
2
I believe that not only should there be an age limit (69 years 11 months and 29 days) but also a term limit for the Supreme Court, congress and the Senate - 20 years and you are out! It’s time the country moves forward. Joe Biden should be our last over 70 President and should just serve one term.
11
@Angela
I think that's a great idea. Just like Nancy Pelosi agreed to accept a one-term limit as speaker, I think Biden could do the same.
I had a cat who lived to be well over 19, yet suffered for nearly a decade with chronic renal failure. Her vet took the position that she'd treat the cat, not the numbers, which were poor (the cat's labs). My moggie was feisty as a kitten, though, until just before the end.
Speaking as one of the 720 million women who will be returned to the workforce thanks to Biden, I have to say that my late cat makes me think not of Biden, obviously, but of Bernie Sanders. Bernie has the elan vital to go the distance, regardless of his numbers.
It's certainly an interesting political landscape at the moment.
5
MY problem is not only about age, but previous politics.
Biden, to me, seems vulnerable. As a person.
You put him in a bubble with a whole host of neo-cons and I think he could start a war.
Warren and Bernie would have the ability to resist.
9
Their ages raises the importance of their choice of Vice President significantly.
Given that the mortality increases with years, the probability that the Vice President would succeed during the term of office increases proportionately.
Where previous administrations gave relatively little thought to the VP, such as during FDR's last term in office when the relatively unknown Harry Truman was VP and lacked knowledge of important things such as the Manhattan Project [the A bomb], today's VP has taken on more importance.
Is the country ready for President Pence? I presume that Trump will not choose to replace him, but who knows?
Likewise, would Biden choose Buttigieg, a much younger man? Or perhaps a woman? One who would agree to take "second fiddle"?
The women are both very important where they serve today, so sacrificing senators for the ticket is a mixed bag.
What do we really know about the health of the candidates?
We may get more factual information from the Democrats than from Trump, who lies about his height and has reported a fabulous health summary.
Should there be an upper limit?
Reagan was arguably losing it, and did, eventually.
While the 25th Amendment is there, it would take extraordinary events to exercise it.
3
No. Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Trump are not too old to be President. There is no upper age limit. Each person ages differently. As a country, we have prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and older age. Ageism is not acceptable.
Look at the characteristics of the individual seeking the position. While it is fine for voters to give more weight to quick thinking, debating skills, or high levels of energy, and less weight to relevant experience or good judgement/wisdom, it is not appropriate to assume that knowing a person’s biological age, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin will help voters determine these strengths. My 96 year old mother and 30 year old niece are obviously far quicker, sharper, more articulate, and wiser than Donald Trump. Let the voters decide who is best suited for the job based on the characteristics they seek.
7
@David, yeah you're completely wrong. Would you want an 80 year old surgeon? I didn't think so. These people are fossils and it's not ageism to say so. Facts. Math. Numbers.
I don't mean this in a sexist or disparaging way: in general, a 70-year old man is older than a 70-year old woman. There are probably exceptions, but few people at 76 or 78 will have the necessary energy and stamina to do the job well for 4 years, let alone 8. Of course there are exceptions to this, but it is hard to predict who will be an exception Biden is a nice guy, and very experienced, but that isn't enough, and I think it is time to retire. Bernie appears to have a lot of energy, but it is easy to mistake anger for energy. Elizabeth Warren looks younger, sounds younger, and acts younger, and seems to have mental flexibility and quickness.
I would kind of prefer Andrew Yang, although I am uncomfortable with any presidential candidate who has never held elective office.
It is ironic that two of the three oldest candidates are the most radical. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are more middle of the road, even though much younger.
12
Maybe the office of the President itself needs to be changed. Perhaps two or three people should be splitting the work so as to have in office the wisdom of age, the energy of youth and someone who can communicate with people with elegance and compassion. Then conflicts of interest would seem more damaging than age.
3
Ideally, the VP would be the Junior President and they would job share. Both articulate with focused issues. There has to be a final decision-maker though. With
seniority.
Presidents seem to often pick lightweight VPs. Dan Quayle and Pence are good examples. I have heard it said that potential presidents often pick running mates that make them look better for job security. Cheney though appeared to be the man behind the curtain.
Nothing is stopping a potential POTUS from job sharing. I think a woman POTUS would be more likely to share the stage and decisions more.
I never understood the term Vice in VPOTUS. It's derivative I think from Viceroy. The word Vice on its own is very negative.
2
Simple answer to this yes. And I am simply stunned as to how many Bernie fans are blind to the fact that he is definitely showing decline as well. It's visually and audibly obvious. Just listen to his voice the last debate, it was shot. Ranting the same bullet points over and over again does not make you sharp. Don't get me wrong, I love Bernie, but his time, like Biden's, to be our President is past him.
32
@Fromjersey Sanders isn't my preferred candidate, but even if his voice is shot, he is as sharp as a tack and going over the same bullet points isn't new to him, people who ran against him 30 years ago said his approach is the same today as back then. In comparison to Sanders and Warren, Biden just appears both frail and verbally a step behind the whole field. He can have positions that at the least pass muster with most voters, but the perception of not being up to the rigors of the job is going to be terribly hard to overcome.
5
@Fromjersey
So you're saying that Bernie's debate performance the other night embodies the admonition to "burn and rave at the close of day?" I think I agree.
1
The Social Security Life Expectancy Calculator indicates the following:
A male born November 20, 1942 (like VP Biden) has an additional life expectancy of 10.5 years, for a total of 87.4.
A male born September 8, 1941 (like Senator Sanders) has an additional life expectancy of 9.8 years, for a total of 87.8 years.
A female born June 22, 1949 (like Senator Warren) has an additional life expectancy of 17.1 years, for a total of 87.4 years.
Any of them will be a massive improvement over the current President, and there's a deep field of well-qualified VP candidates, so I'm not worried about it.
8
FDR became president when he was 51. His trunk and legs were paralyzed by a bout with polio when he was about forty. He suffered from sinus attacks and extremely high blood pressure, which caused a fatal stroke when he was sixty-three. He probably should not have run for fourth term, but he was a great progressive president and a great war leader.
Herbert Hoover had excellent health throughout his life and died at age 91. Yet his presidency was a failure, because he relied to much on the capacity of people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps with minimum help from the government. He was stubborn, and failed to change his views when the facts changed.
What matters a lot more than health is good judgment. And how does a person acquire that? By lots of experience, and learning from mistakes. John F.Kennedy, one of our youngest presidents, made lots of mistakes during his first year in office, particularly the Bay of Pigs disaster. Sadly, he was becoming a good president just before he was murdered.
Bernie Sanders is a year older than Joe Biden. But he seems sharper and more vigorous.
One shouldn't make generalizations about how old a president should be. Each case has to be carefully examined on its own.
7
@Diogenes Generalizations must be made. These people are all too old. These are basic facts that must be accepted.
Biden, yes. When someone does not remember even the name of the president he worked with (Barack Obama) something is deteriorating in his mind. That....or he is not interested in becoming president at all. Sanders is a different case. He is the sharp leader of a energetic movement. He has nothing to do with Biden. In any case, age is not that importan...ideas and principles are.
9
Like many other professions with mandatory retirement age requirements, the office of the Presidency should similarly include such limits. And to that end, yes Biden, Bernie, Trump (and many others who are still in Congress in their late 70’s, 80’s and beyond) have reached that limit.
4
Politicians in office are too old, because voters are electing them.
Voters are electing these too old politicians in large part because, in most cases, younger politicians seem even less competent to the voters.
Are the voters deluded about this?
I think not.
Civics education was largely thrown out of public schools many decades ago, but not long before the teaching of US history started being dumbed down.
Couple this with a general spread of functional semi-literacy spurred by addictive, short attention span social media and online gadgetry favoring extremism, and the resulting decline in basic competency and speaking skills of public officials is appalling, yet upon reflection not all that surprising.
If you doubt these conclusions, just compare public speeches recorded in the 1950s and '60s to those recorded today for a jarring jolt of reality.
4
Whomever is elected the Dems they are, barring a total collapse, that person will have to be in top form in eight years from now, when Sanders and Biden are in the mid-80s. That is a gamble, to say the least. I cannot vote for that in good conscience.
6
@David Keys
I don't want to vote for them either. That said, I will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. Refraining from voting or protest voting for a third party candidate might feel good until Trump is reelected as a result and I cannot do that in good conscience. Many times I have voted for the lesser of two evils. In the 2020 election, I will vote against Trump as I am concerned with the survival of America as a democracy if he is reelected.
11
In short, yes.
The law requires a minimum age of 35 for a reason. Likewise, while there is no maximum age in the law, there are reasons why there probably should be. A 76-year old, while experienced and wise, does not have the energy, mental quickness and physical fortitude of a 60-year old. And historically most presidents, when originally elected, have been younger than 60.
4
I'm not particularly concerned with the age of a candidate per se. But by the time of nomination, we should demand that they all be given a clean bill of health by licensed, independent physicians and psychiatrists. And no, some quack's phoned-in assertion that the candidate's "...laboratory test results were astonishingly excellent" doesn't quite cut it.
5
I am 72, still working happily and fruitfully, with all of my intellectual capacities. But the answer to this column's title is "yes." Both Biden and Sanders are simply too old. Robert Byrd said that 90 was the new 80, but he was in the Senate. The presidency is something else entirely.
14
@JEB
I too am 72 and think an age limit should be imposed. As far as being 80 in the Senate, that is too old too and age limits should be there and in the House as well. I am tired of these old white men dictating my life.
I don't buy into the ageism arguments being made here. But, if I did, Harris all the way.
I think ageism is a false construct. There are precocious young people totally ready to take over, just as there are comparably energetic, bright, compassionate people over 79. Similarly, there are totally inadequate people at both ends of the age spectrum.
4
That said, I think Warren towers over the field.
@Ralph There are essentially no energetic people who can sustain a presidency at 79. That's complete nonsense. Too OLD...
I looked at the last 13 presidents, i.e. the presidents since FDR. The average age when starting office was 56.8, which is still around 55. About half of them were over age 60 when they started office. You'd have to set the maximum age no higher than age 70 and even then I think you'd probably want it no lower than 75.
Breaking up the gerontocracy is a very good argument. There are too many old democrats in congress and the leadership and they very poorly represent someone in their 30s like me who is building a career and/or starting a family. I'm extremely hesitant to vote for anyone over age 60, except for Sanders and Warren and when there are no other candidates.
I think Biden is not mentally fit to be president and thus is too old. Due to mental fitness, not numerical age. Bernie seems mentally fit and eager to serve the people, not just himself, so I'd be thrilled to vote for and elect Bernie Sanders. Same with Warren.
I'm in my 30s. I think a lot happens in terms of maturing in your 20s, especially with delayed adolescence. I think you'd have to mature to be president, say old enough to have had kids, build a career, have some professional disappointments, and maybe have some political experience to be president. And the precise means of becoming mature doesn't matter, someone who is single with no kids at 45 is probably more than old enough, but I don't think anyone under age 30 is old enough to be president and even age 35 is pushing it.
18
There are pluses and negatives to both youth and old age. For the argument of youth, there's the assumption of greater agility and adaptability. For the argument of age, there's wisdom and experience.
In an ideal world, we would have a screening process that could eliminate people who are not qualified for the job, based on a job description and a list of required qualifications. Those who are impaired by reasons including dementia or lack of relevant professional experiences would be eliminated early in the process of running. After the screening process, we, the public, would be charged with making the decision who we feel would do the best job.
But in this reality, it's not an easy call. There are a lot of comments about Biden, but his tendency to ramble and make gaffes aren't new, and are not necessarily due to age. Is it possible they an impediment related to his history of stuttering? I don't know. I'm suspicious because these are issues that surfaced earlier in his career.
2
Yes. They are. And I’m a huge Sanders supported. That’s why we need Elizabeth Warren.
11
@DSD If she ever learns simple math maybe she will have a chance. Until then she will get annihilated by Trump.
I am 64. I feel fine. I have a fairly demanding professional position. I do not believe I have cognitive impairment but I am positive that my memory is not as agile as it once was. But I also believe I have a decent amount of wisdom that was earned by living six plus decades.
I am perfectly capable of continuing in my profession for some years to come but I can't imagine wanting to take on the pressure of the presidency ten years from now.
Everyone is different, but based on being closest to Ms. Warren in age, I believe she is the only one of the three front runners who is truly up to the task. I suspect eight more months of full-out campaigning will winnow the field naturally.
19
Yes and no. There are plenty of people approaching 80 who have the ability to do the job.
Yes, Biden is too old. He is not qualified because his age has now exacerbated his lifelong tendency to meander and lose focus.
No, Sanders is not disqualified because of age. He apparently retains all of his faculties. I disqualify him because his policies are unrealistic, just as they were 50 years ago.
Dan Kravitz
12
There are few people too old to be president, but Trump has exceeded his sell-by date by many years. I know this seems contrary to the belief that he acts like a five-year-old, but I posit that, this being the case, he should not spend his second childhood as a president of anything beyond a sandbox.
63
I was surprised to read Jimmy Carter, who impresses many with his level of functioning as he approaches his 95th birthday, stating: "The things I faced just in foreign affairs, I don’t think I could undertake them if I was 80 years old." Perhaps President Carter at 80 may have been even better in that area with the experience and wisdom that comes with age. I don't think there should be an age limit for the presidency as there are many older people who remain both mentally and physically strong.
10
@Jeffrey Freedman
Unfortunately, as with Reagan, we cannot predict whose mental facilities will decline and when. He finished his Presidency with dementia and his unelected aides ran the country because they would not acknowledge his disability. The older we get, the greater the risk. Once a President is elected it is nearly impossible to get them out (as we have witnessed recently) regardless of their incapacity. Certainly there are many older people who retain their abilities but statistically they are at higher risk. The President of the United States should not have that high a risk before they even start.
5
There is a very good answer to this question. The U.S. military has a mandatory retirement age of 62, but high-level personnel and those with special skills can serve until 68. The way I figure, the president as the commander in chief clearly meets the qualification for "high-level personnel" and "special skills." So, if you're the POTUS, a very special present for your 68th birthday is a "thank you" from a grateful nation as you gracefully go into retirement. Presidents LOVE praising the military--I'm sure there's great wisdom behind the 68-years-old rule. The commander in chief should abide by its policy.
49
@UC Graduate Hear! Hear! (or is it Here-Here) - great comment.
The aging process affects each person differently. Of the three -- Biden, Sanders and Warren -- its pretty apparent that despite what seems to be minimal difference between their respective numerical ages, Warren has the greatest apparent mental and physical flexibility and energy. Lining up Warren against Trump using the same criteria, i.e., energy and flexibility, Warren again comes out ahead.
35
Right now, we're electing people for a term that will run about 5.5 years into the future. Today's 78 year old will be 84 at least. Many people are dead by then, and a lot of things can go wrong by then. The real question is, let's elect a President from among the 330 million of us, let's find one person in the hundreds of millions who isn't heading for his mid-80s or isn't the wife or son of current President. Let's not write it into the Constitution, but use some common sense. Asking if it's maybe possible for an 85 year old to be President is the wrong analysis, let's find somebody else, it's a wide market.
6
If we are to use some sort of evaluation of mental/cognitive capacity rather than average age, I would argue that Elizabeth Warren is the only one of the 4 (including Trump) that seems fully capable despite her age. Biden not only garbles his thinking, but his whole world view is out of date and stuck in the past. Sanders seems to be somewhat clearer minded and certainly has new ideas for the country, but he seems inflexible in his thinking and sounds like an old uncle who keeps repeating himself. I don't have to describe Trump's innumerable mental deficiencies here. Warren seems sharp, energetic, and spirited. She is full of ideas and yet pragmatic and although she has a strong vision for reform and change, she gives the impression that she is adaptable and (appropriately) flexible in her thinking.
141
@Larry Figdill
Sanders has to keep repeating himself because the Boomers and moderates aren't/haven't been listening.
But the younger cohort certainly are and were in '15.
Ah...but a woman cribs his ideas and now they are palatable. Flourished with academic lawyerese, for the fans to nod along with knowingly.
That darn inflexible thinking, that the flexible thinking adaptive woman has garnished; just before she pivots and reveals the capitalistic corp. lawyer she has always been.
Backed and promoted by the same Dem. establishment, sold by the same corp. media outlets.
A compromise candidate the capitalist can work with.
What could go wrong?!
At least Trump will be gone...maybe.
2
@Larry Figdill
"He seems"...."She seems"..."She gives the impression"...
All clear proof, I guess.
1
I doubt I'll live to see an age limit put in place, but I strongly prefer not to vote for candidates older than 65 because they're unlikely to have to live with the long-term consequences of their decisions (20+ years). Our country's current shameful climate policies are prime evidence of the focus on constant re-election and short-term benefits rather than the kind of long-term thinking needed to face systemic challenges.
60
@Heather
I like your thinking. One should have to enjoy or suffer the consequences of one's actions. Make actuaries great again!
I am 73 years old. I cycle 150 to 200 miles a week just about year round. I am certain I am in far better physical shape than Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Trump. There is no way that I am as sharp either physically or mentally as I was in my 30's, 40's, 50's or even 60's. I know this is anecdotal but it is preposterous to think that someone in their 70's is as sharp or cognizant as a sharp younger person in there 40's.
90
@Richard Buffham: You are missing an important component of what we need in a leader: wisdom, maturity and judgment. These things can't be measured but they aren't necessarily dependent on being sharp. A good president isn't a micromanager (and rumor had it that Jimmy Carter had that defect). I want a president who brings good people into his administration, relies upon them and makes good decisions. I believe that people in their 70s are well-suited to do that.
15
@Richard Winkler
Personally, I am tired of old white men in the Presidency and Congress deciding what I should do with my body and life. I am a boomer. We thought we could change the world. I'm not real impressed with our success. It is time to pass the baton.
11
@ExPatMX; How about an old white woman named Elizabeth Warren? She’s my pick.
I don't know if an age limit is necessarily the right way to go, although it's not a crazy idea. In the case of Biden, he has apparently lost his ability to follow a train of thought, to find his words, and to keep his memory straight. In the case of both Biden and Sanders, it's apparent that neither one has really kept up, learned very much or developed significant new ideas in the last twenty years. Those facts may argue for an age limit overall; they certainly argue for an age limit in those two specific cases.
11
Bernie and Warren remain sharp, while Trump and Biden do not. There's no magic age number; "too old" is very individual.
A better change would be a requirement that presidential candidates do well on cognitive tests, and while we're at it, on psychological tests. How about passing tests of basic knowledge of the constitution and the legislative process? It's likely that Trump would have failed all of these...
102
@Rich
If Bernie is sharp I'll eat my shoes. He is the poster child for a stereotypical old man. The only thing missing is the waving of his cane.
Yes, they are both too old.
I am middle aged. I have one parent still alive at 91 but with very bad dementia.
My in laws are in late 70s, early 80s. They were both fine and active at 75. Not both have different types of dementia.
My husband and I are dealing with three still alive but mentally incapacitated parents.
For every Ruth Bader Ginsburg there are 100 or even 500 others with serious problems.
Statistically half of all people over 80 have dementia.
There are so many qualified younger people. There is no reason to risk it with someone over 75 .
59
@Liza
I agree that it's scary how many older people have problems with some kind of dementia. Hearing and sight impairment cause other problems.
I don't think we need a law to deal with those issues. In a democracy people should have the right to make judgments about the capacity to deal with the complexities of being president.
That being said, it worries me that so many people didn't have concerns about Trump's mental qualifications. Not to mention his moral qualifications.
While I don't believe in a strict legal age limit (because life experience and accumulated wisdom are undeniably important part of an individual's make-up), I personally believe both age and physical/mental condition of an individual should be a factor considered by voters, and it is not "ageism" to do so. I agree with President Carter that, in most cases, 80 years old is probably too old to undertake the Presidency.
However, there is a fairly important data error in this article. You do not use "average life spans" beginning at birth to make an actuarial prediction about a person's life span. You measure this from their age at the time. An American 70 year old female can, according to Social Security Administration statistics, expect to live another 16.57 years, an American 70 year old male, another 14.40 years (as opposed to the 6.4 years cited by the author). Most 70 year olds who were elected President would be expected to live well past the end of two terms in the White House, not die in the middle of a second term.
16
@Startzesq . It is not how long your live but how long you still have all your physical and mental capacities.
Nursing homes, memory care, and assisted living facilities are filled with elderly who are still alive but not able to take care of themselves much less anyone else.
I spend a lot of time in these places. The few elderly who are "with it" after 80 are the exception, not the rule.
For most people the 80s are a time for physical and mental decline.
Life expectancy is high, but life quality and capacity is much shorter than the average life span.
This is sad, but true.
2
Of all possible electoral reforms, age limit is not convincing as a priority. Electoral college is pernicious in many ways, e.g. opinions of New Yorkers, Californians or Alabamans do not matter because the electoral votes in those states are pretty much determined. In the same time, residents of "battle ground states" suffer through onslaughts of advertisements etc. that could well lead to ulcers or clinical depression.
Clearly, some candidates show worrisome signs of cognitive deficit. Yet, some reveal such symptoms in their 40-ties, e.g. Marco "The little robot" Rubio. Did he reveal any original and non-ridiculous idea? It should be up to the voters and reporters to watch the symptoms and evaluate.
2
There are significant problems with this both ways. Discrimination against older people is rife in our society.
Cognitive decline is an issue that affects some people before age 70. In fact it starts relatively early in life in some parameters.
Having read the reports of the current president's physical and cognitive examinations I am not certain a cognitive evaluation of candidates and presidents could be done in a reliable way.
So age might be the only reliable way to estimate cognitive capacity. Unfair in some ways, but is there a better alternative?
1
@minnie Yes, there is a lot of discrimination against seniors - but much of it is positive. Whether it's a property tax freeze, free parking downtown, guaranteed health insurance or discount movie tickets, seniors enjoy a wide range of generous subsidies. Seniors are also the very wealthiest Americans on average.
Discrimination experienced by mature workers - persons over 55 - is a real problem however. Trying to migrate to a new job at that age can be very difficult and even humiliating. It's made even worse now that the SS retirement age is 67. And of course not every senior is wealthy - many do live in poverty without any meaningful way to supplement their SS checks.
1
@minnie It's not discrimination to point of the fact that old people are in decline. These are scientific facts. We must all accept them.
1
We’re asking the wrong question. It’s not age, exactly. Presidents need to be sharp, mentally, and have stamina. The vast majority of us lose both as we age, but not all equally, or at the same time. Biden has clearly lost it. He stumbles, meanders and often seems lost (as does Trump). This doesn’t seem to be the case for either Bernie or Warren.
Why aren’t we treating this issue the way many states do drivers’ licenses. We recognize that driving ability fades with age, and that, at some point, a person may be a hazard to others on the road. The same is true of political leaders. There should be an acuity test for presidential candidates. Those failing to meet appropriate standards would not be allowed to run. It’s clear that Biden should have his presidential license taken away (as should have Reagan, in his re-election run). But others like Liz Warren haven’t lost a step, they wouldn’t be disqualified.
8
@John Ranta Do we even require that our presidential candidates have a valid driver's license? And, if not, why not? If they had to go through, personally, the ordeal at the DMV, they might be more sympathetic to their fellow citizens.
7
Yes, Of course they are.
We need age limits and term limits, time to end this entitlement where these people hold unto office for ever and get nothing done.
End all Retirement and health benefits, they get the same we get they wrote the laws.
End the Kennedy and Bush's family from holding office, enough time for them to just go away.
7
While age should not be the sole factor in determining a nominee, we cannot ignore the fact that age is an issue an must be considered.
10
Depends on the individual and state of health. I've know people in their 80s who were very sharp and people who went into early dementia at 70. And I don't think the job is all that demanding compared to a surgeon or a pilot. That's just mythology designed to glamorize and even sanctify whatever Great Leader occupies the White House.
The president is surrounded by aides who do a lot of the work. On rare occasion s/he may be woken during the night to make an urgent decision, but most of the time s/he can get plenty of sleep, go golfing, etc. Many day-to-day decisions are made by the vice president (e.g., Cheney), generals, heads of agencies like the FBI, or cabinet members.
Another reason age isn't all that relevant--GW Bush became president when he was 55 and left at age 63. If he hadn't been the son of another president I doubt that he'd have gotten beyond middle management--if that far.
16
@Martha Shelley
Pilots have a mandatory retirement age and it isn't 70. They are responsible for the lives of the several hundred people on their plane (or under it if they crash). The President is responsible for the entire country and millions of people. You do not feel that the Presidency is particularly stressful. Take a look at pictures of the before and after men who became President. Their aging is dramatic. Their stress may not be physical but it sure as heck is mental. That little box with the launch codes in it that follow the President wherever she/he goes is enough to give you an ulcer. "The buck stops here" is very real and cannot legitimately be delegated as you suggest. Just because the present holder of the office does the things you suggest does not mean that this is something to be aspired to. The President is supposed to be the leader and that is a lonely position when done correctly.
3
@Martha Shelley The vice president is not supposed to be making decisions about our government!
@Martha Shelley Pilots get to go home and aren't expected to fly a plane until they go back to work, and even busiest of surgeons isn't on call all the time. The presidency is a relentless job, and the stakes are much, much higher. If a surgeon screws up, one person might die; for a pilot it can be quite a bit more, but that's nothing to the presidency, where the consequences of a decision can be far worse, and the decision-making process is infinitely complex in a way that most of us can't even imagine.
You may be the only person on earth who thinks the presidency isn't all that demanding!
Yes. Biden and Sanders are too old to be president. Period. This depends on the individual and should not become a law.
Elizabeth Warren at a mere 70 years old seems a decade younger. Biden and Sanders seem older than there chronological ages which is about 73.
Women typically age less than men of the same age.
15
@BSmith Biden is 76, Sanders 78. In the article Ashton Applewhite is quoted as saying that US Senators in their 80s are healthier than the average octogenarian. That may be true, although he cited no study to back up his assertion. But that misses the point which is whether candidates who will be eighty sometime in their first term are healthier than the average person in their fifties or sixties.
6
@Greg a
Physical condition is part of the concern about old politicians. The main concern is mental and ability to act quickly.
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are front runners who will split the Democratic ticket and insure the re=election of Donald Trump - just as Bernie helped to elect him in 2016.
The Democratic Party does not have the leadership to win. Winning takes a strong strategy which all participants adhere to.
The Democratic debates thus far have reduced the percentage of votes each participant receives because the overall "watchers" have diminished. Yawn.
4
The answer is a resounding yes. The age limit should be 65. Bernie, Biden, and the current occupant of the White House are all too old to be President. The rigors of the job require a younger individual. Like in business, if their expertise lends itself to an advisory position, so be it. However, after 65 - enjoy your retirement.
18
Yes to an age cap because: no one says politicos must surrender their expertise at that time. Why not have an advisory board in each branch of government that solicits guidance from these retirees? I agree that rule by an older minority is not good. A democracy must evolve.
5
Absolutely to both Joe and Bernie. They're both at or approaching the end of the average lifespan for a white male in America. I'm 70 and, quite frankly I think thats too old to run for President.
Right now the youngest people in America know exponentially more about the technology that runs the world than most of the people who are actually running it.
It's time for us to move further on down our generational family tree and choose a candidate young enough to understand, if not relate to, the newer generations.
30
@Rob Vukovic
Warren/Yang
perfect
1
There should not be any upper age limit, but the current minimum age is too high and ought to be lowered to perhaps 25. The old do not have a monopoly on talent.
Recent experience suggests the wisdom of requiring each presidential (and congressional) candidate to pass a physical and psychological evaluation before being allowed to run for office. Once elected, an annual check up should also be required.
Unfortunately, despite the crying need for one, I am dubious that any effective evaluation mechanism exists for moral and ethical fitness and so elections will continue to be a roll of the dice in that regard.
1
First things first; the country should make sure that someone who has never ever run for any public office before (much less been elected) is not allowed on a presidential primary ballot, AND that any such primary candidate has produced their tax returns along with a credible medical evaluation.
Then we can move onto discussing other qualifications.
166
@R. Law
Yeah I don't care about that. There might be an excellent candidate out there.
There are so many things that should have disqualified Trump.
This is the least of the issues.
We need to insist on at least the type of background we'd do on a kid applying for a job at McDonalds. That would have gotten rid of Trump in a heartbeat.
And let's be honest, probably Biden and Sanders as well.
3
@R. Law
Without reflecting to deeply, I tend to agree but would raise the bar even higher: one full term in the Senate, or two in Congress, a Governorship of any state, but a mayor of only a major city say 3M plus. This, I know, would exclude CEOs, but most of those are failures that destroyed their company or bankrupts anyway.
2
@R. Law.....I’m 74, have run for the Marin County board of supervisors, and am in excellent physical and mental condition despite having one hip replacement.
Can I be the next POTUS?
1
It's still very early in this presidential process. The process itself is going to answer all your questions about whether any front-runners are too old.
Warren, a capitalist, is at least as savvy as and is running charismatic laps around Joe and Bernie. All the energetic plowing of fields she's been doing is going to bear fruit in this election.
15
I am disappointed by the headline. You do not mention Senator Warren. None of the three is too old to be President. And if it turns out if one of them wins and they feel not up to the job they might actually resign. Any of them would be better than the current President.
12
Surely this is a question for the electors ... of which competence must be the prime factor (all else is clearly bigotry). Sadly, we do know, however, that historically, competence is not the major criterion in selecting our presidents. That said, I'd rather have had Jack Bogle at 89 than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy or GWBush. This issue is moot unless Mr. Bokat-Lindell is using it as a stalking horse to find out just how deep the prejudice against candidate's age is.
2
No, and I don't think there should be an age limit at the bottom either. I think you should be able to run for office at a younger age (say 18 for Congress, 21 for president).
Voters should decide their votes based on merit, not team affiliation, regionalism or racism. Whether the American public is capable of doing so is another matter but an age limit certainly won't solve that problem.
4
@L
Don't know about congress, but I do notice that many, many people don't Start Becoming Adult until they pass their mid-thirties. Hence 35 is wise.
33
@L
The prefrontal cortex -- which controls decision making, impulse control and risk management -- isn't fully developed until at least 25, possibly early 30s. Pretty sure it NEVER developed for current White House occupant.
I prefer my presidents' brains fully formed, thanks.
5
In that case, I can see teens voting for their friends or favorite pop stars.
1
There should be no age limit either way. I do think that both Biden and Sanders are too old, but voters can make that judgement - and so should democrat voters at the primaries.
Why can't the democrats get an intelligent person who supports middle of the range policies and presents well? There are 330 million people in the US - surely they can find someone . . .
6
The answer is yes--Biden and Sanders are too old to be President. Their age shows in who they are, act , think, speak, etc. But Elizabeth Warren is sharp as a tack, has energy to burn, and is 70 years old. Depending on the number for a limit, there might be someone great who defies the odds. So, isn't the real answer to let the public decide? I'm a Warren supporter, and the fact she is running for President is one of the few positive things I look forward to when the subject of politics in America comes up.
51
This is a perfect example of how the slowing comes quickly between ages 70 and 77. Although Bernie has huge energy and rarely has a misstep, he would be in his 80s during his first term. No, Warren is not too old. Big difference between 70 and 77. I’m lookin’ at you, Joe.
27
@Scott Thank you. Sanders, Biden, Warren.
One of these does not go with the others. Warren has more energy than most of the 50-somethings now running.
As an aside, being a child of the 50s I find it curious that neither a U.S. president nor anyone who has headed a major-party ticket for president has shared my birth decade. Considering that in 2024 most of us will rightly be considered too old to run for president, it appears that no one born in that decade -- the most fecund in U.S. history -- ever will.
5
Yes, absolutely there should be an age limit. Nothing ageist about it, just facing reality.
46
Not exactly responding to the question, but most of the Founders who set the age standards for Federal political office were classics scholars. Plato, among others, had quite restrictive age requirements for those filling governmental positions and proposed quite high age limits for the most senior positions. So the 25 HR, 30 Senate, 35 POTUS might have been seen as extremely progressive compared to the ancient Greek rules.
5
Yes and especially because they are likely to be protected by staff minions afraid to lose their jobs. It’s happened before because those in power seldom to never want to give it up. We’ve already seen a doctors to this POTUS lie about basic things (weight for one) and fail to test others ( mental acuity). What else would they omit?
21
Yes, we need an age limit due to things that we all understand. I'm one of them that is too old to be in such a position and so is anyone else who is over 70. Limit it to 70, and then they would end their presidency. Period. No exceptions. POTUS isn't a monarchy, even if some of them act as they are.
11
We should have a maximum age of 70 for Presidents. Whether it's Alzheimer's, potential health issues, attention span, or just irritable behavior, the Presidency is too demanding a job for people of more than normal retirement age. In your article, there was a suggestion that Churchill was still a great leader in his old age. Sir Winston was magnificent during the war despite serious health problems. Even his greatest admirers would call his 1950's premiership mediocre, at best.
32
although I love the policies of Senator Sanders and don't mind at all Vice President Biden, I have to say there should be a maximum too. A president should live long enough to see some of the policies he's signing and live long enough (20 more years average?) to see those effects.
That would also impose new generations of presidents more often.
30
@Ruben
If Bernie dies in office, he will have started something. If Biden dies in office, he's an extension of centrism.
Go Bernie!