Autocracy, Democracy,–Geriatocracy?

Beneath the heated debate over whether Joe Biden is too old for another term as president is a more fundamental question.  Why do we let all these old people hang on to their jobs and make decisions about a future that they will not experience, while those with the most to lose are underrepresented. (Full disclosure: I am a certifiable “too old to govern person at age 83.”)   A younger president and a younger Congress would be less moored in the past and present and more attuned to the big challenges of the future—climate change, clean energy, artificial intelligence, depletion of fossil fuels, species extinction, water shortages, pollution, income inequality, political polarization, etc. What I propose is a modified form of term limits that is well worth considering.

What would it take? First, it would require a Constitutional amendment that adds the words “and not or over 75 at the time of election” to the minimum age qualifications for president and vice-President.  AND to members of Congress.  It’s a much better, fairer way to get some needed turnover and fresh air in both branches of government. It would mean that we never again have senator over the age of 81, or a present over the age of 79. No more 100-year-old senators like the late Strom Thurmond!

 Having imposed it on themselves, these two branches could then extend a similar requirement for all federal leaders whose appointments must be confirmed by one of both branches of Congress. That legislative age ceiling should apply to all current as well as future appointments in the executive branch and the federal judiciary and should require departure when one turns 75. It is not unprecedented at the state level.  My home state of South Carolina already requires state Supreme Court judges to step down at age 72, and I know there are other states with similar restrictions.

It’s long past time to empower younger people to have a greater say in their future.