The Age of the Gerontocracy

Graphics by Taylor Whirley

On the eve of our president’s eighty-first birthday in November, the impending celebration begs the question: why is the politician elected to represent and lead our country so old? When the average age of an American is less than forty, a man who is twice that age cannot truly be representative of the desires of all Americans. Our Senate skews similarly on the older side, with the average age rounding out at sixty-five. Chuck Grassley, the oldest sitting Senator, recently celebrated his ninetieth birthday in September. Our current Congress is the third-oldest in history. If you’re like me, you’re wondering how we have reached this point. While electing experienced politicians is important, there must be a line between electing experienced politicians or octogenarians. In a country that was founded on the determination to win equal representation, we do not have a government that is equally representative in terms of age. The matter of age is a conversation that is increasingly topical in America, with the looming 2024 election most likely being a race between two candidates who are both either in their eighties or fast approaching and with clear issues arising surrounding the health of currently serving older politicians. Can these politicians, whose ages are so far above that of the average American, accurately advocate for and represent the wants of the American people? Although age and experience are valuable in terms of generating real change, they are often used as reasons for politicians to hold onto power for longer than they should and to discredit the work of younger, qualified, and more representative politicians. 

Although the topic of aging politicians is one that has been floating around for a while, it most recently occupied the headlines of national news when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) seemed to freeze up and was escorted out of two press conferences in the span of a month. In July of this year, while speaking at a Republican leadership conference, McConnell went mute for nineteen seconds on live television while in an interview with journalists. A month later, the Senator appeared to freeze again during a press conference in Kentucky, this time for half a minute before being ushered away by an aide. At eighty-one years old, Mitch McConnell is the third-oldest sitting Senator. As the minority leader of the Senate, he is an immensely powerful and influential political figure within the United States. These two instances caused a media frenzy and brought the matter of a politician’s age to the forefront of the national conversation. Following the freeze-ups, McConnell maintained that he was healthy and confirmed that he would be completing his Senate term and Speakership. For many Americans, McConnell’s episode raised the concern that if cameras were able to catch the episode twice in public, it must also be happening in private. 

Another recent event stoking the flames of the current crisis of faith in aging politicians is the death of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). After serving for over thirty years, Feinstein passed away in late September at the age of ninety — she was still in office at the time of her death. There is no denying the tangible impact of Feinstein's work for the United States, but her death again raises the question of whether or not a public official can complete their job as promised past a certain age. Feinstein was absent from the Senate for two months this year after coming down with shingles and, upon her return, was visibly weakened and voted less often than before. Her absence angered some of her political adversaries, who argued that there should be a stand-in sent in her absence from the Senate. Even before then, colleagues and friends of Feinstein’s in the Capitol raised concerns about her growing memory issues and mental capacity. Despite her colleagues’ worries, Feinstein remained in office until her death in September.

There are, of course, valid reasons for the average age of Congress skewing older. The average age of an American citizen hovers around thirty-eight years old, while the average age of a Senator is a little over sixty-five years old, with a range spreading from thirty-six (Jon Ossoff (D-GA)) to ninety (Chuck Grassley (R-IA)). While there is a clear disparity here in terms of the representativeness of the average American, an explanation can be found in the qualifications one must receive before becoming a Senator. According to our Constitution, Senators must be at least thirty, have US citizenship, and a residency in the state in which they are seeking election. While it is not explicitly necessary, it is rare to see a member of the Senate without at least a Bachelor’s degree and some experience in the public sector that helps them earn a nomination and political support. In fact, the Pew Research Center found that there was only one Senator (Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)) without a Bachelor’s degree, and that seventy-eight of our sitting Senators had at least one graduate degree. Additionally, once elected, most Senators serve for many consecutive terms, leading to a higher average age based on races often favoring the incumbent senator. These steps to electability, however, do not explain why individuals who are clearly unfit to serve remain in the Senate. This issue of the age of government officials in comparison to citizens is one found across comparable Democratic countries. In Canada, the median age of the citizens is forty while the median age of a Senator is sixty-seven, a statistic that is strikingly similar to the United States. Electoral results from France and the United Kingdom generally reveal the same statistic: the ages of members of government trend higher than the average age of a citizen in that country. While this in and of itself is not a bad thing, it serves as a statistic that is often used to invalidate the candidacy of younger prospective senators and representatives, perpetuating the cycle of an aging Congress. 

Experience is certainly an important consideration when electing officials to serve in any office. That said, it seems that aging politicians wield their experience like a weapon against younger, aspiring politicians. Age and experience are valuable but not the most valuable parts of electability. During a political debate in New York between aspiring Representatives, Congressional Candidate Suraj Patel focused part of his speech on the ages of his opponents, both of whom are in their seventies and are veteran members of the House. He argued that due to their age, they could not properly represent the needs of the 12th Congressional District of New York and that it was time for the younger generation to take leadership positions. In response, the two Representatives began listing their long lists of accomplishments in their multiple decades serving in the House, using their experience as a tool to delegitimize the concerns raised by Patel. 

In another interesting case, Senator Jon Ossoff faced a new type of targeted negative ads during his special election in 2017 in his home state of Georgia. At thirty years old, Ossoff was younger than his opponent Karen Handel, who was fifty-five at the time of the election. An ad broadcast across Georgia’s 6th Congressional District attempted to damage his image and paint him as an uncommitted candidate by showing an unflattering video of Ossoff from his college days. The video, funded by a SuperPAC in support of Handel, depicted Ossoff as a college fraternity boy whose experience in government came second to his frivolous partying. The video ends by stating, “Jon Ossoff: not honest, not serious, not ready.” In an election taking place in a traditionally conservative state like Georgia, this ad was damaging to Ossoff’s reputation among older voters. He ended up losing the election in a close race with Handel, though he later ran a successful campaign for Senate,  making him the youngest currently sitting U.S. Senator. The smear campaign run against him marks a frightening new turn in politics and campaigning for millennials. In the era of smartphones and cameras, unflattering images are prone to come to light years later and to slander or delegitimize younger politicians. This is less of a concern for more veteran politicians, whose worst moments in college are unlikely to appear in recently-surfaced videos or photos. However, these images can prove damaging to a politician’s reputation and provide more evidence for an older, incumbent opponent to point to a lack of experience and legitimacy. 

Our Congress this term is one of the oldest on average in modern history, another mark in an upward trend of aging politicians holding onto their positions in office. Last year, 98 percent of Congressional incumbents won their reelection, leading to longer terms for most members of Congress, and with that, a higher average age of politicians. With this high rate of incumbency, it is nearly impossible for a younger, new candidate to win a Congressional election. The high rate of incumbency is in part due to the incumbency advantage, which finds that there is a financial advantage to running as an incumbent because less money is needed to help advertise and get your name out. However, incumbency is also tied to redlining and gerrymandering, which are tactics involving the redistribution of voters within a district that tend to favor one political party or candidate over another. 

When running against a candidate who is older, more experienced, and more well-known, it can be a long, uphill battle to win a vote. While surveyed voters clearly have a bias towards younger politicians, these candidates rarely make it past the primaries due to low voting numbers. Inevitably, this leads to a ballot that is often a choice between two older politicians, often both incumbent leaders for their respective parties. In political analysis, this is referred to as the status quo bias, where people are often more likely to support a candidate whom they already know (whether or not they necessarily agree with all their politics) than a new candidate. Thus, the cycle repeats, with politicians embarking on decades-long tenures within our government, clinging to their seats in power even as their age climbs and health declines.  

The underlying question when it comes to these older politicians and leaders is whether or not they can accurately represent America and the needs of its people. Can Joe Biden or Chuck Grassley represent America's needs? It is not simply a matter of being mentally and physically fit to keep up with the work required of an elected official,  but also of being able to understand the needs of a generation so far removed from their own. Biden consistently tracks a low approval rating among adults between eighteen and forty-four, with the most recent reports hovering in the 40s. However, for a moment in September, his approval rating among US adults between eighteen and forty-four jumped ten points with the announcement of his student debt relief plan, before sliding again once the Supreme Court sidelined it. While approval rating is obviously based more on a person’s politics rather than their age or demographic, the two are often correlated when it comes to an administration’s priorities. Many young voters are growing upset at the seeming lack of progress made by the Biden administration in comparison to the many promises the now-President made on the campaign trail. Much of Biden’s campaign platform was targeted toward younger generations, including environmental developments and student loan forgiveness. Many feel that Biden has not made any tangible impact in either sector, leading to widespread frustration and disapproval among voters. 

What’s more, the purpose of politicians is not just to serve as a domestic leader but as a diplomatic entity who represents American values on the international stage. It doesn’t bode well for America's reputation that our Senators are having public health scares and our President is struggling to speak coherently. Biden is much older than the average age of a global head of state, with the average falling around fifty-four in comparison to Biden’s eighty-one. While the average age of a global leader is on the decline, the ages of our presidents and politicians are only rising. Inherently, this makes us look weaker and like an easier target for other countries. Whether or not we’ll be able to maintain our superpower status with an octogenarian at the helm is a question that only time can answer. 

The topic of age in politics is heavily nuanced. Considering that any legislative action would require a majority vote in both the House and the Senate and that Congress is composed of mostly older politicians, change from the government is unlikely. Any political argument for imposing an age maximum would likely be lost on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits discrimination. Additionally, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act passed in 1967 explicitly bans age-based discrimination for people above forty years of age. Thus, not much can be done legally. Additionally, it can be a personally tricky subject for politicians. No one wants to hear that they are too old to do their job properly or to look vulnerable on the national stage. However, when your job is as high-stakes as a president or Senator, it is important that your age does not inhibit the choices you make. 

An idea popular with Americans is that of a government-imposed age limit on politicians. In a September survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 79 percent of Americans favored maximum age limits for elected officials in Washington. The results were bipartisan, with both Democrats and Republicans favoring an age limit for politicians. The U.S. Constitution mandates age minimums for Representatives, Senators, and for the President, which are twenty-five, thirty, and thirty-five, respectively. There is no mention of an age maximum anywhere within our founding documents, so setting an age limit would require a Constitutional amendment, which would be unlikely to succeed. To amend the Constitution requires majorities in both the House and the Senate, and considering the current skew of ages within our government, this vote would be unlikely to pass. American voters expressed similar concerns about the age of our President, especially considering the upcoming 2024 Presidential Elections. With the current frontrunners being incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the election of either man would make him the oldest person ever elected U.S. President. The match-up between Trump and Biden appears to be a pattern considering Americans were in the same position in 2020. This election, however, marks a new milestone in US politics and uncharted waters for American diplomacy due to its increasing ages. While 2020 already set a record, 2024 is likely going to set a new one. The Pew Research poll reflected that the majority of American voters thought it was best for a president to be in their fifties, with only 3 percent saying it is best for the president to be in their seventies or older. Biden and Trump are each either in or approaching their eighties, making them well outside the scope of age that most Americans view as desirable for a President. 

While an age limit seems to be off the table due to an unwilling Congress, the possibility of a term limit is a topic of discussion in political circles. Instead of imposing a maximum age, a term limit would set a maximum number of terms that a politician can hold office. The Twenty-Second Amendment established term limits for presidents, who can only serve for two terms. However, there are no term limits set for Senators and Representatives. Chuck Grassley won his eighth consecutive term in 2022, and Mitch McConnell is approaching his seventh term. If these terms were subject to limits, it would provide more opportunity for younger candidates to have a chance at entering the political field. 

In addition to a term limit, there need to be health and mental aptitude checks for all members of Congress, especially those who exhibit abnormal behavior like McConnell. It is imperative for the American public to know that the people governing our nation are operating at the highest level possible. It is concerning to know that someone with the power held by McConnell could be seriously unwell yet remain in office, serving our country and making decisions that impact not only our generation but the ones after us as well. Mental checks on these politicians would alleviate concerns surrounding wellness and competence, facilitating a more trusting relationship between the public and the politicians elected to govern us. 

The most effective way one can affect change starting now is by casting a vote, particularly in the primary elections. Younger candidates often drop out of the race during primaries due to a lack of funding or support. Since change is unlikely to occur within the structure of our government, the best option now is to learn who is running in your district, familiarize yourself with their policies, and vote for them from the primaries onward. Due to the status quo bias and high rate of incumbent wins, younger and newer candidates are fighting an uphill battle to win elections. In order to strengthen their odds, showing your support of their campaign through donations or votes is the best way that you can ensure younger representation within our government. 

The conversation regarding the age of American politicians is only going to intensify leading to the elections for the 2024 presidential election next November. There is no way to avoid it: Trump and Biden would both break records in terms of being the oldest President ever elected in the United States, beating the previous record set by Biden in 2020. It will doubtless be extensively discussed during the election season, but age will likely not even matter in the end. Recent polling indicates that Trump is far ahead of his fellow Republican candidates, and Biden is likely to be named the official candidate by the DNC. Should Trump be disqualified from the ballot due to his current legal troubles, it might pave the way for a very different race considering the candidates most closely trailing him in the polls are significantly younger. A race between Ron de Santis or Nikki Haley and Biden would craft a very different narrative for 2024, with candidates being at least three decades younger than Biden. In recent years, Presidents Obama and Clinton seem to be the anomalies as the average age of our President skews higher and higher. This only raises the question: why? Are younger candidates simply not running, or are their campaigns discredited too early for them to be taken seriously by the media? A Pew Research poll indicated that voters do have a preference for younger candidates when it comes to the age of the President. However, the candidates who gain national attention and eventually win the election rarely meet that preference. Joe Biden is currently marketed as essentially our only choice in terms of Democratic nominees for the 2024 presidency. The clear preference of American voters towards younger candidates and the inability of the Democratic party to procure an alternative to Biden leads me to infer that while age is important to individual voters, it does not matter to the establishment. 

We have entered into the age of the gerontocracy, where America is governed primarily by those over the age of sixty and where young voices have to fight to be heard. My generation wants to elect politicians who think and act like us and who support the causes that we value. It is nearly impossible for older politicians to truly understand the needs and demands of young Americans in this country. It places the future, again, into the hands of our generation. If we want to see ourselves reflected in our government, it is imperative that we vote for candidates who represent our generation and engage with the grassroots political movements that support them. In this way, we can build an America that is truly representative — one that represents our political beliefs and is composed of politicians who can offer fresh ideas on issues that have gone stale in the hands of our current government. It is up to us to create the government we wish to see.