On Age and Political Office
A return to the question of age limits for office.
I was reading Jonathan Bernstein’s Substack entry this morning, and one of the things he noted was the discussion of Biden’s age (which also came up in the Open Forum yesterday). I have not read Tapper and Thompson’s book, so it is impossible for me to intelligently comment on it. Given their journalistic pedigrees, my suspicion is that the book is well-researched and reported (indeed, that was my first thought when I heard about the book on NPR a couple of days ago). I suspect that this piece in The Atlantic, An Autopsy Report on Biden’s In-Office Decline, gives a sufficient taste.
But, back to Berstein. He notes the following, which I agree with. I agree that the subject matters, that we can learn from it, and that a debilitated Biden would be preferable to Trump.
I do consider this a worthwhile subject and one that is worth learning more about. Even though Biden on his worst day knew far more about government and public policy than Trump on his best day, and even though…well, all the rest about the current president.
I also agree with this:
That said, I agree with those who say it has basically no bearing on future elections. While presidential candidates need to have answered prepared for all sorts of things, the quality of the “what about Biden?” answer is extremely unlikely to matter. If it’s even asked at all.
Indeed, despite all the fuss and bother about it, most of what the out-party does has little or no bearing on what happens in future elections. Oh, it’s possible that there’s some small effect, and in very close races anything can matter, but mostly the out-party’s performance is a function of how the president’s party is doing. Or, really, how the president’s party is perceived as doing.
That last part is really important (and reflects the fact that Bernstein is a trained political scientist). 2026 and 2028 (like 2024) will be a referendum on the party in power. That will be more important than pretty much anything else.
If we are going to draw lessons about the Biden situation, I would suggest that they are linked to the following. These lessons are less about the 2024 election, or whatever partisan points people think they are scoring,* and more about broader structural realities.
First, the likelihood that the 25th Amendment, specifically section 4, will ever be deployed will require, in my view, something like a coma. It will have to be utter debility, and it will have to be very publicly understood. Otherwise, the incentives will be to find a way to make it work. Those incentives will be partisan, professional, and even personal.
From a partisan point of view, it should never be forgotten that the sitting president is the leader of their party and is a powerful symbol that is difficult to dislodge. The incentives run counter to taking that symbol out of commission, even if the power would remain with the party. Like impeachment and removal, I think that the process is dead letter unless it is truly severe (for example, a stroke that leads to utter unresponsiveness).
From a professional point of view, the incentive is always going to be finding a way to make it work. Unless, again, we are talking about a coma or something similar, the people around the president, who are loyal to the president and whose professional power and prestige are linked to that president, are very likely going to try to rationalize a path forward that keeps the president in office. For that matter, who wants to be the person who suggests invoking section 4 of the 25th Amendment only to be the only one to make that suggestion? Who wants to be the disloyal one? Who wants to be the one to try and blow up years of work that brought them to the Oval Office?
Let’s go to the personal. It is hard for some people to admit when people they love and respect are failing. It is also hard, even when you know it is the right thing to do, to take the keys away from Dad. We are talking about human beings with substantial personal stakes in these discussions. And not everyone in the room is going to see it all the same, and you need a majority of “the principal officers of the executive departments” to pull the trigger. That’s not an easy bar to meet.
So, second, the reality is that mechanisms like section 4 of the 25th Amendment, to be deployed to deal with something like age-related decline, are unlikely to happen. So the real answer is to make broad rules that protect against such eventualities. I will return, again, to my post on age limits for elected office.
If it is known that a given system will, from time to time, have to address difficult circumstances it is better to work out the process in the absence of personal feelings or the emotions of the moment. It is the same basic reason why one should make plans for one’s own old age and potential infirmities, rather than either a) hoping you will be the one who doesn’t have such problems or b) assuming that it will work out at the moment (which is rarely done without some planning).
I would note, for those who think I approach these things from a partisan lens, that I was critical in the post of Dianne Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You want to throw Biden on the list, that works too. The reality is that individuals are often terrible at assessing when it is time to go. And, moreover, if the person needing to make such an assessment is in a position of power, it is hard to make them see their own situation if they are unwilling to do so themselves. Further, dementia tends to make reasoning with a person very difficult.
Some will say it is ageist to suggest age limits, that there are people of advanced age capable of doing these jobs. But just as there may be 30-year-olds capable of being president, and yet we have rules that assume being a bit more seasoned is warranted. The reality is that general rules are needed to deal with potentially bad outcomes in a dispassionate way that doesn’t have to deal with the interests and emotions of the moment. Such rules need to be set outside the scope of specific circumstances.
There is a non-trivial chance that a person who is 80 years of age will suffer from physical and/or cognitive decline in a way that would make being President of the United States difficult. Hoping that some group of people in the moment will be able to stand up to the most powerful person in the world and tell them to hand over the keys is a big ask, and it is one likely to fail, save, again, in the most truly extreme of circumstances.
If you have ever been involved in dealing with an aging parent or grandparent over the consequences of aging, you know it is not easy. If it is hard to get the family to all agree on whether or not Dad should stop driving or even be in an assisted living facility, how much harder would it be to tell the President you serve that he is no longer capable of staying in office?
It seems utterly reasonable to me that we have some sort of maximum age limit for office to avoid the kinds of outcomes under discussion here.
*I would note, too, for those who want to use this as some sort of political cudgel, that Trump fell asleep on camera the other day and was unable to conjure the word “stroller” when speaking to the press the other day (along with any other number of ongoing verbal oddities). Part of why admonitions about what Democrats should have done about Biden feel a bit hollow when Trump does similar seemingly age-related behaviors and is dismissed. The notion of speck and planks in various eyes comes to mind.
I’m about eight weeks older than Trump, and IMHO, a deal more compos mentis. It’s obvious there is a problem illustrated by Biden, Trump, RBG, Feinstein, etc. Barring an objective, well accepted test for mental capacity, an age limit seems the only practical solution.
Short of that, maybe we need to enable the parties to take some responsibility. It’s less likely Biden would have been renominated in an era of smoke filled rooms. Implement multi-member House districts, ranked choice voting, party slates, and end binding primaries?
I agree, we need a limit, and as I approach 71, I think 80 is a pretty fair number. May need to be changed as medical science marches on – not in this country now, but hopefully in Europe and Asia. To everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn. Also, you’ve got to know when to fold ’em.
When I went to see my rapidly deteriorating father, with whom I was not close, I laid down the law that his gun had to be taken away. There’d already been an incident where in the middle of the night he’d grabbed his gun and almost shot his MAGA wife. And yet, they were a bit shocked that I would suggest that an octogenarian with dementia should be disarmed. Freedumb, dontcha know.
I’m carefully watching my driving. Situational awareness is not what it once was, but I am not having the sorts of accidents I had as a very aware 19 year-old (slammed a Mercedes head-on into a curb, slammed a VW bug into a cement truck) so experience and caution (far less road rage now that I have doubts about my ability to win a fight with a 30 year-old) are compensating. So far. But 5 years from now? We are both operating on the assumption that we may be carless in the not-too-distant future, next Sunday, A.D.
I say 75 is a good ceiling. When life expectancy is 79 in the US, we should not be working beyond that age, nevermind being placed in charge of a country or committee. We should be retired. Some of these guys are not far off from “Weekend at Bernies”. Just carted around and wheeled out when necessary.
We have age limits. They’re called elections. Americans love wishcasting more complicated solutions, rather than just vote.
But hey, all reform starts with a dream I guess.
Jake Sullivan and Jamie Harrison already went on record contradicting anonymously-sourced anecdotes involving them, stating the authors never checked with them.
This was Biden in October of 2024, but Thompson and Tapper wants us believe he was wheelchair-bound before summer? I mean, I get sensationalism sells, they got a book advance to justify. But some of this stuff strains credulity when we don’t know who White House staffer #3 actually is. Is it a summer intern who heard gossip or is it Jen Psaki?
Where are the John Kelly and Mark Milley level revelations?
@Jc: I’m with you. I’m 75 and am acutely aware of how my faculties have diminished in the last five years.
It would be next to impossible to impose this as long as the President is seen as capable of signing the letter that refutes the initial attempt at removal. And that means, that he has staff supporting him and as we learned with Biden access to the auto-pen. It those seeking to remove send another letter, then their only hope for success is that either 2/3rd or 3/4s (I forget which) of the Congress agree on the removal. Good luck.
As for the current administration, far less concern as Trump is animated and active. His team is onboard with his goals and VP Vance is demonstrating competence should he need to step up and loyalty that indicates he is likely to be kept in the loop and be an advisor. Unlike some VPs who are often seen as threats by the President’s team.
First, these jobs are taxing. I know that goes against what most people think, but they are physically, mentally, and emotionally challenging. You are literally dealing with people’s lives and making decisions that will have ramifications for decades. You are traveling frequently. THIS TAKES A TOLL.
Second, aging is not uniform across all people, and aging is not infirmity. Some people maintain physical strength and balance, but their memories degrade. Some lose their sight, but their mental acuity remains strong. Some struggle with steps and balance, but have no trouble at all recalling details. While I believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for legislators and presidents, I don’t really know what that age is.
Third, I agree with Steven that invoking the 25th is going to be reserved for situations where a president has a major stroke in front of cameras and ends up in a coma. It’s going to have to be a really, really, really clear-cut situation.
Fourth, we need to look at how staff enable this. It was certainly the case with Dianne Feinstein and Ronald Reagan, and is/was likely the case with Mitch McConnell and Biden. When you’re surrounded by staff that know what they are doing and things hum along, it’s far easier to wallpaper over the cracks that are forming. This is also why Trump’s issues are so dangerous (and don’t tell me he isn’t declining–he just went on yet another rambling bent that made no sense at all). Trump doesn’t have well-seasoned, competent people in positions. He has Pete “I guess I’ll just use Signal” Hegseth, and Kristi “I need a costume change for my cameo in a prison” Noem.
Talk all you want. Until boomers are all either in the ground or drooling onto their laps at “senior care” facilities, they’re all going proclaiming that “age is just a number; I’m perfectly capable.”
And then it’ll be Gen-X’s turn…
Two worldviews:
[•••]
I’m not forecasting a policy emerging in the foreseeable future. We’re stuck with “We have age limits. They’re called elections.” Pray for wiser voters. Be wiser voters.
ETA: And I have to admit that I laughed out loud at blockquote one above.
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will turn 92 this September.
I am old enough to remember when, in 1980 then-Congressman Chuck Grassley ran for the Senate and campoaigned on the basis of support for Term Limits. Well, 45 years later … it appears that he forgot to term himself out and leave office.
@DK:
I am largely sympathetic to this notion. It is one of the reasons I opposed term limits.
But there are real issues that sometimes need to be addressed and I think this is one of them.
@just nutha: Which is why we need a rule.
@DK:
We have elections where voters have incomplete information or who are misinformed by their political ecosystems. We also have malicious voters like our local lickspittle JKB who believe “animated and active” leadership will lead to better governance (just ignore the corruption and cruelty) than wheelchair bound and aged (just ignore the legislative outcomes and strong economy).
NOTE: We aren’t going to get an age limit applied to any federal seat let alone POTUS, if the change requires policy action from a Congress that couldn’t bring itself to disqualify an insurrectionist using the impeachment powers it already had bestowed in the Constitution. Maybe we could get legislation that disqualifies a convicted felon, but I wouldn’t count on it.
I’m 79. When I was working and active, I was on the board of a couple of organizations. A quick glance at successful companies shows CEOs from 47 to 62 seem to do best. I voted against a candidate who was 70. The political party system narrows our choices. Ideally, our vote should pick the best candidate, but the realities of party politics freezes these strulbruggs into positions of power. al Alameda hits the nail on the head with the observation about Grassley.
There are Monets and Cezannes who are productive when aged, but the fate of the majority makes me favor upper limits on public office.
@Scott F.:
85% of black voters (who bothered to vote) picked Harris.
85% of LGBT voters picked Harris.
They polled Europe on Harris v. Trump; surveys show our peer nations there picking Harris at a 70-90% clip.
We all have access to the same information and systems. We have had and likely will continue having the option to elect politicians who are better and, if you’re the type who fetishizes youth, younger. We routinely decline to do so.
If we want better politicians, including the types of politicians who would pass age limits into law, voting them into office and voting the bad ones out is the only option.
At some point, if we want to improve, Americans will need to take ownership of our national deficits of character and action like postwar German did. Rather than just complain, make excuses, and scapegoat our indefensibly bad political decision-making on shrill and lame excuses (the system, the media, the immigrants, both sides, trans people, DEI/CRT, genocide, Defund the Police, Hillary’s emails, Biden’s age, the manosphere, wokeness, economic anxiety, she only had 107 days, blah blah blah) .
Or we can continue to be a mediocre nation of people who poll as very unhappy — especially relative to the happy Western countries where they tax the rich to invest in healthcare and transit, and where Harris would have won 70-90% landslides.
Our continued mediocrity is also an option. Strange choice we’re making, but okay.
I’m more inclined to term limit all elected offices at all levels of government, and even non-elected offices like the former Supreme Court and Circuit Courts.
The decline that comes with age is only a part of the issue. A bigger one is generational change. If those of one generation cling to power too long, the succeeding generation will get to positions of influence too late in life, or miss out entirely.
@DK:
The idea that we can ever educate average voters on serious, complex issues is a non-starter. I’m fairly smart and atypically well-informed, but I have no idea whether we need an upgraded F-22, or how to deal with Erdogan’s ambitions, or whether to loan Argentina more money, or how serious an effect demographic collapse will have. And while I have an idea what California needs, I certainly don’t know what to do about water shortages.
We need people who have specific knowledge, who make it their life’s work to dive deep on boring shit. Right now I have a local government, a local police force and a local school district, and above all that state legislature and a governor, about which I know fuck-all because the politics space in my head goes in the opposite direction, starting at national and losing interest just after the House of Representatives level.
And please, let go of this notion that Biden could have won. First, he had no business running, he was infirm and in a job that is rather demanding. Second, the debate performance would have been repeated dozens of times, he was not going to get better and there would have been zero chance of his maintaining confidence. Third, while I believe he (and his staff) made generally good decisions, they had no plan and no direction and nothing to pitch to the voters but, ‘not Trump’. He was going to lose against Trump.
He should never have run for re-election, the fact that he did in itself shows very poor judgment as well as hubris and narcissism. He and his staff fucked the country by insisting that he run when he couldn’t fucking walk. He could have walked away a hero after one term, but he was so stubbornly egotistical he refused to acknowledge his own decline. Fuck Joe Biden, and fuck RBG and fuck any politician who puts their own needs ahead of the job they’ve sworn to perform.
@Steven L. Taylor: I agree that y’all need a rule. Getting consensus on what that rule will be is gonna be the trick in a system where the agents of governance get to decide what that rule will be. (And so far, they seem to be in denial.)
The ancient rule applies. If you strike at the king you must kill the king.
@Michael Reynolds:
No. I dissent.
The more important point is that any Democrat should have won. And if 10-20% more Americans were as decent, honorable, and exceptional as we’ve been propagandized to believe we are, any Democrat would’ve won.
85% of black voters, 85% of LGBT voters, and 70-90% of people in our peer nations didn’t need to be experts of geopolitical complexity to know Trump is a dangerously amoral and incompetent neofascist, necessitating a vote for Harris and Democrats.
Our white brothers and sisters attack Joe Biden (and wokeness, and trans people, and [insert excuse du your here]) to deflect from their collective deficits of political morality and political intelligence that caused a manifestly unqualified rapist criminal to collect most of their votes.
Biden’s real sin in the eyes of the white patriarchy is the same that got Lincoln unalived and the Clintons hounded: they challenged white supremacy and elevated those America considers inferior, especially blacks.
Fuck white voters, and especially fuck str8 white Amerikkkan men. The exceptions know who they are.
@DK:
My work is in manufacturing continuous improvement with an emphasis on human performance. If there is one thing I’ve learned in my decades in this field is that I can wish all I want for a better class/character of person doing the work and I won’t be able to move the needle at all. While it is absolutely true that sustained improvement in the end comes down to changes in personal behavior, it is also true that systems drive behaviors and not the other way around.
The US can’t conjure up a less mediocre nation of people by willing it so, then lamenting that we can’t change hearts and minds. The US can tool with the systems, information landscape, and rules to incentivize new behaviors from the electorate.
IMO, Biden wasn’t done with the debate performance, but only when a large fraction of his supporters panicked about it.
What I don’t see is any way in which the panic could have been avoided. There’s something attractive about panics (I fail to see what, but I’m sure it’s there).
That said, he shouldn’t have run for reelection. I understand why he did*, but at that age it was a huge risk. The job of president, when done well, is exhausting and stressful. No one knows when an elderly person will decline so much they can’t do the job.
I didn’t expect him to promise to serve only one term. No one wants to be a lame duck before their time. I did expect him to announce he wouldn’t seek reelection by mid-2023, leaving plenty of time for primaries.
There’s more, but that’s the age related part.
*He had sought the presidency literally half his life. He fumbled badly in 1988, and failed to make much of a splash in 2008. His best chance was 2016. the reason I’ve heard as to why he didn’t run then, was the recent death of his son, Beau. If so, I can fully understand it.
When he finally caught the price, it would be very, very, very hard to let it go.
@just nutha:
There are roughly 12 Gen Xers. Not literally 12, mind you, but a very small number compared to either the Boomers or Millennials that we don’t matter. My prediction is that we will never see a Gen Xer elected as President.
And when I look at my generation, I think “yeah, I don’t want them running things.”
Someone might have a Gen X VP and then die in a gardening accident in the Rose Garden or something. Maybe choke on avocado toast.
@Michael Reynolds:
He got better during the debate. The truly awful moments were in the first 20 minutes or so.
He did not handle the aftermath well, and he always kept the national media at arm’s length so they were happy to focus on his age even before that.
@Scott F.:
In clinical psychology, we believe it’s an endless circle, not a finite line. Behaviors influence systems and systems influence behaviors.
No therapist serious about helping a client make better decisions can let them deflect blame to contributing circumstances and people.
It’s fine to say we need better age limits or rules, but where they going to come from, out of thin air? It requires voters to admit we have choices, admit we keep making toxic choices, then actually vote better.
I see no American appetite for this. I see us blaming various circumstances and systems, voting (or not voting) to worsen the system, then go back blaming our choice to do so on circumstances and systems. It doesn’t compute and isn’t a recipe for sweeping improvement.
Democrats are likely to win in 2026, maybe 2028 too, but the long-term outlook for this significant improvements to US quality of life is not good til the American people change. I predict just endless complaining and blaming instead.
@DK:
Donald Trump’s direct appeal to the rubes has a strength the Democratic Party’s strategy of dividing the working class on racial, ethnic, and orientation lines has trouble competing with.
@Cicero: And that’s why the rubes are paying more at Wal-Mart and losing the healthcare Democrats got them.
The Republican Potty Police Party that’s screaming “DEI!” every three minutes is definitely dividing us by race and orientation. It’s just that, as already noted, Amerikkkland’s bullies get triggered and play victim if they get back even 1% of what they dish out.
Anyhoo, here’s a video of manosphere influencer Andrew Tate — an accused sex trafficker whose release was personally facilitated by Trump — promoting a song called ‘Heil, Hitler.’ This tune was recently disseminated by Kanye West, Trump’s famous celebrity friend. Platforms have scrubbed Ye’s release, but not X, owned by Trump’s Nazi-saluting benefactor Elon Musk. Musk is allowing this, which would get you arrested here in Berlin, to rack up millions of views.
Here’s a contributer to TMZ, a huge pop culture news outlet, approvingly saying this is “the song of the summer.” Here’s Joe Rogan, another iconic Trumper, declaring Kanye’s ditty is “catchy” and has a point.
This is the world a majority of white American voters and Latino male voters endorsed, many at cost of their Medicaid.
Meanwhile, the liberal media is too busy attacking a retired president to report on Trump, Musk, Rogan et al mainstreaming Naziism. USA, 2025.
@DK:
The existence and growth of fascism on the right does not falsify a claim that the Democratic Party engages in a divisive strategy with regard to the working class.
@Kathy:
I think that the panic serves to distract from the question of what Democrats were thinking when they nominated someone who was going to be 80-mumble when he (inevitably) decided that age is just a number and his constituencies decided he’s the perfect choice for the next run because “my investment portfolio* is doing great.”
*And mine did do great, in fact; 15% year-on-year return for 2024. Woo hoo!
@DK:
I think you just lost your audience, significant portions of whom spent the previous election cycle insisting that there’s nothing wrong with the quality of (their) US life.
@just nutha:
@just nutha: I mean, can’t speak for the audience, but I’ve had no problem affording eggs and don’t rely on Medicaid. If I did, I would not vote for the ‘black migrants eat cats and dogs’ guy to strip me of my healthcare or bankrupt my farm or business with tariffs, then insist online comments made me hurt myself. That would be rather silly snd self-defeating, imho.
@Cicero: I have no idea of what your point is. I’m too slow anymore to do interpretations of cryptic.
@DK: I was referring more to the immediate audience. But I get your larger point. For me, this whole show keeps circling back to Walt Kelly: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
But we f#&+ things up as much as we could; it’s down to you guys now. While I was still teaching I used to tell my students that we got it backwards. We thought we could sell out for the money and then make the world what we wanted it to be (and maybe we did that; I hope not). My advice was to make the world what you want first, and then sell out for the money.
At least better than we did isn’t a high bar to jump.
@just nutha:
Trolling.
@Cicero:
I’m curious, can you give some examples?
@Cicero:
Ha. Trump voters cannot fail, they can only be failed.
Presumably “what they want to hear” (aside from Kanye West’s new pro-Hitler hit song) is that the healthcare programs authored by the Democrats who have given them nothing will be taken away so billionaire welfare queens like Musk get another tax cut.
And apparently the 85% of black and LGBT voters who vote to preserve and expand Medicaid and Medicare have much better quality of life than “working class” Trump voters. The famously charmed lives black and queer folk live in America must be what makes us impervious to the joys of fascist demagoguery.
Spin spin spin, excuses excuses excuses.
@Kathy: No. That one I got.
@DK:
I really don’t understand your focus on Kanye West. I am unaware of any groundswell of Republican support for pro Hitler music.
@just nutha:
If you both believe I am a troll then it must be true. When I am banned I promise not to come back under another name.
@Cicero:
I have seen nothing remotely banworthy in your contributions. Again, we don’t ban for disagreement. And TY for saying that if a ban was to happen–and again, not seeing anything at all in the universe of banning–you would respect it. That alone suggests you have the self-awareness required not to unintentionally be banned.
In mainstream Republicanism, no. In the alt-right, well I think most folks will admit that there has been an ongoing “critical reassement” of Hitler and the Nazi’s legacy being led by mentally unstable Black folks (like West and Candice Owens), “just asking questions” people like Tucker Calrson (Joe Rogan also gets in on the act occasionally), and alpha male sexual preditors like Andrew Tate. Not saying they are pro-Hitler. But they flirt with “sure Hitler did some bad things, but compared to today’s minstream liberals, he’s nowhere near history’s greatest monsters… they might have even had some really good ideas.”
@Michael Reynolds: According to the CDC.gov website, 5,7% of 75-84 year olds have dementia. A huge majority do not.
@Cicero: Very postmodern/ constructed reality of you to say so. Thanks. Beyond that, I concur with Matt on banning you. Go in peace. I hope, someday, to understand what your comments are referring to. Being an unintelligible troll is bad form.
@Matt Bernius:
Trump’s former chief-of-staff Gen. John Kelly went on public record to recall Trump lamenting about not having Hitlerian generals and musing that Hitler did some goid things.
Trump invited Kanye West to dine with him at Mar-a-Lago alongside Nick Fuentes, an open white supremacist and Holocaust denier.
Trump is the head of the Republican Party and a twice-elected Republican president.
So. In mainstream Republicanism, yes, scarily.
@Richard Pohl: This is true, but I would argue that this is not just about dementia.
@DK: You make a very strong point.
@DK:
Good points.