On Wednesday, July 24, the nation watched as President Joe Biden announced that he would not continue his campaign for reelection. The decision came after a disastrous debate performance and weeks of scrutiny from fellow Democrats over whether or not the President was capable of not only winning the election but also of executing the demands of the office for another four years.
Age has grown to become one of the most pressing issues of this election, and one of the reasons why many voters have become discontent. Trump just turned 78, and Biden, who will turn 82 this November, holds the record for the country’s oldest President. It’s reasonable for voters to feel that old candidates are out of touch with most Americans and are incapable of executing the difficult and energy consuming task of serving as Commander-in-Chief.
In 2023, the Pew Research Center found that close to 75% of Americans support implementing an “age limit” for candidates running for office. Some politicians, like Nikki Haley, even included such measures in their formal platforms. After watching the last presidential debate, in all of its slow, embarrassing glory, it has become clear that enforcing an age limit of 75 for all elected officials is necessary to ensure that our representatives serve us with competence and vigor.
In a democratic government, politicians are meant to be articulate representatives for their constituents. They must not only be in touch with the nation’s political identity, but also with its popular culture in order to successfully represent the country both domestically and abroad. With both Trump and Biden being older than color television, saying they are culturally “out of touch” is an understatement.
Our politicians are charged with some of the most important responsibilities in the world. They vote on and sign important pieces of legislation that impact millions of lives across the globe. Our leaders are expected to make informed decisions based on relevant evidence and the interests of their constituents. Old age too often impedes the rational decision making needed to fulfill this role.
The American presidency is specifically cited as an arduous, stressful and tiring position — one that leaves its occupants visibly older than before they started. The job requires very long days and many sleepless nights. Even if an older candidate appears vigorous while campaigning, their age can compromise their ability to consistently carry out their duties.
Sleep has grown to be an issue for the 81-year-old Biden, who recently held a call with Democratic Governors to quell concerns regarding his age. In the call, he admitted that the presidency — along with the constant traveling for his reelection campaign — is a taxing job that had caused him to lose a lot of sleep. He alleviated no concerns when he stated he would stop scheduling meetings and other public events after 8 p.m.
This comes in the midst of an administration long criticized for the high number of vacation days the president has taken. In fact, both Biden and Trump spent large portions of their tenures outside of the Oval Office. In the first 853 days of their terms (a figure used to standardize measurements between the two men), both presidents had spent at least 250 partial or full days on vacation or on their private properties. Barack Obama, who was only 55 at the end of his second term, spent 41 days a year outside of Washington.
President Biden’s extensive travel to his family home in Delaware is a sign that the president lacks the stamina to consistently attend to his duties in Washington, effectively proving that age is a factor in determining an individual’s capability to effectuate the responsibilities of the Oval Office.
The age of the average American has steadily grown since the 1990s and currently sits at 38.7 years old. This means that some of our older politicians are over double the age of the average American citizen, with both Biden and Trump falling into this category. This generational rift causes voters to feel misunderstood by their politicians, and only contributes to the frustrations younger generations have with the American political system.
Some opponents to the idea of age limits claim that instituting such a law is undemocratic, contending that age is just an arbitrary marker of competence. These critics argue that if a 76 year old is more capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of political office than a 65 year old, it is wrong to prohibit the older candidate from running solely because of his age.
But age requirements for political office have a long history in the United States. For someone to be eligible to run for a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate, they must respectively be 25 and 30 years old, and presidential candidates need to be at least 35. This is not to say that 34 year olds might not be qualified; it is simply a rule enacted to ensure that those elected to the office of president meet some standard of age and intellect.
Overall, as the last two presidential election cycles have made clear — and the recent debate has made even more so — age has become an issue in the process of selecting our national leaders. While not directly addressing the issues of competence and integrity in office, it is obvious that enforcing a 75 year age limit for older candidates would help ensure that our candidates are cognitively capable of leading the country.
Mateo Alvarez is an Opinion columnist studying political science. He is interested in the cross-section of politics and culture, and he can be reached at mateoalv@umich.edu.
The post 70 going on 80: Why we need age limits for our politicians appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply