At the height of domestic discord over virtually every topic imaginable, from critical issues to trivial matters, one proposal appears to resonate across the political divide: the need for age caps for politicians. The frequently avoided topic regarding the cognitive aptitude of elderly politicians, ranging from Republican powerhouses like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, to Democratic stalwarts such as Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Dianne Feinstein of California, has been accentuated by the tenure of politician-turned-president Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell’s waning years in the Senate.
In a rather revealing instance, former Texas Rep. Kay Granger, aged 82, was found residing in an assisted living facility towards the end of her House term due to speculated ‘dementia issues’, a detail brought to light by The Dallas Express. Recently, rumblings from California have hinted towards a resolution that calls for politicians to voluntarily bow out of service after reaching an age set for future discussion. It is high time the nation as a whole, along with Congress, considers implementing a more comprehensive, precise, and binding measure.
An initial pushback against a suggestion for age cap implementation typically revolves around the concept of discrimination—disallowing contenders from running due to their age. However, one cannot overlook the fact that the Constitution already enforces similar restrictions—only with age minimums in place as opposed to maximums. For instance, one must be 25 to run for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the presidency—a requirement specified in the Constitution itself. Therefore, marking older ages off limits should be a conceivable course of action, and allegations of age discrimination should recede from this dialogue.
Given the abysmal lack of consensus within Congress recently, even on rudimentary agreement frameworks, the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment presents an uphill battle. A constitutional amendment would first require approval from two-thirds of members in both Congressional chambers, followed by the ratification from three-quarters of state legislative chambers through an individual vote initiative. The daunting nature of this process is underscored by the fact that only one constitutional amendment has passed in the previous five decades.
There is a likelihood of initial resistance from Republican quarters, as they may perceive this age limit proposition as an indirect allegation against the sitting President, a septuagenarian no less, and his competency in executing his duties. Another foreseeable hurdle is the prospect of requesting incumbent Congress members to potentially curtail their own Congressional tenure periods. So, there might be a need for a contingency clause to safeguard (or more precisely, to ‘great-grandfather’) acting lawmakers from these impending restraints.
Detractors of the age limit proposal argue that historic and institutional wisdom, a product of many years in service, is crucial for a fully-functioning Congress. But looking at the current stalemate, has the so-called ‘elderly wisdom’ proven instrumental in achieving consensus? The situation seems to imply the contrary. Moreover, there exists an abundant resource of competent, under-70 lawmakers who possess a strong understanding of the political landscape.
Naturally, an eventual consensus on the precise language to enforce the age-limit will need consensus itself, perhaps focusing on age at the time of swearing in. One proposal, for example, could be barring officials aged 70 or more at swearing-in from entering office. Rather than struggling with the convoluted route of a constitutional amendment, certain quarters want to leverage the electoral process itself to phase out elderly politicians.
However, history suggests that it will likely be a blunt instrument, predominantly falling short of expectations. Some interpreters might even perceive these results as a reinforcement of trust in our older politicians and a rejection of the upcoming generation. In reality, the outcome may merely reflect the entrenched benefits of incumbency, such as recognizability and campaign funding ability, rather than a widespread endorsement of their elderly statesmen.