this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
72 points (83.3% liked)

Asklemmy

44484 readers
1856 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An older leader often has fewer long term stakes in the decisions they make, if they were to destabilize the economy or lead the country into conflict, they may not experience the full consequences of their actions, as their personal future is less affected compared to younger generations. Leadership at that level requires making decisions that will shape the long term future of a nation, and it’s crucial that those in power have a vested interest in that future. Additionally, presidents and politicians are public servants, and like any profession, there should be an age limit or retirement age to ensure the vitality, adaptability, and long term accountability necessary for effective leadership. At what age do you think they need to retire?

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

That’d take a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that such a thing would succeed, particularly considering the average age of legislators is β€œold as fuck”

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 9 points 1 hour ago

Tons have said this for decades. Good luck.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Please outline your political/electoral strategy to accomplish this.

You would basically have to pass a constitutional ammendment if you wanted this to not just immediately be overturned by the next administration.

That means you need either:

2/3rds of the State Houses and Senates to call for a Constitutional Convention.

or

2/3rds of the Federal House and Senate to do the same.

... and then your new amendment(s) have to be approved by 3/4th of the State Houses and Senates.

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-amend-the-constitution-3368310

Unless you have a plan to somehow get a supermajority of support from a supermajority of States, this is magical thinking and will never happen.

My generation, Millenials, tried but ultimately failed to overhaul first past the post voting to break the two party duopoly death grip, and rework the Presidential Electoral College into a popular vote.

Probably both of those are prerequisites for a durable Presidential max age.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Bold to assume leaders would ever suffer the consequences of their own policy.

But when gen z gets old they won't be self interested like every other generation since forever /s.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I find it confusing how much pushback I'm seeing ITT. It's a good idea. I think 65 is a reasonable cutoff.

[–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It's a good idea, but it will only ever be that with the way the US works. Getting 2/3 of Congress and the states to agree on anything is borderline impossible.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Oh I know. I think I've lost any remaining hope for the US today after reading that a bill to extend presidential term limits has been introduced. Honestly if you just make a list of solutions to the terrible problems we have and then take their opposites, that's what's getting done right now.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Ask me how I know you're under the age of 30.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 3 points 1 hour ago

How do you know?

I ask because you are wrong, by the way.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Millenial here, I would do it this way:

  • Lower age limit for any leadership position would be 18.
  • Certain positions would require adequate qualifications, no Fox News hosts for positions about nuclear safety.
  • Regular tests for drug use. If too drunk to drive, then also too drunk to govern.
  • Above 70+, mandatory mental fitness checks, also can no longer run for elections unless incumbent (proven popularity).
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Lower age limit for any leadership position would be 18.

With at least 10 years served in public office

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 33 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I gotta wonder if people that propose this kind of thing have only interacted with older people in nursing homes or something.

If you think that age is some kind of limit to long term thinking, you definitely have little or no contact with older people that aren't impaired.

If anything, the older people I've been around, even the ones in nursing homes, are better at long term thinking and planning. Comparing that to coworkers, fellow students in college, you know, the 25 to 50 range of people, I'd say that increasing age gives more perspective on what long term thinking really means because they've already seen the consequences of previous choices.

You think age removes a vested interest in the future? Nah. Capitalism does, greed does, but age means you are more likely to have kids, and grandkids, and great grandkids. That's the future older folks start worrying about.

You don't have to be a narcissist just because you're old. Why the fuck do you think that someone hitting an arbitrary age means they don't have a concern for the future? That's a serious question, not rhetorical. What kind of people are in your life that you think that way?

People talk shit about boomers, but I've sat with people of that generation, and the two before them. Sometimes on their death beds. Usually when they're facing the specter of their mortality, even if it isn't that close. You have no idea how rare it is for them to not worry about the world they're leaving behind.

The whole idea of their kids having a better life was so damn central a thread of the literal boomers that it might as well be their motto. The bad, short term decision-making they did wasn't in their sixties or seventies, it was in their twenties and thirties.

This whole concept of generation warfare, and ageist bullshit is nothing more than a smoke screen blinding us from working together in constructive ways.

Like, I get that you think this is some kind of great idea, but it shows exactly how little perspective you have. We need the experience and considered decision making that's the hallmark of the typical "senior citizen", just as much as we need the energy and out of the box of the young. And we need the direct, hands on per perspective of the ages in the middle that are finally seeing what their decisions have led to, and know how things are working currently to help implement the new ideas and guide the long term ideas into the future.

Seriously my homie, don't buy into the bullshit that the politicians are actually good examples of their generations. They aren't. They're the power chasers, the ones that hold the system as a goal in and of itself. They're gaining their power in a system that rewards narcissism and sociopathy with more power.

You want to change who can hold positions of power? You gotta break free of the idea that those positions are the positions we need. The more power that is vested in the people, the more checks we have on the bigger picture, the better. Just limiting the ages of the people in office only means we get younger power mongers and sociopaths tearing things apart.

Go look at the young right wing. You think they're going to be better than the older right wing? I mean, c'mon. They aren't any more forward thinking than their older counterparts at all. If anything they're worse because they rush shit along and do shit so they can gain power faster.

This is just such bad thinking.

[–] dingus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I'm sorry that I don't have anything to add, but I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic post. Generational fighting has always greatly bothered me. The young people complain about the old people and the old people complain about the young people. Each generation feels superior to one another for bullshit reasons. Even some of my fellow millennial coworkers look down on gen z and whatever the one after it is (alpha?). I'm quite frankly sick of it.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 56 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Age is a red herring. The president is always going to serve the capitalist class, no matter their age. The problem is bourgeois democracy; it’s oligarchy.

[–] squigglycunt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

i think youre right on part of the argument, but older presidents also have less of a reason to think of the future since, yknow, theyll soon kick the bucket and whatnot, so less worries of the long term effects of their actions

at least thats what i think

Fuck the age limit,

Just elect me as President for Life and I'll fix everything, pinky promise πŸ˜‰

(just trust me bro)

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That would require a constitutional amendment in the US.

I'm very slightly too old to be part of Gen Z and can tell you that teenage and early-20s me also thought that surely the future would be awesome because then people like me, people who see the world the way I do, would be in power and fix all problems I see with the world.

Now there are plenty of politicians and other public figures who are my age or younger, and I can tell that they are not all like me, they do not all see the world the way I do, in fact they are just as diverse as everyone before them and make the same mix of good and bad decisions as everyone before them.

[–] sibachian@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

at least they didn't grow up with abundance, surplus salaries, post-war ideologies, and lead poisoning. so their terrible decisions are all of their own making.

[–] ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago

Our whole society is broken. We need a shift to collectivism. This rugged individualism bull shit idea our society has embraced is a recipe for weakness and collapse. It’s been happening since we moved away from the collectivist attitude popularized during world war 2. Humans are pack animals.

[–] Potatisen@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

People in your generation will still be corrupt and think that money/power is more important than anything else. They're usually the people in those positions, why would they give up changes for power?

America isn't going to change.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 5 points 7 hours ago

America as we know it might also not be around much longer.

[–] menemen@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The thing is, this is imo the most problematic problem of democracy. It is also not an age thing.

Political leaders normally don't stay long in any specific office. E.g. most finance ministers are just finance ministers for a few years. If they survive one term that is long. During the term they are oftentimes planning their follow up career in the private sector. This can takes up more of their efforts than national politics.

It is even worse in local politics. Many mayors of large cities are already planning their career in national politics. They don't care about what happens to the city once they switched over.

So, I wouldn't limit myself to "old politicians", because they might die before seeing the consequences of their fuck ups. Young politicians also almost never see consequences for their fuck ups, because they will have moved on before it gets problematic. The politicians know that!

This is a much larger problem than your question let it seem to be, it is imo the biggest problem democracy in itself inherently has.

Rule limits actually make this worse, because it leads to short term thinking. But not having a rule limit is also not an option as it opens up roads to autocratic behaviour.

I work in local infrasrtructure management now and worked in science before. I despice politicians, be they young or old. We administrators are constantly fighting them to keep our city/country livable (and we lose more than we win).

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago

Your question is extremely flimsy, first you think the president has the sole power to make those decisions, then you assume that the president is immoral enough to not care about the people he literally is meant to serve

[–] introvertcatto@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

In my opinion best age for president and parliament members would be cca. 30-60 years old. People older than 60-65 and younger than 30 can still be active in politics and do some paperworks etc, but can't be on actual important positions like president or parliament.

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 4 points 7 hours ago

I think 40 - 60 makes more sense. 30 would be the age that someone would be too early in their career to rule a country. If that person has risen to a position that they would be considered for president by 30, the chance of them getting to that position without significant nepotism is too low.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago

I know more 4 year olds that have better communication skills than some politicians. Plus, you can reward them with some ice cream every time they tell the truth.

Jokes aside, as long as a person is a legal adult and they can prove they are capable enough to hold a serious position, sure! Let them do it. Realistically, you are likely correct: The minimum age for my requirements is also likely in the 30s.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Aside from the very valid points that others have already made, I have some input.

First of all, I do agree that there should be a maximum age limit for positions of great power. But it should be like 80 or 85 years old imo, so it wouldn't really change much.

Older people are actually far more concerned about the future than younger people in many ways, usually because of their experience and their children. Whereas younger people don't quite grasp how critical our actions are in shaping the future.

Secondly, and tangentially, I wouldn't be so sure that Gen Z will ever be a dominant political faction. Similarly to how Gen X was basically steamrolled by the baby Boomers, Gen Z is likely to be the victim of millennial elites. Gen Z is a smaller cohort than millennials, partially due to declining birth rates but also due to the ripple effect.

There were a fuck ton of baby Boomers (1946-1964) due to high birth rates, and most of their kids were millennials (1981-1998). Conversely, there were much fewer GenX kids (65-80), partially because many of their potential parents were killed in wars and also because of rapidly declining birth rates. This demographic reality has spilled down to Gen Z, which is less numerous as well.

Then you're also going to have to deal with Generation alpha right behind you, who are largely the children of millennials and have grown up in a chaotic environment. Who knows how the fuck they're going to turn out.

So yeah, good luck wresting political control from the millennials, because it's unlikely at best.

[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 2 points 8 hours ago

Can you guys get us on https://www.starvoting.org/ instead? plz. thx.

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 0 points 7 hours ago

What's your plan when your preferred party nominates someone above your maximum age?