General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter 2024 Elections-There needs to be serious discussions
about changing the qualifications for federal office candidates. Given what we are seeing with Feinstein and McConnell there needs to be considerable thought about setting an age limit. Like nobody over 65 can run for office. This should apply in my view to both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The jobs are too important and the stress cannot be easy for the office holder's health either.
I know some people might think I am guilty of ageism, but I am 61 and I know I can't do a lot of what I used to. Also on the Presidency you have to be 35, so it's not like age requirements aren't already part of the system.
I also think physical and psychological evaluations should be required to be done by highly respected physicians, and at least the determination of whether they are of sound enough mind and body to serve should be made public.
I say after 2024 because we don't have anyone good challenging President Biden in the primaries and it would be too hard to get it passed and all set up now anyway. Just some thoughts after reading McConnell news.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tritsofme
(19,900 posts)And is not likely to happen if for no other reason.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)it's just a shame though that it's not likely to ever happen
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)Hadn't really thought of that. In fact age 35 in the 1700s was kinda old
If you can serve until you're 100, why not run when you're 12?
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)a minimum age but not a maximum age right from the start.
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)And you were likely to die of just about anything before getting age-related cognitive dysfunction, etc
treestar
(82,383 posts)People didn’t die at 40 if they made it through childhood. Life expectancy was low due to child mortality.
John Adam’s lived to be 90. Jefferson 83.
They picked 35 as a minimum. They didn’t think it was ancient.
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)Adams and Jefferson's servants and housekeepers probably died at the average age
treestar
(82,383 posts)So it had less effect than it would now. Much less. The rich of that century had access to very little.
It was the infants and children. Jefferson and his wife lost children. It was a sad tragedy that affected many couples. Medicine can save children now but back then they died. Thus lowering life expectancy.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,989 posts)25 for Congress, 30 for Senate, 35 for President/Vice President.
tulipsandroses
(8,251 posts)Bennie Thompson is 75 years old
Elizabeth Warren is 74 years old
Much more intellectually sound than many young GOP folks.
I’d like to see Boobert or Margie traitor try to match wits.
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)of office holders. McConnell and Feinstein are obviously not anymore but both are much older, over 80, but so is Biden who is doing a great job.
My point is that by cutting out 65-year-olds we'd lose so much valuable institutional knowledge we'd regret it. Look what Reps Pelosi and Clyburn achieved before they stepped down voluntarily (Clyburn got Biden elected, and Nancy impeached trump twice — institutional knowledge of how things work and how to get things done). And they're both way past 65. The ones still capable know when it's time to go. McConnell and Feinstein are no longer capable.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)As I agree Biden, Pelosi, and Clyburn did accomplish a lot. Maybe a standard cognitive function test for nominees of any age.
brush
(61,033 posts)
Jerry2144
(3,272 posts)that together they make one wit. Are they both half-wits at best or nitwits? 2 halfs make a whole. And Bernie and Elizabeth would be million-wits on the same scale
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)Maybe just all nominees should have to pass a standardized cognitive function test, instead of having an age limit.
tulipsandroses
(8,251 posts)before age limits
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)wrong about the age limits, but there ought to be a way to determine whether a person still has the mental capacity to do the job they were elected to do. It be one thing if they would voluntarily retire, but not all have been willing to do that.
tulipsandroses
(8,251 posts)Soldiers, FBI agents, etc all have to undergo these assessments. Holders of the highest offices should too.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(55,136 posts)As for turning over office qualifications to psychologists, that's wacko. They can't agree on anything and have their own agenda.
Let's not forget Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. He squeaked in on rural counties in 3 states that no one paid attention to. Who knew so many Republicans could be motivated to vote by a con man?
Maybe age 61 has limits for you, but it doesn't for a lot of people. The ups and downs of decades of life yields insight to the world, people, politics, religion, human nature, and more. Use it, cherish it, tap it. 40 somethings often don't cut it.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)it would disqualify someone like Trump from the get go. While most psychiatrists say you can't diagnose someone without treating them, a lot of them have publicly stated that in Trump's case, however, it's totally obvious he has Narcissistic personality disorder. He should never have been even a nominee.
But then you make a good point about there were still people willing to vote for him. My concern is how big a danger it is to have someone as dangerously unstable as him in charge of the country.
TSExile
(3,363 posts)...and those psychiatrists tried to warn us with that book!!!
tinrobot
(12,062 posts)The psychiatrist(s) who control that exam would have the power to deny a good candidate the presidency. That power could easily be corrupted.
I could see this power being weaponized by the GOP to disqualify any candidate they don't like.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)so there are limited ways the results could be manipulated. Admittedly it would be easier to manipulate a psychiatric evaluation, but if there was a a panel of qualified doctors chosen by the highest rated medical facilities instead of politicians, that might work.
To be honest I don't have a perfect answer as to how it would all work, but there has to be a better way of vetting candidates than we have. Trump is obviously mentally ill. There's no way he should even be in consideration to be anywhere near a position of such power as President. Yet he was able to get the nomination and be elected. Also look at Santos. Yet people voted for them. I just wish there was a way to vet the candidates before it even gets to an actual election.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)BlueKota
(5,345 posts)but then how do we handle situations like the one with McConnell and Feinstein? They clearly have cognitive dysfunctional issues, but are not voluntarily stepping down, or even admitting they have a problem.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)Anything else just allows political chicanery.
onenote
(46,142 posts)
NowISeetheLight
(4,002 posts)I think the limit is 60 for airline pilots? Or did they raise it to 65? A friend whose dad was a Delta pilot had to retire. I'd be in favor of a cognitive test over 65 or 70. There are states that have elder driving laws and tests.
https://seniorsafetyadvice.com/elderly-driving-laws-by-state/
I don't see a problem with a cognitive test. I just keep thinking of Strom Thurmond being wheeled in at 98 or something. Crazy.
kwolf68
(8,452 posts)Have the humility to step aside before they are in such a debilitated state? Do they think THEY are the only ones capable of representing people of their state? I think it's just power hunger, be it Dems or Reps. At a certain point, step aside and let some new blood come forward.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)onenote
(46,142 posts)It's a democracy. Live with it.
Brainfodder
(7,781 posts)They seated Santos and want super obvious crook Agolf Mushroom back, trust is unavailable!
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)leftstreet
(40,680 posts)The OP has acknowledged what won't work, but the discussion doesn't need to end there
Recalls, impeachment, protests...who knows
Bumperstickers? "If You can't Draw A Clock I won't vote For You!"
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Unless you know of a way to amend the Constitution, this is meaningless venting.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)Though I will give you it's unlikely the necessary number of votes from the Congress and the state legislators to do so would be there. Which is unfortunate because we clearly cannot count on some of these officials to admit on their own that they need to step down. I am specifically talking McConnell and Feinstein now.
So you're right that it is just pointless venting. I am just frustrated that there seems to be no way other than waiting until they are up for re-election or they pass away, to specially elect someone else, who is capable, when they no longer can perform the duties they were elected to do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I can’t do physical things I could but mentally is different. Your limit is way too young. I’m older than you and ,y mind is not failing.
We have the right to vote for whoever we think best and there is no upper age limit. McConnell problem is not age but illness. But if kentucky wants to send him that’s what they get. It’s their choice and their problem.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)If he only voted on issues that related specifically to Kentucky that would be one thing, but he's part of the U.S. Senate that decides things for the nation as a whole.
Maybe the age limit isn't the answer. I admit as you have and others have pointed out, there are clearly many exceptions to the rule, but if for whatever reason people are clearly having cognitive function issues, that effect their ability to communicate and make decisions, than there should be a way to deal with it. Like a standardized cognitive function test for anyone of any age wanting to hold public office.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Who should inform themselves more. It an upper age limit suggested in OP is not a good idea at all. And if there had gone one, 70 is way too low. 85 -90 would be better.
tinrobot
(12,062 posts)If you think some candidates are too old, then don't vote for them. It's your right.
That said, 70+ year old Biden has done an amazing job with the hand he was dealt. And that is because he's had many decades worth of valuable experience. Don't discount that.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)and I see my error of suggesting age limits. But then how do we deal with those like McConnell and Feinstein who clearly have cognitive issues, but for whatever reason are unwilling or maybe even unable to accept their issues are becoming hindrances to doing their job? I know people are saying just vote them out, but that doesn't always happen. If they weren't tasked with making decisions that effect all of us, I wouldn't have an issue but they are so I do.
I know people say radical acceptance and that's just the way things are and there's virtually nothing to be done to fix it, but it frustrates me that there's so much evidence that the system we've depended on for years is broken, and there is not even the littlest effort being made to try to make minor improvements in the initial nomination process.
I mean people voted for Bobert and Greene, but that doesn't make them sane or qualified. And there are districts that don't have enough voters willing to vote for a Democrat or even one of the few rational Republicans that still exist.
tinrobot
(12,062 posts)You seem to want to regulate the candidates, but even if we did that, we still have a bunch of stupid voters. Ultimately, the choice is up to the voters. Educating them on the importance of competent representation is probably the best thing we can do at this point.
On the candidate side, we could also find a way to take money out of the election process so that the incumbent (usually with most money) doesn't have an outsized advantage. It might give voters more clarity on who the candidates really are.
Perhaps make debates mandatory and more serious as well. Right now, they're treated them like pro wrestling spectacles to generate ratings. Good questions from good journalists/academics (with no screaming audiences as a soundtrack) might paint the candidates in a more neutral light.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)
NNadir
(38,045 posts)...people.
John Fenn did is Noble Prize winning work on ESI (Electrospray Ionization) in his sixties, building on the Taylor Cone discovered by Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor who discovered the Taylor Cone in his late 70s and early 80s.
I wrote about the latter here:
Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor's Earth Shattering Discovery of the Taylor Cone Took Place at Ages 78-83.
I sat with Freeman Dyson for a few hours when he was in his late eighties. He was the sharpest person I ever met even at that age.
Nelson Mandela established human decency at President of South Africa in his 70's.
Oh, and Joe Biden in his late 70's is one of the most remarkable Presidents of my lifetime.
Speaking only for myself, at a late age, for the first time ever, I actually feel like I really know something.
This is a junk idea.
Johnny2X2X
(24,207 posts)Is over 80 years old right now. No one alive could do the job as well as Biden is doing right now, he's an absolute master at getting things done.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)and agree Biden is doing a great job.
Hotler
(13,747 posts)onenote
(46,142 posts)Could someone elected at 61 be ineligible to run for re-election?
It's a bad idea. Period.
And as for testing, far too subjective.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)Already agreed I was wrong.
BlueKota
(5,345 posts)I am just frustrated that there is nothing that can be done to stop people who have severe cognitive and mental disorders from serving in a job they can no longer do, or never could do.
Trump, Greene, Santos, Bobert, McConnell all got nominated and elected, but the Republicans have shown they would vote for a brain dead corpse as long as their is an R behind their name.
I sure as hell wouldn't want a brain surgeon who are prone to episodes like McConnell has operating on me, just because there were people in the hospital administration unwilling to fire the surgeon for whatever reason.
But I will shut up now.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)even a year ago, or 5, to offer opinions on big matters? Seriously. You're only 61, but these things come on over time. I'm 72 and know also.
If, like politicians, you'd give yourself another four years at age 64 (before 65th birthday), at 68 going on 70 you'd be yet another 7-8 years 
into your decline! Past time to zip it up? Maybe we should sooner, like AT 65, say -- while we're still able to understand why it's best.
Given the importance of voter decisions and the enormous risk of voter-driven disaster, how about a max voter age of 68, or, again, less? Voters are by FAR our greatest risk to national security (some seemingly have no room to decline at any age). Shouldn't we choose first to address the problem of us first? Senators, and even presidents, don't even come close to being as dangerous as electorates.
Response to Hortensis (Reply #48)
BlueKota This message was self-deleted by its author.
inwiththenew
(997 posts)You'll have to drag them kicking and screaming to get that passed.