How Old is Too Old for Public Service?
Noting the minimum age criteria for the U.S.’s important elected offices, David Harsanyi of the Denver Post wonders if there shouldn’t be a maximum age limit placed on persons in positions of power and holds up one of the Congress’ most conspicuous incompetents as his straw man:
An average adult would not trust Sen. Robert Byrd (who is 91) to pet-sit their mutt for fear that the unfortunate creature might accidentally turn up in chili con carne. Yet, Byrd sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, where he doles out massive amounts of taxpayer funds for West Virginia landmarks with "Byrd" in the title.
It’s a question that needs to be asked, particularly in conjunction with the issue of term limits, and it deserves a serious answer rather than boilerplate P.C. nonsense about ageism. How old is too old?
It depends. But there comes a point in time after which wisdom turns to dotage and public service should be ended before the decline begins. Unfortunately, the current party and power system doesn’t readily allow over-the-hill incumbents like Byrd, Stevens, and Dingell to be replaced without their consent.
Part of wisdom is knowing when to quit. We see the proof of this all time time in the world of sports. Michael Jordan knew when to leave the game behind; Evander Holyfield still doesn’t know that he’s been done for 5+ years. It’s the same way with political heroes too. The difference is that Supreme Court justices and senators who linger in their fiefdoms do more than tarnish their personal legacies. Great damage can be done to the country by their refusal to make way for new, more capable leadership.
A mandatory age limit is too general because it disqualifies perfectly fit candidates from holding important positions. But as Byrd’s tenure demonstrates, a limit of some kind is needed.
Again and again I return to term limits as a tool to resolve conflicts such as this. Somehow we need to make them reality.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
