Hubris. Arrogance. Greed. How else does one account for America’s gerontocracy?
Joe Biden, 80, and Donald Trump, 77, are clearly not the country’s best 2024 presidential candidates, yet they cling tightly to power in their respective parties. Similarly, despite health problems and concerns about her mental acuity, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein refused to resign from office. She died on Sept. 28 at the age of 90, hours after casting her final Senate vote. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, 90, recently won reelection to a seat he has held since 1980 and if he survives, he will be 95 years old when his current term expires. He might run again.
The gerontocracy dilemma also extends to the federal judiciary. Just because the judges and justices are granted lifetime appointments, that does not mean they should serve until they die. Case in point: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. During the final years of the Obama administration, there were public and private appeals for the justice to voluntarily retire, allowing someone younger and healthier to be appointed. At the time “the notorious RBG” was in her early 80s and had suffered through bouts of cancer. Ginsburg refused to step down from the bench and died at 87, allowing the Trump administration to select her successor. Today, the court’s elders are Clarence Thomas, 75, and Samuel Alito, 73.
Should there be compulsory retirements for senior government leaders?
Forced retirements are generally unlawful in the United States, however, there are many notable exceptions. National Park Service rangers and federal law enforcement officers must retire at 57. Air traffic controllers must retire at 61. American generals and admirals face involuntary retirement at 64 years old. Commercial airline pilots and State Department Foreign Service officers have mandatory retirement at 65. Moreover, dozens of state governments compel their elderly judges to retire, most at the age of 70 or 75.
According to the 25th Amendment to the Washington State Constitution, state Superior and Supreme Court judges must retire at 75. Indeed, the state’s Legislature is further empowered to pass laws to compel any judge to retire if they display “physical or mental disability.”
The fundamental rationale for compulsory retirement is that adults become less able as they age. Their ability to problem solve and make wise decisions often deteriorates. This argument contends that certain occupations are so important that they demand youthful levels of physical vitality and cognitive capability. Why else do we force state judges, military officers, and park rangers into retirement?
But here is the conundrum: Chronological age is not necessarily indicative of one’s competency or effectiveness. It is difficult to see how involuntary retirement for a highly capable older person is not discriminatory.
For example, Sen. Grassley appears healthy and capable despite his age. He still can run two miles and during his reelection campaign, he relished doing pushups in front of his constituents. Moreover, it does not appear that his work performance is suffering. Feinstein, on the other hand, was hospitalized and her absences from the senate hindered her party’s ability to confirm judicial nominees. There were also credible reports that Feinstein’s memory had deteriorated significantly and that she was overly reliant on her staff to fulfill her responsibilities.
To avoid both ageism and the problem of impaired senior leadership, it seems that checks and balances are in order. Let’s take the simple example of driver’s license renewals. Most states require senior citizens to take more frequent eye examinations than younger people. Two states, Illinois and New Hampshire, require people over 75 to retake road tests. In other words, if a 100-year-old passes the test, they may continue to drive. If they fail the test, they can’t. Seems fair, seems logical.
Earlier this year, presidential candidate Nikki Haley, 51, called for compulsory doctor-administered mental competency tests for all politicians over 75. Her goal is to sunset the careers of “permanent politicians” who are past their “prime.” Is this ageism or is it a reasonable requirement that allows for highly capable people over the age of 75 to keep working, something that we don’t allow most state judges to do?
Because checks and balances such as aptitude testing are not coming any time soon, I am afraid we must largely rely on the self-awareness, wisdom, and humility of our senior government leaders. We must rely on their willingness to retire when their physical or mental fitness has compromised their ability to work effectively. Furthermore, we must rely on their selflessness and generosity, retiring to allow other citizens the opportunity to lead and to serve.
One might think this is foolish thinking, that our aged leaders will willingly give up their power and perks. But I point to the very recent example set by Mitt Romney. The 76-year old senator from Utah announced in September that he will not seek reelection despite the fact that he appears quite healthy and mentally astute. In his announcement, Romney said, “I have spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-80s. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders. They’re the ones that need to make the decision that will shape the world they will be living in.”
There is zero chance that former President Donald Trump will follow Romney’s example, but will President Joe Biden?
The post America’s gerontocracy dilemma | The Seattle Times first appeared on Latest American News.
The post America’s gerontocracy dilemma | The Seattle Times appeared first on Latest American News.