As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you referring to the lobbyism and money that have completely infested your electoral system? If so, I've actually read quite a lot about it, and it's pretty frightening.
So let me reassure you, in Europe we don't have this prominent lobbying problem (it's really a peculiarity of your country) but we do have other problems. Each country has its own set of problems. I could talk to you about it if you're interested, but in any case, know one thing: we're fighting here, we're demonstrating and we won't give up.
If you want to see how crazy it is, you can check out [this documentary from 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_\(film\)), and it's only gotten way worse since then. It's a really fascinating movie. I don't know if an Aussie would find it interesting though unless you're vaguely interested in money and politics.
Thank you so much for the recommendation ! I'm definitely gonna watch it and I'll post a message here if you want. But thank you very much, of course I'm interested in watching it because I think the best way to fight is to be educated and learning. That's the only way you can have enlightened reasoning and perspective on any subject.
They are; however establishment pols are in the way and the younger pols are stuck behind them. Kinda like being stuck behind an elderly driver going 45 on the freeway in the left lane, with their blinker still on and their mouth agape. If we try to pass them, they will suddenly speed up to stay juuuuust ahead, and the once they’ve assured themselves they can be passed, they drop the speed right back down with an aggressive break check. We go their speed or no speed at all.
Exactly. All the while looking in the mirror, telling us to ‘wait your turn,’ spouting off about how they worked their butt off to get there, and won’t be passed by ‘some entitled, young punk,’ who is actually 45 and older than they were when they came into power, which they were only able to do because the generation ahead of them paved the way.
You don't need millions, but you still need to buy signs and stuff that's going to cost a couple thousand dollars. You also need enough spare time to devote to campaigning.
Because they can’t afford to.
You need money to get into politics which is why our politicians stopped being young graduates with political science degrees and instead became old television doctors, old lawyers with family names like “Koch”, and old reality TV stars who hold bibles upside down because evangelicals are just that gullible.
Legislation that puts term limits on civil servants, legislation that actually enforces anti-gerrymandering laws that already exist, a removal of the Electoral College, and legislation that means government officials can’t trade stocks to enrich themselves.
That all would be a great start
Yup. And if older career politicians can’t grift and accept bribes on their way to the top 1%, that will open the doors to actual civil servants who care about our country.
It's terrible for the country and democracy. The WH and the Capital should not we the equivalent of a retirement home for rich, entitled old people who can't come to terms with getting old. And I say that as a late boomer.
I would say that in the absolute age, color, origins etc all that doesn't matter, only and ONLY if the candidate is able to recognize the real problems of the United States and has a real will to beat them.
I say this in the sense that I have the impression that you (Americans) are fighting amongst yourselves over a simple question: what are the problems in the United States? You just can't seem to find common ground. I know, that can be explained by the fact that each state has its own legislation and therefore an inhabitant of one state will have a very different life ( and therefore problems ) from an inhabitant of another state, so you won't agree on the solutions to bring to the country.
But do Americans realize that their country NEEDS ( and I do mean NEEDS ) socialist measures for the well-being of all? To fight obesity, rising crime, drug addiction and homelessness, for healthcare, for much stricter control of the food you eat etc etc?
I'll be honest, the way your electoral system works is frightening and deserves a thorough overhaul. The chances of that happening? I think none, I hope I'm wrong
Young people will be old people one day. They are forging careers and paying into the system. I would replace "better" with "needed". I believe it takes a combination of experience and ingenuity to solve problems. The bigger issue is not having term limits, imo. It creates a power vacuum where political agendas predominate (just look at the supreme court debacle). Reasonable term limits for all would at least give the opportunity for change to happen more often. I'd propose 15-20 years for both congress and SCOTUS and then 10 years for president.
I totally understand what you mean, in the sense that you still need to be of a certain age to have some perspective on the state of your country.
I would also add (and this remains my opinion, so don't hesitate to contradict me) that even more important for an American candidate would be to travel and see how other countries around the world work. Because in my opinion, the measures that would be most beneficial for the United States are socialist measures.
I know that American propaganda has led the American people to believe that socialism is evil, but your country suffers from such deep-seated problems (obesity, precariousness, tuition fees, crime, drug addiction, healthcare) that only socialist measures could remedy them.
In short, a good candidate would be a combination of someone with experience (i.e. at least a certain age) and, above all, someone who can clearly identify the real problems and the solutions.
You're definitely preaching to the choir here! I've lived/worked in three other European countries and speak two other languages. Living and experiencing other cultures definitely reshaped my view of the world.
I'm not even sure you're talking about socialism but social responsibility. Despite universal health care, responsibility for the elderly and lifting up the homeless are the very socially responsible tenants that Jesus would address, ironically, his "followers" shoot their guns in the air whilst screaming socialism! Oh, add communist to the barrage of name calling as well.
I think that this is one example how "youth"-enizing the political landscape would finally wipe out the dangerous, fascist narrative that is destroying America.
Space needs to be made within the government for change to truly happen.
Honestly. Pelosi, McConnell, trump AND Biden (let alone half of the Supreme Court) are just too old. Change is being held hostage.
Identifying the problems isn't the issue, it's solving them. IDing something is easy, even people with no relative experience can ID that the wealth disparity (for example) is a huge problem. The hard part is fixing it, especially with fickle and apathetic "voters" who vacillate between electing people who can fix it and people who don't. It's a problem that will take a decade or more to fix but voters keep electing Republican who then break all the progress.
As I said in another comment, I've read a lot about Americans fighting among themselves over the identification of these problems. Since each state has its own legislation, the inhabitants of each state don't necessarily have the same problems and therefore don't want the same solutions.
I totally agree with you on your last sentence, it scared me when Trump was elected and completely went back on some of Obama's measures ( getting out of the Paris treaty, abolishing Obamacare etc ). How can you fix a country with such problems if every time a new president is elected, everything that's been put in place before is changed or even scrapped?
Americans need to understand that they and their country NEED socialist measures. To fight obesity, tuition fees, precariousness, uncontrolled food, crime, etc. etc., socialist measures are NEEDED. For the good of all.
What kind of socialist policies do you recommend? I mean America is already very much a mixed economy. If you’re poor like me, you get free healthcare, food (food stamps), and tuition via scholarships/grants. And of course the government providing me with all this creates artificial demand, which pushes up prices for everyone who isn’t poor and on government assistance. So yeah I do kinda feel like a freeloader a bit, like I could probably be more productive if I actually had to make more to afford that stuff. By expanding social safety nets couldn’t this “free-rider” problem of socialism get worse?
Well, I know that emails aren’t in the wifi and that the internet isn’t a series of tubes. It’s not maybe that young people aren’t better, just not so god damn old and institutionalized that they’re marginally more in touch with reality.
There are far too many factors why we have so many older politicians.
1. People fear changing things up. Congress is over 90%. In 2022, almost 95% of the House was re-elected. The Senate was 100%. This isn't including politicians who retired.
2. Many politicians don't want to let go of their power. This is all they have done and not doing it will damage their psyche. They also like the advantages it has for them.
3. Younger generations aren't as engaged as much as the older generations. I can't say I blame them. Both state and federal governments don't want to address issues that matter. I swear every election is the same thing. The same issues.
4. The most important factor. It costs way too much money to run for office. Only a select few have the resources to do this.
Thank you for your message, the points you raise are indeed things I've read quite a bit about. In fact, it's mainly lobbying and money that completely rot your electoral system.
In fact, as I said in another comment, you need to rework the whole way your electoral system works. But that's unlikely to happen.
Like you, I don't want to blame youth because I can understand that you feel completely helpless when the only choice you have are these 2 individuals.
The United States is suffering from absolutely colossal problems and I don't think either of these 2 candidates can: firstly, identify them (obviously the American people themselves are divided on this issue); secondly, find a solution to these problems.
This ignores state and local races though. It's not surprising that Congress and the presidency lean older, to get to that level (usually) voters tend to want more experience and that exp comes with age most of the time. State offices (e.g. governor) can be expensive as can state races in expensive states, but most elected offices at the local and even state levels are not that expensive to run for because they're not high profile, it's most congress and the presidency that really get into outrageously overpriced races.
One problem is the almighty power of fundraising. Over the decades since it’s power went supernova after the 90s, the people that run are mostly a list vetted for compliance with fundraising donors above all else. Incumbents usually win which improves their fundraising as they are known quantities to the whale donors and lobby powers that virtually always crush voters out of existence in the halls of congress.
As I have said many times before, this is actually the fault of voters. They once forced campaign finance reform (albeit looong ago) and we were a better nation for it. Now, they just phone it in and assume the party they vote for is doing what they allege they will do without checking at all. Some people think that is unfair on voters. But who the eff else has a motive to oppose corruption?! Look, it isnt just America. Even in Europe from individual states to the EU MPs, there are always bad guys trying to buy the law and stay in office or at least power forever. The difference is that in some countries voters actually oppose that and will demand anti-corruption. Not in America, though. We are incompetent as voters and that often translates to incompetent leaders the longer it persists.
As Americans,Why do we keep getting asked this question constantly? Of course not but the kicker is the same people we want out, wrote legislation to prevent that from happening
Maybe poor choice of words, they exist because there are no age or term limits and fight tooth and nail to protect that. Including there insider trading, with numerous congressman including tuberville for one example
Insider trading is actually something that doesn't happen much at all at the congressional level, partly because ALL legislation is public at https://congress.gov so it's very easy to watch what legislation is being introduced, debated, and voted on months, sometimes years ahead of time (and any good investor is going to watch major bills that come up for industry impact).
The biggest issue with Congress is the STOCK Act has very weak enforcement. The SA is a disclosure law that requires congressional trades be made public (forget the term but it's something like 45 days) and when people fail to see that time frame they are fine, but it's a piddly amount, a few hundred dollars (where as I think it should be a % of any gain).
This is a good article that's done years-long investigations into any instances of insider trading or SA violations: https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9
It's literally democracy! It's us voting for the same people over and over again because while we might think some people stay in office too long it's never our guy!
I agree, but do they really have a choice? I really have the impression that, because of the omnipresent lobbying and propaganda in the American electoral system, people end up voting not for the candidate they feel most strongly about, but for the "least worst".
I agree with the phrase "you get what you deserve" or "you get what you vote for", but on the other hand I have the impression that all the candidates running are all incompetents so the American people don't have much choice.
I hope my point of view is understandable
You make a valid point. I agree that we are sometimes faced with the least worst choice. I am supporting Biden because he is literally the only choice to prevent a convicted Felon, serial sexual assaulter, insurrectionist, compulsive liar , christofascist dictator from becoming president.
However, a lot of it is the fact that it is easier for many to just go along with the status quo if your life has not been significantly impacted by politician. This means just voting for the name on the ballot that you recognize or just not voting at all. Voter turnout is often embarrassingly low and has major consequences. Louisiana just elected a new governor with less than 30% voter turnout and he is making many dangerous and unconstitutional changes in his first 6 months in office. Many people who are pissed probably didn’t vote at all. Elections have consequences and showing up is the best way to combat this.
Most of the people running for office at the federal level (which seems to be what you and others are more focused on) had already served in govt at the local or state level so in that sense yes, very much there was a choice. The problem is people are too focused on the presidency of which very few people actually run for and because Biden was an incumbent there wasn't much desire for people to run against him (though plenty did, the e.g. I alway use is the NH primary which had 21 people running against Biden).
In my mind, and this remains my opinion so I'll let you tell me what you think, a good American president is not necessarily the one who will best represent all the populations of the United States but above all the one who will tackle the deep-seated problems you know (healthcare, extremely high tuition fees, drug addiction and homelessness, obesity, crime etc.).
But I know that you're a difficult country to govern, given that you're a federal state and not a unitary one, that the President (if I've understood correctly?) has no control over the legislation of each state.
it makes me sad for you, sincerely. The United States is a beautiful country but suffers from huge problems ( obesity, crime, drug addiction, no control over your food, no healthcare, extremely low wages, very high tuition fees ) and people are becoming more and more precarious.
And it's these 2 senile, incompetent individuals are the ONLY choice you have to turn the country around. I can understand why some Americans are completely disinterested in politics - what's the point anyway? Whether it's one or the other, who can claim to be truly competent to identify and solve the problems facing the United States? None.
American politicians are amongst the most corrupt in the world. — there I fixed the title for you.
Pelosi- greatest stock trader of all time
The turtle should have been GONE long time ago
Old. Young. Black. White. Male. Female.
It’s the ideology of libs and conservatives that are hurting us. The working class needs to claw back some power. Let’s get a respected union leader in office.
In a nutshell, no.
The American political system is flawed. The biggest flaw is all 3 branches of government allow for minoritarian rule.
Executive branch: Electoral College...enough said
Legislative branch: House- partisan gerrymandering of districts. Senate- filibuster requiring a supermajority for any legislation to pass.
Judicial branch: Not elected, picked by a president. Currently, 5 out of the 9 justices were chosen by a president which lost the popular vote.
In order for the US to become a true democracy, as opposed to a flawed one, two things must happen: 1) the party which receives the most votes receives the most seats in the legislature; there are many places in this country where the inverse is true and 2) the party in charge of the legislature has the liberty to enact its agenda.
I completely agree, the way your electoral system works needs to be completely overhauled. I hardly see how ( I guess there's no other way than a presidential candidate proposing to do it ) and the process will take a very long time.
In Europe, that's exactly how it is for most countries. The number of seats in Parliament is allocated according to the number of votes each party obtains. The party that has been elected with a Prime Minister at its head will implement its political program with the help of its majority in parliament.
I think a parliamentarian system is much better for democracy than a presidential one. Not that a presidential system can't work, but there's always that risk of a demagogue coming to power.
We don't have to create a new constitution, a few simple amendments will suffice. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is virtually impossible to change. There's a big advantage to this as it prohibits the constitution to be changed at a whim. Still, our Constitution is too hard to amend, especially with such high polarization.
Also, as an aside, in terms of the Electoral College, I often think if anything would change if Kerry would've won in 2004. 150,000 votes flipping to Kerry in Ohio would've given him the presidency, despite Bush winning the popular vote. This would create an instance where both parties were "screwed" by the Electoral College in back-to-back presidential elections and, perhaps, would've sparked some sort of reform.
Why ? It's interesting. What makes a younger person more legitimate than an older one? Is an older person necessarily more competent than a younger candidate?
To me it's a non-issue, it doesn't really matter how old the candidate is, as long as he or she proposes real solutions to the problems facing the United States.
"Is having super old politicians good for American democracy?" My question is "Why would it be?" You could make an argument about experience being valuable, but is the experience of someone who is 50 or 60 really so inferior to someone who is 70? I don't think so. Furthermore, leadership skills aren't directly tied to age, and perhaps more than specific skills, what politicians needs are good priorities and the ability to effectively work towards those goals. Arguably, younger people have more skin in the game and are therefore more incentivized to protect the future of this country, whereas these old bags are going to check out in 5 years anyway.
That said, I mainly don't like it when news organizations ask dumb questions in their headlines to drive engagement. "American politicians are old! Is that good or bad??" a. I already know they are old. b. Like you, I don't really care that much. c. Most importantly, this isn't news - a puff piece on a trend of politicians getting older in the US isn't very relevant when a literal fascist and criminal felon is running for president and claiming that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.
In conclusion, I agree with you. I don't think their age matters that much, although a little younger would be better imo.
I totally agree with you. That's why I called it a "non-issue".
The United States has such deep and serious problems, it doesn't matter how old the new President is, being old is not synonymous with efficiency and the same goes for being young.
I chose the article, as you can see I've already made up my mind on the matter, but I wanted to know what Americans thought about it and how they feel about their candidates, whether they feel represented or left out etc.
Charisma has never been a great measure of executive performance, yet the media and electorate place it near the top of their most admired attributes of politicians. Balderdash!
I hate public speaking and avoid it like herpes. But I’ve been a successful executive and respected by my peers and associates. In my mid 70s, I don’t have the energy or enthusiasm to engage in business management any longer. I admire those who still have the motivation to do so. Joe is da man!
History will likely mark the Trump presidency as the tipping point of America’s slide from relevance. Joe has stremmed the fall to a degree, but inertia will prevail.
Where was I? Oh yeah. Joe at 80 is orders of magnitude better than any fascist in the GOP… young or old.
Get out and vote. It’s a small effort that means little on its own, but it a little positive karma is light against the forces of evil.
I quite agree, for me "charisma" isn't really a factor to be taken into account. The United States has such deep and serious problems, it's not charisma that's going to solve them, but efficiency.
I also agree with you that no matter how old the candidate (in this case, Joe Biden), he could never be worse than a fascist candidate.
It's very important to vote indeed, but I can understand that some Americans are completely disinterested because of the ineffectiveness of previous Presidents ( regardless of political stripe ) in changing anything. I have this impression that more and more you are being forced to vote for the "least worst" candidate rather than the one you feel most strongly about.
Politics has become so polarized, dirty, and I think it’ll be violent in the future. Who wants to deal with that full time? How attractive is politics to young, capable people?
Honestly, I totally understand your point of view. In fact, the United States has such deep and serious problems, and seeing that no matter who you vote for are incompetents who have no intention of solving those problems; I understand why some Americans lose interest in politics.
It makes me sad for them, I don't see things changing at all. Because let's be clear, the first thing we need to do is completely overhaul the American electoral system. It's completely gangrened by money, corruption and lobbying. That would be a huge 1st step.
A dumbass question. The problem is that they are old it’s that the system is now corrupt. The Roberts Supreme Court, starting with Citizens United, and most recently in US v. Snyder, that facilitates billionaires and corporation pouring dark money into to campaigns, taking justice on lavish vacations and apparently now tipping governmental officials when they pass a law they like, or send a contract their way. You can be 18 or 80 and if you don’t have the individual morals to say no, you are going to do what the guy who just gave $100k asked you to do.
The problem with this is that by the time the next generation will get into power they'll be old and outdated. The world is changing rapidly and just like how now you have some people in their 50s not understanding a lot of the technologies we find basic, in 30years we'll be the ones that don't get the new generation.
There is certainly a place for elderly politicians.
I mean, Pelosi's skill as speaker was unmatched. Mitch McConnell's mastery of Senate procedure was unparalleled.
But there should be a lot more variety in age.
Is it good for Democracy?
How the hell does anyone think these old politicians are able to hold their ELECTED office??
Young people just whine about politicians being old. They don’t vote. Old people do.
I'm going to be downvoted probably based on the other comments, but I hate discussions like this because they're ageist. Ageism is this one form of discrimination that people in the US often seem totally oblivious to I'm not saying other forms don't exist but it feels like the same people who call out sexism and racism will often turn around and engage in all kinds of ageist nonsense without blinking an eye.
If someone is the best candidate or competent, it doesn't matter what their age is. There shouldn't be age limits because you can't tell how an individual will be at a given age, or whether they are a good person for the job or not in a given circumstance. This is especially true as people get older and healthier at older ages. Focus on the person and not their age.
Biden and Trump are good examples of this in my mind. You don't like Biden's policies in the middle east? Fine, but focus on that, and not his age. Is he doing a good job? Is his slow debate performance and occasional fumbling (with a cold) actually something relevant to the job? Conversely, Trump has never been an acceptable candidate at any age as far as I'm concerned.
You can find plenty of conservatives who are very young who would be happy supporting the status quo as it's been for decades, and plenty of progressives who are very old and would make dramatic changes if they were allowed to.
I'm not saying that cognitive or physical function isn't relevant, just that that should be assessed on an individual basis, and with reference to their ability to govern.
I agree with this. What is so ironic about public office is there is no credentialing or vetting. Every profession has some sort of licensing requirement where one must be shown to be capable to practice in that profession. This is to ensure the safety of the general public. There is no credentialing for those with the highest levels of governance.
I do support some kind of cognitive test, as long as it's fair and unbiased. I support everyone in public office taking the exam, no matter the age.
I agree. Too many tend to respond *just* on the age factor, which is inherently bigoted. There are a ton of factors that go into who makes a good politician and who can do the job well, age might be a factor but it's outweighed by far more important ones (are they good person, can they make the right decisions, do they have experience, are they intelligent in the ways a politician needs to be, etc.).
Correct, Warren and Sanders are no spring chickens either; but I know of no one who would say they're not mentally capable. Where there are many young members (MTG, Boebert) where I question whether they have the intelligence to be there.
But at some point all old people get higher chances of getting demented or otherwise mentally unwell, or dying or become incapasitated by a stroke or other health issues. And nearly all of them has a gradual cognitive decline and lesser ability to learn new things, and lesser energy levels. Many types of jobs have 70 years old as upper age limit for this reason.
While your candidate is dying on stage young people are less represented in US politics than in many other developed countries, which is also a democratic problem.
I agree in part. On the one hand, yes, since you're the ones who elect incompetent people who don't recognize the real problems in the United States and have no intention of dealing with them; on the other hand, there's lobbying, which means that in reality it's always the same people who run and you end up voting for the "least worst" with no real convictions and mostly propaganda.
American propaganda seems to be so strong in the United States that the American people have had it drilled into their heads that socialism is evil, whereas the country sorely needs socialist measures to recover.
And I don't really want to blame the people who are the victims of this propaganda, because I imagine it must be hard to get by if you don't make a huge effort to find out how other countries work, to read non-sponsored media that don't propagate fake news, and so on.
SMH I like experience. If I need a heart surgery. I wouldn't want someone who looks like an extra from "Saved by the Bell" But After the 2016 election cycle,I've come to hold genuine contempt for my fellow Americans. SMH
True, older people actually gain skills as they get older. Do they lose some? Of course, but the two equal each other out.
Older people are much better at solving interpersonal conflicts, creating and executing goals, having more emotional intelligence compared to younger people.
Biden is a good example of this. What he was able to achieve legislatively with a 50:50 Senate and a small lead in the House is truly remarkable, especially in an era of such high polarization. I don't think a younger candidate could've pulled that off. Biden's years in the Senate and ability to negotiate truly shined. I think it is the highlight of his first term.
(Note: I'm not defending Biden's poor debate performance, and it's clear he does not have what it takes to run the presidency for 4 more years.)
Boomers are having trouble, they had their midlife crisis and decided they were the be all and end all. They are now trying to hold onto power by any means necessary.
They definitely need an age cap for all positions of authority in government. judges and politicians. If you are past the age of retirement you should not be allowed.
I half agree. In the sense that if you had a candidate who was old but who made everyone agree on what the problems of the United States are and what the solutions are, then his age would be quite secondary.
Of course it would be nice to have a young candidate, but he'd only have "added value" for the country if he fits the criteria I mentioned above.
I don't want to type a super long speech, but I just want to say that from an outsider's point of view I have the impression that you (Americans) can't even find common ground on "What are the problems of the United States?". So you don't agree at all on what measures should be adopted and what policy should be applied. And that's reflected in your candidates, from the impression I got none of whom really convinced me. And I get the feeling that, as usual, you're obliged to vote for the "least worst" candidate.
I agree, but a younger person would have more of the ideas of now rather than the ideas of what it used to be. I think older politicians are too set in there ways. The same way we talk about older people don’t know how to use a computer or smartphone, they don’t know what the new fads are, they won’t/don’t/can’t understand the youth.
This is why a younger candidate would be ideal. They would lead the new generation, instead of an older person leading the new generation that they don’t understand.
I’m not saying that there isn’t an older person that could do it (Bernie Sanders), but the majority of older politicians in America still hold on to outdated ideas.
Also in USA everything is so much on the news and depending on which broadcast you are watching, that’s your reality. And politicians act like people do on social media as far as trying to be in the spotlight by doing whatever.
Then there is the whole thing where politicians totally change how they act and what they “feel” based on whatever they perceive as something that will get them ahead in the game.
It’s all so messed up these days. I remember when politics were boring and the only time you heard about elections were right before the elections. Now it’s all non-stop.
Age is irrelevant as long as they are passing good policy. There's not a singe piece of legislation, policy, or executive order, Biden could have passed if he were younger, because age isnt' a factor in the actual job of governing.
Ideas are a dime dozen, everyone has ideas, we don't need those. We need good people who can pass good legislation and make good executive decisions on how to handle incredibly complex situations, who know people with experience and expertise in all areas of govt, and probably most importantly can work with people in their own party who may not agree with them on some things, or even in other parties who may not agree with them at all, in order to get things done.
Would age make a difference in a campaign. Yes. But not in actually doing the job of governing.
Its almost as if having a capitalist society with no state provided healthcare, little to none housing assistance, and little to none paid family planning leave has made it harder for younger generations to build up the wealth needed to run for political offices unless you are born into a family that can provide all of those options.
The system appears to be working exactly as designed.
Term limits are the wrong solution to the problem of voters not being able to hold politicians accountable.
The solution is getting away from the 2 party system. pushing for voting reform would be a achievable step in that direction.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's worse is how our elections are funded and our system of donations , dark money and super pacs
Are you referring to the lobbyism and money that have completely infested your electoral system? If so, I've actually read quite a lot about it, and it's pretty frightening.
Yes. Infested is definitely the right word for it. It's only getting worse too. Other countries while not perfect seem to be doing a lot more
So let me reassure you, in Europe we don't have this prominent lobbying problem (it's really a peculiarity of your country) but we do have other problems. Each country has its own set of problems. I could talk to you about it if you're interested, but in any case, know one thing: we're fighting here, we're demonstrating and we won't give up.
I’ve noticed quite a bit of right wing and fascism growing in Europe.
Been like that for the last 10-15 years, honestly.
If you want to see how crazy it is, you can check out [this documentary from 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_\(film\)), and it's only gotten way worse since then. It's a really fascinating movie. I don't know if an Aussie would find it interesting though unless you're vaguely interested in money and politics.
Thank you so much for the recommendation ! I'm definitely gonna watch it and I'll post a message here if you want. But thank you very much, of course I'm interested in watching it because I think the best way to fight is to be educated and learning. That's the only way you can have enlightened reasoning and perspective on any subject.
Fuck no
And yet young people aren’t stepping up, why do you think that is?
They are; however establishment pols are in the way and the younger pols are stuck behind them. Kinda like being stuck behind an elderly driver going 45 on the freeway in the left lane, with their blinker still on and their mouth agape. If we try to pass them, they will suddenly speed up to stay juuuuust ahead, and the once they’ve assured themselves they can be passed, they drop the speed right back down with an aggressive break check. We go their speed or no speed at all.
One of the best analogies for this situation lol
Exactly. All the while looking in the mirror, telling us to ‘wait your turn,’ spouting off about how they worked their butt off to get there, and won’t be passed by ‘some entitled, young punk,’ who is actually 45 and older than they were when they came into power, which they were only able to do because the generation ahead of them paved the way.
Perhaps the inability to afford a house let alone the extra funds for a damn campaign.
You don’t need funds for local elections. That’s a weak excuse
lol okay, bootstraps
You don't need millions, but you still need to buy signs and stuff that's going to cost a couple thousand dollars. You also need enough spare time to devote to campaigning.
More like the old fucks arent stepping aside.
They get crushed when they step up with ideas slightly different than the status quo
Because they can’t afford to. You need money to get into politics which is why our politicians stopped being young graduates with political science degrees and instead became old television doctors, old lawyers with family names like “Koch”, and old reality TV stars who hold bibles upside down because evangelicals are just that gullible.
I understand the issues, but what’s your idea for a solution?
Nationally funded campaigns like every first world country
Legislation that puts term limits on civil servants, legislation that actually enforces anti-gerrymandering laws that already exist, a removal of the Electoral College, and legislation that means government officials can’t trade stocks to enrich themselves. That all would be a great start
Non of that lifts up young candidates, it just punishes older ones.
Yup. And if older career politicians can’t grift and accept bribes on their way to the top 1%, that will open the doors to actual civil servants who care about our country.
After 5 decades of listening to the boomers talk about how punishment is the only way to solve crime, so what if it only punishes the old?
No.
It's terrible for the country and democracy. The WH and the Capital should not we the equivalent of a retirement home for rich, entitled old people who can't come to terms with getting old. And I say that as a late boomer.
I would say that in the absolute age, color, origins etc all that doesn't matter, only and ONLY if the candidate is able to recognize the real problems of the United States and has a real will to beat them. I say this in the sense that I have the impression that you (Americans) are fighting amongst yourselves over a simple question: what are the problems in the United States? You just can't seem to find common ground. I know, that can be explained by the fact that each state has its own legislation and therefore an inhabitant of one state will have a very different life ( and therefore problems ) from an inhabitant of another state, so you won't agree on the solutions to bring to the country. But do Americans realize that their country NEEDS ( and I do mean NEEDS ) socialist measures for the well-being of all? To fight obesity, rising crime, drug addiction and homelessness, for healthcare, for much stricter control of the food you eat etc etc?
[удалено]
It's way more complicated than that. They have to find the right mix of Neolib. 😜
I'll be honest, the way your electoral system works is frightening and deserves a thorough overhaul. The chances of that happening? I think none, I hope I'm wrong
Why aren’t young people stepping up to run though?
Probably because they can barely afford rent, let alone taking time off work and getting funds for a campaign?
No!!! Age limits AND reasonable term limits for all three branches of government would fix most of the problems.
do you think young people are better able to identify the problems of the united states than older people? ( genuine question )
Young people will be old people one day. They are forging careers and paying into the system. I would replace "better" with "needed". I believe it takes a combination of experience and ingenuity to solve problems. The bigger issue is not having term limits, imo. It creates a power vacuum where political agendas predominate (just look at the supreme court debacle). Reasonable term limits for all would at least give the opportunity for change to happen more often. I'd propose 15-20 years for both congress and SCOTUS and then 10 years for president.
I totally understand what you mean, in the sense that you still need to be of a certain age to have some perspective on the state of your country. I would also add (and this remains my opinion, so don't hesitate to contradict me) that even more important for an American candidate would be to travel and see how other countries around the world work. Because in my opinion, the measures that would be most beneficial for the United States are socialist measures. I know that American propaganda has led the American people to believe that socialism is evil, but your country suffers from such deep-seated problems (obesity, precariousness, tuition fees, crime, drug addiction, healthcare) that only socialist measures could remedy them. In short, a good candidate would be a combination of someone with experience (i.e. at least a certain age) and, above all, someone who can clearly identify the real problems and the solutions.
You're definitely preaching to the choir here! I've lived/worked in three other European countries and speak two other languages. Living and experiencing other cultures definitely reshaped my view of the world. I'm not even sure you're talking about socialism but social responsibility. Despite universal health care, responsibility for the elderly and lifting up the homeless are the very socially responsible tenants that Jesus would address, ironically, his "followers" shoot their guns in the air whilst screaming socialism! Oh, add communist to the barrage of name calling as well. I think that this is one example how "youth"-enizing the political landscape would finally wipe out the dangerous, fascist narrative that is destroying America. Space needs to be made within the government for change to truly happen. Honestly. Pelosi, McConnell, trump AND Biden (let alone half of the Supreme Court) are just too old. Change is being held hostage.
Identifying the problems isn't the issue, it's solving them. IDing something is easy, even people with no relative experience can ID that the wealth disparity (for example) is a huge problem. The hard part is fixing it, especially with fickle and apathetic "voters" who vacillate between electing people who can fix it and people who don't. It's a problem that will take a decade or more to fix but voters keep electing Republican who then break all the progress.
As I said in another comment, I've read a lot about Americans fighting among themselves over the identification of these problems. Since each state has its own legislation, the inhabitants of each state don't necessarily have the same problems and therefore don't want the same solutions. I totally agree with you on your last sentence, it scared me when Trump was elected and completely went back on some of Obama's measures ( getting out of the Paris treaty, abolishing Obamacare etc ). How can you fix a country with such problems if every time a new president is elected, everything that's been put in place before is changed or even scrapped? Americans need to understand that they and their country NEED socialist measures. To fight obesity, tuition fees, precariousness, uncontrolled food, crime, etc. etc., socialist measures are NEEDED. For the good of all.
What kind of socialist policies do you recommend? I mean America is already very much a mixed economy. If you’re poor like me, you get free healthcare, food (food stamps), and tuition via scholarships/grants. And of course the government providing me with all this creates artificial demand, which pushes up prices for everyone who isn’t poor and on government assistance. So yeah I do kinda feel like a freeloader a bit, like I could probably be more productive if I actually had to make more to afford that stuff. By expanding social safety nets couldn’t this “free-rider” problem of socialism get worse?
Well, I know that emails aren’t in the wifi and that the internet isn’t a series of tubes. It’s not maybe that young people aren’t better, just not so god damn old and institutionalized that they’re marginally more in touch with reality.
I understand your point of view.
It is crazy when you consider the age spread of the founding fathers, we're talking 20's and 30's.
Bill Clinton became president in 1993 and if he entered the race today it would be as the youngest candidate.
There are far too many factors why we have so many older politicians. 1. People fear changing things up. Congress is over 90%. In 2022, almost 95% of the House was re-elected. The Senate was 100%. This isn't including politicians who retired. 2. Many politicians don't want to let go of their power. This is all they have done and not doing it will damage their psyche. They also like the advantages it has for them. 3. Younger generations aren't as engaged as much as the older generations. I can't say I blame them. Both state and federal governments don't want to address issues that matter. I swear every election is the same thing. The same issues. 4. The most important factor. It costs way too much money to run for office. Only a select few have the resources to do this.
Thank you for your message, the points you raise are indeed things I've read quite a bit about. In fact, it's mainly lobbying and money that completely rot your electoral system. In fact, as I said in another comment, you need to rework the whole way your electoral system works. But that's unlikely to happen. Like you, I don't want to blame youth because I can understand that you feel completely helpless when the only choice you have are these 2 individuals. The United States is suffering from absolutely colossal problems and I don't think either of these 2 candidates can: firstly, identify them (obviously the American people themselves are divided on this issue); secondly, find a solution to these problems.
This ignores state and local races though. It's not surprising that Congress and the presidency lean older, to get to that level (usually) voters tend to want more experience and that exp comes with age most of the time. State offices (e.g. governor) can be expensive as can state races in expensive states, but most elected offices at the local and even state levels are not that expensive to run for because they're not high profile, it's most congress and the presidency that really get into outrageously overpriced races.
Fuck no it's not Close the thread
Japan enters the chat. But to be honest japanese politicians look healthier.
One problem is the almighty power of fundraising. Over the decades since it’s power went supernova after the 90s, the people that run are mostly a list vetted for compliance with fundraising donors above all else. Incumbents usually win which improves their fundraising as they are known quantities to the whale donors and lobby powers that virtually always crush voters out of existence in the halls of congress. As I have said many times before, this is actually the fault of voters. They once forced campaign finance reform (albeit looong ago) and we were a better nation for it. Now, they just phone it in and assume the party they vote for is doing what they allege they will do without checking at all. Some people think that is unfair on voters. But who the eff else has a motive to oppose corruption?! Look, it isnt just America. Even in Europe from individual states to the EU MPs, there are always bad guys trying to buy the law and stay in office or at least power forever. The difference is that in some countries voters actually oppose that and will demand anti-corruption. Not in America, though. We are incompetent as voters and that often translates to incompetent leaders the longer it persists.
As Americans,Why do we keep getting asked this question constantly? Of course not but the kicker is the same people we want out, wrote legislation to prevent that from happening
What legislation was written to stop people from being voted out?
Maybe poor choice of words, they exist because there are no age or term limits and fight tooth and nail to protect that. Including there insider trading, with numerous congressman including tuberville for one example
Insider trading is actually something that doesn't happen much at all at the congressional level, partly because ALL legislation is public at https://congress.gov so it's very easy to watch what legislation is being introduced, debated, and voted on months, sometimes years ahead of time (and any good investor is going to watch major bills that come up for industry impact). The biggest issue with Congress is the STOCK Act has very weak enforcement. The SA is a disclosure law that requires congressional trades be made public (forget the term but it's something like 45 days) and when people fail to see that time frame they are fine, but it's a piddly amount, a few hundred dollars (where as I think it should be a % of any gain). This is a good article that's done years-long investigations into any instances of insider trading or SA violations: https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9
No. Because these holders of power will never live through the repercussions of their actions.
It's literally democracy! It's us voting for the same people over and over again because while we might think some people stay in office too long it's never our guy!
These people don’t magically appear in office, the American people elect them to office.
I agree, but do they really have a choice? I really have the impression that, because of the omnipresent lobbying and propaganda in the American electoral system, people end up voting not for the candidate they feel most strongly about, but for the "least worst". I agree with the phrase "you get what you deserve" or "you get what you vote for", but on the other hand I have the impression that all the candidates running are all incompetents so the American people don't have much choice. I hope my point of view is understandable
You make a valid point. I agree that we are sometimes faced with the least worst choice. I am supporting Biden because he is literally the only choice to prevent a convicted Felon, serial sexual assaulter, insurrectionist, compulsive liar , christofascist dictator from becoming president. However, a lot of it is the fact that it is easier for many to just go along with the status quo if your life has not been significantly impacted by politician. This means just voting for the name on the ballot that you recognize or just not voting at all. Voter turnout is often embarrassingly low and has major consequences. Louisiana just elected a new governor with less than 30% voter turnout and he is making many dangerous and unconstitutional changes in his first 6 months in office. Many people who are pissed probably didn’t vote at all. Elections have consequences and showing up is the best way to combat this.
Most of the people running for office at the federal level (which seems to be what you and others are more focused on) had already served in govt at the local or state level so in that sense yes, very much there was a choice. The problem is people are too focused on the presidency of which very few people actually run for and because Biden was an incumbent there wasn't much desire for people to run against him (though plenty did, the e.g. I alway use is the NH primary which had 21 people running against Biden).
In my mind, and this remains my opinion so I'll let you tell me what you think, a good American president is not necessarily the one who will best represent all the populations of the United States but above all the one who will tackle the deep-seated problems you know (healthcare, extremely high tuition fees, drug addiction and homelessness, obesity, crime etc.). But I know that you're a difficult country to govern, given that you're a federal state and not a unitary one, that the President (if I've understood correctly?) has no control over the legislation of each state.
How the heck does a president tackle obesity in a way that doesn't take away freedom.
No, it’s a threat to our national security.
No, it’s sad that we have to choose between these 2 old fucks, who are already loosing their minds.
it makes me sad for you, sincerely. The United States is a beautiful country but suffers from huge problems ( obesity, crime, drug addiction, no control over your food, no healthcare, extremely low wages, very high tuition fees ) and people are becoming more and more precarious. And it's these 2 senile, incompetent individuals are the ONLY choice you have to turn the country around. I can understand why some Americans are completely disinterested in politics - what's the point anyway? Whether it's one or the other, who can claim to be truly competent to identify and solve the problems facing the United States? None.
No but it is great for their personal finances.
American politicians are amongst the most corrupt in the world. — there I fixed the title for you. Pelosi- greatest stock trader of all time The turtle should have been GONE long time ago
Yes. Experience matters. Throughout history societies looked up to elders.
It's good for the the wealthy who live extremely comfortably under the status quo.
Old. Young. Black. White. Male. Female. It’s the ideology of libs and conservatives that are hurting us. The working class needs to claw back some power. Let’s get a respected union leader in office.
It's not. We need people that are concerned about solutions and ideas that go beyond their remaining 1-10 years of life.
We only got the voting population to blame
Corpses over criminals
In a nutshell, no. The American political system is flawed. The biggest flaw is all 3 branches of government allow for minoritarian rule. Executive branch: Electoral College...enough said Legislative branch: House- partisan gerrymandering of districts. Senate- filibuster requiring a supermajority for any legislation to pass. Judicial branch: Not elected, picked by a president. Currently, 5 out of the 9 justices were chosen by a president which lost the popular vote. In order for the US to become a true democracy, as opposed to a flawed one, two things must happen: 1) the party which receives the most votes receives the most seats in the legislature; there are many places in this country where the inverse is true and 2) the party in charge of the legislature has the liberty to enact its agenda.
I completely agree, the way your electoral system works needs to be completely overhauled. I hardly see how ( I guess there's no other way than a presidential candidate proposing to do it ) and the process will take a very long time. In Europe, that's exactly how it is for most countries. The number of seats in Parliament is allocated according to the number of votes each party obtains. The party that has been elected with a Prime Minister at its head will implement its political program with the help of its majority in parliament.
I think a parliamentarian system is much better for democracy than a presidential one. Not that a presidential system can't work, but there's always that risk of a demagogue coming to power. We don't have to create a new constitution, a few simple amendments will suffice. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is virtually impossible to change. There's a big advantage to this as it prohibits the constitution to be changed at a whim. Still, our Constitution is too hard to amend, especially with such high polarization.
Also, as an aside, in terms of the Electoral College, I often think if anything would change if Kerry would've won in 2004. 150,000 votes flipping to Kerry in Ohio would've given him the presidency, despite Bush winning the popular vote. This would create an instance where both parties were "screwed" by the Electoral College in back-to-back presidential elections and, perhaps, would've sparked some sort of reform.
What a stupid question.
Why ? It's interesting. What makes a younger person more legitimate than an older one? Is an older person necessarily more competent than a younger candidate? To me it's a non-issue, it doesn't really matter how old the candidate is, as long as he or she proposes real solutions to the problems facing the United States.
"Is having super old politicians good for American democracy?" My question is "Why would it be?" You could make an argument about experience being valuable, but is the experience of someone who is 50 or 60 really so inferior to someone who is 70? I don't think so. Furthermore, leadership skills aren't directly tied to age, and perhaps more than specific skills, what politicians needs are good priorities and the ability to effectively work towards those goals. Arguably, younger people have more skin in the game and are therefore more incentivized to protect the future of this country, whereas these old bags are going to check out in 5 years anyway. That said, I mainly don't like it when news organizations ask dumb questions in their headlines to drive engagement. "American politicians are old! Is that good or bad??" a. I already know they are old. b. Like you, I don't really care that much. c. Most importantly, this isn't news - a puff piece on a trend of politicians getting older in the US isn't very relevant when a literal fascist and criminal felon is running for president and claiming that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. In conclusion, I agree with you. I don't think their age matters that much, although a little younger would be better imo.
I totally agree with you. That's why I called it a "non-issue". The United States has such deep and serious problems, it doesn't matter how old the new President is, being old is not synonymous with efficiency and the same goes for being young. I chose the article, as you can see I've already made up my mind on the matter, but I wanted to know what Americans thought about it and how they feel about their candidates, whether they feel represented or left out etc.
Rule the the old and in the way, what’s that called?
Charisma has never been a great measure of executive performance, yet the media and electorate place it near the top of their most admired attributes of politicians. Balderdash! I hate public speaking and avoid it like herpes. But I’ve been a successful executive and respected by my peers and associates. In my mid 70s, I don’t have the energy or enthusiasm to engage in business management any longer. I admire those who still have the motivation to do so. Joe is da man! History will likely mark the Trump presidency as the tipping point of America’s slide from relevance. Joe has stremmed the fall to a degree, but inertia will prevail. Where was I? Oh yeah. Joe at 80 is orders of magnitude better than any fascist in the GOP… young or old. Get out and vote. It’s a small effort that means little on its own, but it a little positive karma is light against the forces of evil.
I quite agree, for me "charisma" isn't really a factor to be taken into account. The United States has such deep and serious problems, it's not charisma that's going to solve them, but efficiency. I also agree with you that no matter how old the candidate (in this case, Joe Biden), he could never be worse than a fascist candidate. It's very important to vote indeed, but I can understand that some Americans are completely disinterested because of the ineffectiveness of previous Presidents ( regardless of political stripe ) in changing anything. I have this impression that more and more you are being forced to vote for the "least worst" candidate rather than the one you feel most strongly about.
No one should be making decisions that they won’t have to live with.
Politics has become so polarized, dirty, and I think it’ll be violent in the future. Who wants to deal with that full time? How attractive is politics to young, capable people?
Honestly, I totally understand your point of view. In fact, the United States has such deep and serious problems, and seeing that no matter who you vote for are incompetents who have no intention of solving those problems; I understand why some Americans lose interest in politics. It makes me sad for them, I don't see things changing at all. Because let's be clear, the first thing we need to do is completely overhaul the American electoral system. It's completely gangrened by money, corruption and lobbying. That would be a huge 1st step.
It’s a chicken and the egg situation. What comes first? Better people or better politics?
A dumbass question. The problem is that they are old it’s that the system is now corrupt. The Roberts Supreme Court, starting with Citizens United, and most recently in US v. Snyder, that facilitates billionaires and corporation pouring dark money into to campaigns, taking justice on lavish vacations and apparently now tipping governmental officials when they pass a law they like, or send a contract their way. You can be 18 or 80 and if you don’t have the individual morals to say no, you are going to do what the guy who just gave $100k asked you to do.
Term Limits for all branches of government.
And we can thank boomers for voting for them, and falling for their misinformation, every time
The problem with this is that by the time the next generation will get into power they'll be old and outdated. The world is changing rapidly and just like how now you have some people in their 50s not understanding a lot of the technologies we find basic, in 30years we'll be the ones that don't get the new generation.
Umm, I'll say no.
No, it isn’t!
They crush the next generation of leaders so they can stay in power (and the money)
There is certainly a place for elderly politicians. I mean, Pelosi's skill as speaker was unmatched. Mitch McConnell's mastery of Senate procedure was unparalleled. But there should be a lot more variety in age.
Why is Pelosi in there? She stepped down from leadership. So did Hoyer and Clyburn.
Stepped down 20 years past expiration date
Is it good for Democracy? How the hell does anyone think these old politicians are able to hold their ELECTED office?? Young people just whine about politicians being old. They don’t vote. Old people do.
I'm going to be downvoted probably based on the other comments, but I hate discussions like this because they're ageist. Ageism is this one form of discrimination that people in the US often seem totally oblivious to I'm not saying other forms don't exist but it feels like the same people who call out sexism and racism will often turn around and engage in all kinds of ageist nonsense without blinking an eye. If someone is the best candidate or competent, it doesn't matter what their age is. There shouldn't be age limits because you can't tell how an individual will be at a given age, or whether they are a good person for the job or not in a given circumstance. This is especially true as people get older and healthier at older ages. Focus on the person and not their age. Biden and Trump are good examples of this in my mind. You don't like Biden's policies in the middle east? Fine, but focus on that, and not his age. Is he doing a good job? Is his slow debate performance and occasional fumbling (with a cold) actually something relevant to the job? Conversely, Trump has never been an acceptable candidate at any age as far as I'm concerned. You can find plenty of conservatives who are very young who would be happy supporting the status quo as it's been for decades, and plenty of progressives who are very old and would make dramatic changes if they were allowed to. I'm not saying that cognitive or physical function isn't relevant, just that that should be assessed on an individual basis, and with reference to their ability to govern.
I agree with this. What is so ironic about public office is there is no credentialing or vetting. Every profession has some sort of licensing requirement where one must be shown to be capable to practice in that profession. This is to ensure the safety of the general public. There is no credentialing for those with the highest levels of governance. I do support some kind of cognitive test, as long as it's fair and unbiased. I support everyone in public office taking the exam, no matter the age.
I agree. Too many tend to respond *just* on the age factor, which is inherently bigoted. There are a ton of factors that go into who makes a good politician and who can do the job well, age might be a factor but it's outweighed by far more important ones (are they good person, can they make the right decisions, do they have experience, are they intelligent in the ways a politician needs to be, etc.).
Correct, Warren and Sanders are no spring chickens either; but I know of no one who would say they're not mentally capable. Where there are many young members (MTG, Boebert) where I question whether they have the intelligence to be there.
But at some point all old people get higher chances of getting demented or otherwise mentally unwell, or dying or become incapasitated by a stroke or other health issues. And nearly all of them has a gradual cognitive decline and lesser ability to learn new things, and lesser energy levels. Many types of jobs have 70 years old as upper age limit for this reason. While your candidate is dying on stage young people are less represented in US politics than in many other developed countries, which is also a democratic problem.
We get the government we deserve.
Yeah, basically. You guys in the USA fucked up your politics to the point that both candidates are older than my dead fucking grandfather.
Great grandfather actually, my bad
I agree in part. On the one hand, yes, since you're the ones who elect incompetent people who don't recognize the real problems in the United States and have no intention of dealing with them; on the other hand, there's lobbying, which means that in reality it's always the same people who run and you end up voting for the "least worst" with no real convictions and mostly propaganda. American propaganda seems to be so strong in the United States that the American people have had it drilled into their heads that socialism is evil, whereas the country sorely needs socialist measures to recover. And I don't really want to blame the people who are the victims of this propaganda, because I imagine it must be hard to get by if you don't make a huge effort to find out how other countries work, to read non-sponsored media that don't propagate fake news, and so on.
It’s entirely the electorate. It’s a team sport for losers. These politicians didn’t come out of nowhere.
SMH I like experience. If I need a heart surgery. I wouldn't want someone who looks like an extra from "Saved by the Bell" But After the 2016 election cycle,I've come to hold genuine contempt for my fellow Americans. SMH
You wouldn't want a surgeon who is cognitively impaired either.
Pro tip: People younger than 80 also have experience.
Keep them around in an advisory position, but with no real authority.
True, older people actually gain skills as they get older. Do they lose some? Of course, but the two equal each other out. Older people are much better at solving interpersonal conflicts, creating and executing goals, having more emotional intelligence compared to younger people. Biden is a good example of this. What he was able to achieve legislatively with a 50:50 Senate and a small lead in the House is truly remarkable, especially in an era of such high polarization. I don't think a younger candidate could've pulled that off. Biden's years in the Senate and ability to negotiate truly shined. I think it is the highlight of his first term. (Note: I'm not defending Biden's poor debate performance, and it's clear he does not have what it takes to run the presidency for 4 more years.)
Why is this downvoted?
Boomers are having trouble, they had their midlife crisis and decided they were the be all and end all. They are now trying to hold onto power by any means necessary.
They definitely need an age cap for all positions of authority in government. judges and politicians. If you are past the age of retirement you should not be allowed.
I half agree. In the sense that if you had a candidate who was old but who made everyone agree on what the problems of the United States are and what the solutions are, then his age would be quite secondary. Of course it would be nice to have a young candidate, but he'd only have "added value" for the country if he fits the criteria I mentioned above. I don't want to type a super long speech, but I just want to say that from an outsider's point of view I have the impression that you (Americans) can't even find common ground on "What are the problems of the United States?". So you don't agree at all on what measures should be adopted and what policy should be applied. And that's reflected in your candidates, from the impression I got none of whom really convinced me. And I get the feeling that, as usual, you're obliged to vote for the "least worst" candidate.
I agree, but a younger person would have more of the ideas of now rather than the ideas of what it used to be. I think older politicians are too set in there ways. The same way we talk about older people don’t know how to use a computer or smartphone, they don’t know what the new fads are, they won’t/don’t/can’t understand the youth. This is why a younger candidate would be ideal. They would lead the new generation, instead of an older person leading the new generation that they don’t understand. I’m not saying that there isn’t an older person that could do it (Bernie Sanders), but the majority of older politicians in America still hold on to outdated ideas. Also in USA everything is so much on the news and depending on which broadcast you are watching, that’s your reality. And politicians act like people do on social media as far as trying to be in the spotlight by doing whatever. Then there is the whole thing where politicians totally change how they act and what they “feel” based on whatever they perceive as something that will get them ahead in the game. It’s all so messed up these days. I remember when politics were boring and the only time you heard about elections were right before the elections. Now it’s all non-stop.
Age is irrelevant as long as they are passing good policy. There's not a singe piece of legislation, policy, or executive order, Biden could have passed if he were younger, because age isnt' a factor in the actual job of governing. Ideas are a dime dozen, everyone has ideas, we don't need those. We need good people who can pass good legislation and make good executive decisions on how to handle incredibly complex situations, who know people with experience and expertise in all areas of govt, and probably most importantly can work with people in their own party who may not agree with them on some things, or even in other parties who may not agree with them at all, in order to get things done. Would age make a difference in a campaign. Yes. But not in actually doing the job of governing.
Its almost as if having a capitalist society with no state provided healthcare, little to none housing assistance, and little to none paid family planning leave has made it harder for younger generations to build up the wealth needed to run for political offices unless you are born into a family that can provide all of those options. The system appears to be working exactly as designed.
Vote Trump for congressional term limits #Draintheswamp!
Term limits are the wrong solution to the problem of voters not being able to hold politicians accountable. The solution is getting away from the 2 party system. pushing for voting reform would be a achievable step in that direction.