Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity.

Don’t target some bigoted stereotype. Target the problem of corruption.

You can as easily argue the opposite: older people can be more conscientious because they have less to gain and less to lose. Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person?

I suspect you have based your “fact” on sampling bias - we don’t get good visibility metrics on young corrupted politicians (not so many young politicians, not so much time for them to have been caught making egregious errors). Disclaimer: middle-aged engineer type.

> Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person?

How many people in their tweens to 40th have ever filled the roles they were talking about? That's the only timeframe this argument would make sense to me.

I really can't see their comment as bigoted as you claim. There really is a strong selection bias with people filling these roles at that age and them behaving like that. That's doesn't mean that people in that age braket are always corrupt, but people that have been in these roles for extended periods of time generally are corrupt.

So, maybe erase the age consideration of the argument and target the number of terms instead.

Agree, in almost all times and cultures I have read about or experienced, respecting your elders is a big deal. It is only in the last decade where it seems that attitude has flipped in popular liberal culture.

Yeah especially with arranged marriages where your mum decides who you will marry.

This is a credible take and I would love see more discussion about this.

> Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity.

Representatives, whether young or old, never face the consequences of their actions because they exist in a separate system from the rest of society. They have special health care, private schools, and so on.

The US at the federal level has other mandatory retirement ages, where the most similar role affected is the Foreign Service, but also pilots, air traffic control, and law enforcement. Many states have mandatory retirement ages for judges. One can easily argue that the risks if a senator undergoes cognitive decline are potentially just as serious as if a diplomat or judge has the same problem.

Most publicaly traded corporations have age limits for their c-suite, probably for good reason. Why shouldn't government?

Sears is a private corporation. They can organize how they see fit. The government is an open, public institution built by and for the people. Each decision regarding who can participate in this government must be met with the utmost scrutiny.

I’d argue that Lord Acton was correct when he said that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Age limits are an easy (but slow) way to defeat the loopholes and issues with term limits, and make sure that those exercising power do not end up in that position for too long.

Sure, a 65-year-old age limit would exclude some candidates who get into politics at a later age, or who are uniquely gifted. But there are plenty of examples from across the political spectrum of people who should perhaps move on to write their memoirs instead of running for that nth term.

I think there's a few reasonable reasons. I think 65 might be too low, I'd probably go with 70, but one reason is just to make room for new legislators which is good both to get new ideas & perspectives in from time to time, and also to ensure our government isn't excessively skewed towards the perspectives of older people. The average age of a senator is 64.3 years[1]– the average age!

Average age of US citizens is 38.8 years. I don't think this needs to be exactly the same & I think it's good for senators to skew older as wisdom accrues with age, but this doesn't simply mean "older is better."

Mostly I think it would be good to build the next generation of leaders periodically. Senate seats are and congress are zero-sum, the next person can't get into that seat until someone else gets out, and those "years as a legislator" are important to operate effectively.

1: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text....

Why not just term limits then so people don't see this as a permanent career path.

One issue I've seen raised is committee assignments meaning power often are by seniority, so that also would have to change. Unlikely.

To cycle in fresh perspectives, and limit the power that can come from decades entrenched in office. People like Pelosi or McConnell are so powerful in part because they have been in office forever, have a network that is both deep and wide, have lots of people who owe them favors, etc. If you set a maximum age plus a lobbying ban, that enforces an end to that at some point.

I'd be in favor of a two-term limit personally, for many of the same reasons. If it's good enough for the President it should be good enough for other offices. I don't think political office should be a lifetime career. It attracts too many power-seeking, controlling personality types. We don't need those people around forever. Too many people in office have no private sector experience at all, yet they are making the rules that the rest of us live by.

They are powerful in part because there are so few of them that the lobbyists can bear hug them. Let the House of Reps again grow with population and there would be too many Reps for lobbyists to control so each individual Rep would have less influence.

We have a census to grow the numbers in the House, but they passed a law to stop that.

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..."

"Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787."

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Pr...

Because legislators should have at least as much skin in the game of what happens in the future as the average person. Gerontocracy has not led to good outcomes, historically.

And yes, as people age, they do tend to suffer cognitive decline. You may be the exception, but as a rule it's still a factual statement.

By “skin in the game”, do you mean legislators should be allowed to hold & trade securities while in office? Because having insider trading information gives you an edge up, and thus less skin in the game than everyone else.

No, I mean the older you are, the less invested you are in the long term consequences of your actions, personally. An 85 year old senator only needs to care about the consequences of their actions 20 years on in a very abstract, moral sense, as they are very unlikely to have to experience them personally.