Aging Political Leadership: Should There be an Age Limit to Run for Office?
Reported By: Benny Schorie
Illustrated By: Addie Patterson
With an upcoming presidential election, news about incumbent President Joe Biden’s old age has been circulating on media outlets. At 80, Biden is beyond the average retirement age in the United States of 64. However, his most likely opponent for November, former President Donald Trump, is not doing much better at 77 years old. Voters question their candidates' mental and physical capacity to serve another four years in the nation’s most high-profile, stressful political office. And, more importantly, the current political consciousness is wondering if an age limit to run for office should become the law of the land.
Currently, the Constitution defines the minimum age to run for president as thirty-five years old, thirty to run for senator, and twenty-five to be elected as a representative. Biden is the oldest president, inaugurated at 78, and as for Congress, 66 percent of the current senators are over 60.
If an age maximum were to be set, it would require a Constitutional amendment, a rare political moment that has not happened since 1992. The median age of the 119th Senate is 65, and the House’s median age is 57. Given the quantity of older elected officials, it would be a feat to pass an amendment on this issue.
However, the American public feels differently. According to a Pew Research Center survey from October, 79 percent of Americans from both political parties favor a maximum age limit for Washington D.C. elected officials.
Those in favor of a limit argue that the age differential between the average American and their representatives creates a conflict of interest. Older politicians are more likely to propose legislation about low-profile senior issues. According to Kenneth Lowande from the University of Michigan, Congress members spend more time interacting with federal bureaucratic institutions since legislation has shifted to the executive branch in recent years.
They advocate for effective programs for their constituents, and for these older politicians, that means fighting for the needs of older generations. This type of support isn’t unusual as it's more likely that younger representatives will advocate for their respective identity groups, women will advocate for women, and racial minorities will fight for the rights of racial minorities.
This argument points out dysfunction within the legislative branch. Older Americans benefit more from the legislative branch in its current state than any other group of Americans.
On the other side of the debate, many believe this conversation is just ageism and nothing more. San Francisco geriatrician Dr. Anna Chodos claims that the effects of aging are not universal. Though at different rates, elderly people are more likely to encounter declining motor skills, disease, disability, and death. Cognitive tests could be appropriate, but they discriminate against people with lower educational levels and minorities, according to Chodos. Ultimately, she sees this debate as the mere circulation of ageism in mainstream politics and believes it discourages the diversity of experiences and perspectives across generational lines.
An alternative could be term limits for Congress, although it does not address the concern about our elderly Presidential candidates. Many voters find term limits in Congress appealing, but researchers warn against the drawbacks like increased polarization and legislative inefficiency.
The debate on elected official age limits will probably continue to heat up as we get closer to this year’s election and will likely continue in the years to come.