In my world, the terms AIF, POA, and the like are pretty common. Many of us have filled these roles. Essentially, these represent a legal right to allow someone else to act in your place when you can't.
Back in the 40's, I don't think anyone really knew to what extent Eleanor acted on behalf of Franklin in running the government. I've heard some things since that indicate that it was significant. Back in the 80's everyone from political foes to rock bands loved to portray Reagan as a doddering old fool with Nancy's hands on the puppet strings.
Cue to 2023. We've got 80 year old guys as the front runners for the presidency, McConnell apparently blacking out during a presser, Biden mumbling and stumbling across the media, and Feinstein having to be told how to vote. Oh, and Feinstein just gave her daughter POA over her personal life. But they'll just keep wheeling her emaciated, corpse like, body around the capitol as long as they can. Seriously, in what world is Feinstein's personal financial life more valuable than legislating?
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be a no brainer that there should be an age limit on federal officeholders. Hell, if nothing else it would get some new blood into the system on a regular basis and break the incumbency stranglehold. Not to mention save us from Biden insulting a foreign dignitary because he pronounces their name "Bushwalantonenineno" or whatever gibberish he spews at any given moment.
I know that the MAGA types will say, "But Trump...". To which I say, we've never let an exception define the rule.
I'll say that, while our founders were incredibly wise and established as system that covered almost all possibilities, I suspect that they'd be appalled at these 80 year old dudes who've been sucking at the public teat for their entire adult lives, and getting rich doing so.
29 comments:
First, are you confusing Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, or is Pelosi now as deteriorated as Feinstein is?
Second, I insist it isn't a matter of age, nor is advanced age any more a detriment than the wholesale lack of wisdom inherent in so many regardless of their age.
Third, "incumbency strangleholds" are the result of voter apathy, which I'm confident the founding fathers would find far more appalling than graft. In the system they established, we're governed entirely by ourselves and no grifter of any age can exist in government without our consent.
If I am convinced that 200 year old dude is the best candidate for the job, it's his track record, policy proposals and current performance one needs to address in order to disabuse me of the notion. AOC's on the other end of the age spectrum. Can you truly say she's a better choice than Biden, McConnell or Feinstein?
I'm not sure if it can be legally/constitutionally done, but I agree. Period.
If it can't be a law, then out of respect to our elders and our system, let the two parties have it as a policy amongst themselves that they strictly follow.
Dan
Art,
You are correct, and I made the change. They're pretty much interchangeable, but I should have proofed better.
While it might not strictly be a matter of age, age is the most reasonable way to make a determination. The reality is that an 80 year old might appear to be perfectly fine, and in full blown Alzheimer's 12 months later. Further, I'd argue that the benefits of incumbency have prevented untold numbers of good candidates from entering let alone winning races against these doddering idiots. It's impossible to know how much damage is caused by these people continuing to grasp for power, instead of grooming and passing the torch to the next generation. We're at the point now that a "young" replacement for McConnell is likely to be in their mid to late 60s. Age doesn't always equal wisdom. I've seen plenty of institutions destroyed or damaged because old leaders wouldn't give up power because "That's the way it's done.". The current crop of geriatrics have left us in a pretty shitty place as a nation. I'm fine with trying some new faces, and new people.
There might be some Truth to that, but gerrymandering, fundraising, quid pro quo, news time, an plenty of other benefits accrue to being an incumbent.
The problem with your last, is that it assumes that all of the young are as vapid and without substance as AOC or Omar. I'd argue that one reason why the best and the brightest don't go into politics starts with this nursing home we pass off as a government. Hell, Rand Paul is head and shoulders above any of the current crop of candidates, but I wouldn't vote for him because of his age.
Dan,
Interesting. I guess we'll see how serious you are of Biden gets the nom.
I guess we'll see how serious you are of Biden gets the nom.
Well, it's not the law right now and as it is, we have one completely mad, irrational GOP 80 year old versus an aging but relatively healthy Democrat over 80. I would support a law - if it were constitutional - to cut the age limit off at 80 (or some age... whatever it is, it would be random, mostly). But if it's legal for the mad man and the aging man to run and those are the options, there is no real option, is there?
The reality is that an 80 year old might appear to be perfectly fine, and in full blown Alzheimer's 12 months later. Further, I'd argue that the benefits of incumbency have prevented untold numbers of good candidates from entering let alone winning races against these doddering idiots.
I disagree with calling people like my parents in their final stages "doddering idiots" (both of who had age-related dementia, and my mother is still with us). I think such language is disrespectful of our elders. But I agree with the reality of the point. Some 80 year olds - maybe even most - will still be fine mentally at 85 and 90, BUT the odds are greatly against it. AND we don't know which ones will be the unfortunate ones and we can't know until such time as symptoms progress far enough.
When my mother, in her 80s, was serving on a neighborhood board and we kept hearing reports about how mean they were being to her and how irrational they were being in what they expected of her... we wanted to defend our mother. But after the fact, we realized that the Alzheimers had limited her ability to successfully serve on the board in the role she had. IF we had known (and no one at this point knows until a hindsight moment, typically), the kind thing would have been to let her retire graciously from that role to some other helpful post, but nothing requiring skills beyond her ability at that stage in her Alzheimers.
Same for presidents. Clearly, Trump's mentally compromised and has been for some time. It's obvious to anyone with any mental health training and experience. But Biden may or may not be fine. He may or may not be slipping into a stage where he's no longer capable of doing the job (he's doing pretty well so far, but we just don't know when the aging or dementia is taking too much of a toll - NOT that he has dementia). It's the not knowing.
And yes, of course, there is early onset dementia that happens (again, it's happened in my family, I know of this first hand). But the odds of a 50 or 60 year old entering dementia of some form is much less than an 80 year old. I haven't studied enough to know that to be a fact, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
So, again, I agree. We SHOULD have age limits at the top, just like we do at the bottom (36). It seems like if we can limit it at the bottom age range, we could do it at the top, but I don't know the legalities of it. But again, IF it were constitutional and legal, I'd support such a policy.
I'd support a policy requiring some sort of mental fitness check, if such a thing were possible (clearly, Trump would not pass - he is obviously some form of malignant narcissist or sociopath). I just don't know that it's possible.
And AGAIN, this is coming from someone who loves and advocates for our elders and those with disabilities. It's not about penalizing those with disabilities, it's about recognizing limitations. Same as with the bottom age limit, to me.
I think you and I are in complete agreement on this, minus your harsh words about the elderly/those experiencing/on the path to dementia ("doddering idiots...").
Rand Paul is head and shoulders above any of the current crop of candidates, but I wouldn't vote for him because of his age.
1. He is a doddering idiot and privileged dope.
2. His age? 60? Do you mean RON Paul?
As I suspect, according to Alzheimers Society:
For people aged between 65 and 69, around 2 in every 100 people have dementia. A person's risk then increases as they age, roughly doubling every five years.
This means that, of those aged over 90, around
33 in every 100 people have dementia.
And another source...
As in other studies, the ADAMS analysis showed that the prevalence of dementia increases significantly with age.
Five percent of people ages 71 to 79,
24.2 percent of people 80 to 89, and
37.4 percent of those 90 years or older
were estimated to have some type of dementia.
One in four or one third is NOT an insignificant number.
WTF????
Rand Paul is only 60!!! Despite his libertarian leanings, he remains among the most astute and intelligent in the Senate!! He could easily go another twenty years making American Great Again!!!
You make too much of age while I insist that the problem is us, the voters. Until we can get morons to stop voting, other morons to step up and vote and altogether get everyone we know to remain engaged in between elections and constantly let our reps know we're paying attention, we will never become what YOU believe electing younger people will bring about. Age is NOT the issue. Competence is. Good ideas and the courage to push them is. Remaining true to the Constitution they swear to uphold is. Remaining true to the truth that they exist to serve US is.
I don't give a flying rat's ass how long somebody serves. I care that such a person is actually serving.
There are only two ways to ensure the best is elected:
1. Constantly monitor both those now in office and those who seek to replace them and vet them on the basis of what matters to you most. (From there, pester the crap out of your apathetic friends to support them on the basis of your deeper knowledge of such things)
2. Stop the left from cheating. Democratic election fraud is rampant and will continue to be so until we put the fear of God in those tasked with making sure it doesn't exist. Demand your secretary of state explains in detail what he intends to do to ensure election integrity. Demand from state and federal reps the same dedication.
With the above satisfied, one could vote for a person 400 years old knowing our best interests will be served. With the above satisfied, no Joe Biden nor any AOC will ever hold public office.
There will always be the Dan Trabues of the world ensuring our own destruction. We just need to stop his kind from cheating or getting traction among everyone else.
Art,
Sorry for my mistake, I meant Ron Paul.
I guess we see how committed Dan is to principle.
No one called your parents anything. My literal point is that this would have to be age based because otherwise we'd be overrun with people claiming that they are the exception. While basing this on age might exclude a few people who aren't doddering idiots, that's a price worth paying to get past this geriatric gridlock.
Dan,
Yes, I meant Ron Paul. Just because you disagree with either Paul doesn't mean that they are idiots. Rand is an MD, which makes him infinitely more expert on medical topics that you.
Dan,
I'm not sure what the point of your Alzheimer's statistics is, but if anything they would seem to support a lower age limit than I probably would have proposed.
Of course Alzheimer's in only one of the age related conditions that would limit people's abilities to govern. Obviously the honorable senator from PA, is a great example of someone who should not be a senator due to his mental condition. But y'all ran him anyway.
I'm not sure what the point of your Alzheimer's statistics is
My point is to add some evidence-based reasoning to the case of having an upper cut off in terms of age, as well as a lower cut off. And you're right, the various dementias are only one of the concerns to watch for. There are mental health concerns, as well, for instance.
But given a real history of denying of liberties to those with mental health and physical health concerns, I'd be even more cautious there than in the case of aging-related disabilities.
In general, in our history, anyone with over-the-top reality deficits would just not make it into our election system, just because the voting public would recognize significant impairments. That hasn't happened with Trump and his base. If anything, the more out-of-touch-with-reality he acts, the more he is embraced by his base.
We have a voting base problem, to be sure.
Nonetheless, IF it were Constitutionally possible, I'm agreeing with you that we should set policies on upper age limits for holding office.
Dan proves age is not the factor one might try to make it. He continues to believe Trump is somehow incompetent. If that's in anyway true, what does that make Obama who never came close to doing the good job Trump did?
Dan also proves that the problem is the voter...more specifically voters like Dan. Things like age and term limits can't overcome stupid and/or morally bankrupt voters like Dan.
McConnell's as scheming and treacherous as most Dems of any age. He's now provided a case against his competency due to age related causes (most likely), but still I'd take him if I had to choose between him and most any other Democrat of any age. (Talk about a low bar!!)
That said, McConnell should be replaced for reasons far more important than his age. He knows how to play the game and could still serve as a guide, with more moral people rejecting his less moral guidance.
"We have a voting base problem, to be sure."
1. Your insinuation that this "voting base problem" is primarily a GOP problem is hilarious. Biden, Fetterman, Pelosi, and Feinstein are just a few examples of this on the DFL side.
2. We also have a demonization of our political enemies problem. When I look at how the left attacked the GOP nominees who were much less extreme than Trump which allowed Trump to gain traction by fighting back, I can't help but conclude that those on the left played a role in saddling us with Trump.
3. Given the reality that the DFL primary process has been quite explicit in favoring certain candidates and excluding others (look at how Kennedy is being treated), it's not unreasonable to say it's more a party problem, than a base problem.
Given that the constitution sets lower age limits for office, I see no reason why setting an upper age limit would be problematic.
1. Your insinuation that this "voting base problem" is primarily a GOP problem is hilarious. Biden, Fetterman, Pelosi, and Feinstein are just a few examples of this on the DFL side.
I don't know how to get this across to the modern MAGA types and their defenders (ie, you): Trump is unique in the history of US presidents in his ineptitude, his corruption, his vulgarity, his contempt for a free Republic and the ways of a free Republic. His sociopathic disregard for truth, facts and honor are unique in US history.
I strongly disagreed with Reagan/Bush/Bush, but they were clearly all decent men with sometimes very bad policies. Trump is not a good man. He is a uniquely bad man as far as our presidents go. And the problem then, is not with Trump, the very bad, very stupid, very vulgar narcissist. The problem is uniquely with the modern MAGA movement (and their defenders). In the past, conservatives would never have voted for Trump, he was clearly unqualified in multiple ways. My conservative parents would never have voted for him. Young conservative Dan would never have voted for him.
The modern GOP (which is wholly owned by MAGA types) has reached a point where they irrationally believe in conspiracy theories and that fellow citizens who are more progressive than them are not just advocating policies they disagree with, but they are evil, they are the enemy of the state, they are monsters.
THIS is a problem.
1. Your insinuation that this "voting base problem" is primarily a GOP problem is hilarious. Biden, Fetterman, Pelosi, and Feinstein are just a few examples of this on the DFL side.
And thus, when you compare Trump and his MAGA base with the good people who vote Democrat (and they are, of course, good people) and the Biden, Fetterman, Pelosi, Feinsteins who are good, older people, you are comparing apples and rotten oranges. The GOP has a problem with their base.
And to be clear, they are no doubt good people, too. BUT, they're willing to vote for an historically inept, corrupt, dishonest narcissist/pervert because THEY have convinced themselves that WE are monsters of some sort, godless perverts who wish to destroy the US and THAT is the problem.
Those on the left, and weak Uniparty RINOs on the right didn't "saddle" us with Trump. They created an environment in which we could be blessed by Trump. Of course I don't refer to his style or manner, but the consequence of his presidency being an America Made Greater than it had been in many decades, even accounting for its imperfections given more importance than they deserve by all who desire he fail in his bid for re-election.
One other thing: there's a huge difference between denying the young who are rightly regarded as being lacking in the necessary wisdom due to their youth, versus denying the elderly due to potentially losing their cognitive abilities. There's already a Constitutional remedy for that. I can't more forcefully reiterate how serious an indictment of our national character to abdicate civic responsibility to laws making decisions we're obligated to make. Such laws make it less of a government by the consent of the governed. I very much prefer shaming our friends and family to get off their dead asses, extract their heads from them and due their duty.
'I don't know how to get this across to the modern MAGA types and their defenders (ie, you): Trump is unique in the history of US presidents in his ineptitude, his corruption, his vulgarity, his contempt for a free Republic and the ways of a free Republic. His sociopathic disregard for truth, facts and honor are unique in US history."
So. How is that an excuse for the DFL electing someone who is clearly medically unfit to be a senator, or to continue trotting out this collection of old, corrupt, leaders.
"I strongly disagreed with Reagan/Bush/Bush, but they were clearly all decent men with sometimes very bad policies. Trump is not a good man. He is a uniquely bad man as far as our presidents go. And the problem then, is not with Trump, the very bad, very stupid, very vulgar narcissist. The problem is uniquely with the modern MAGA movement (and their defenders). In the past, conservatives would never have voted for Trump, he was clearly unqualified in multiple ways. My conservative parents would never have voted for him. Young conservative Dan would never have voted for him."
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Off topic repetitive, and pointless.
"The modern GOP (which is wholly owned by MAGA types) has reached a point where they irrationally believe in conspiracy theories and that fellow citizens who are more progressive than them are not just advocating policies they disagree with, but they are evil, they are the enemy of the state, they are monsters. THIS is a problem."
Then let's take these "evil, enemies of the state, monsters" out and get rid of them by any means necessary. hell, why not just kill 'em all?
Paranoid much?
This fantasy world where Fetterman, Pelosi, and Feinstein are "good people" is simply absurd. Fetterman is a dupe pushed through the campaign process so he would serve as a rubber stamp for DFL interests in the senate. Pelosi and Feinstein are two of the most venal, corrupt politicians of recent memory.
Truman was right when he said "Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.”.
Yet somehow Truman's own beloved democrat party has become a haven for politicians who managed to get rich from their office. But, it's a GOP based problem exclusively.
Art,
I have to say that I'm baffled by what appears to by your argument that age always equals wisdom, and that youth always equals foolishness. It is absolutely absurd that McConnell, Feinstein, Fetterman, Pelosi, and the like are still in public office.
If one was to take your pro Trump arguments (and your dismissal of his baggage), one could conclude that you would advocate making him president for life and throwing away the current two term limit.
"I have to say that I'm baffled by what appears to by your argument that age always equals wisdom, and that youth always equals foolishness."
I'm baffled that my position would appear that way to you. My position is a generality, which means it's generally true that with age comes wisdom. The founders enacted an age requirement because the general rule was accepted as true back then, too. It doesn't mean every kid is a moron, or every geriatric isn't. Look at Dan. He's been a moron his whole life and it ain't getting better as he ages. But he's not typical.
"It is absolutely absurd that McConnell, Feinstein, Fetterman, Pelosi, and the like are still in public office."
I agree, but their ages are not the main reason. The three Dems cited were always unworthy. Mitch likely was as well, but I don't know much of his early years in public service to know for sure. His antics in office in more recent years had nothing to do with his age, but how he abused the experience he developed by his time in politics.
"If one was to take your pro Trump arguments (and your dismissal of his baggage), one could conclude that you would advocate making him president for life and throwing away the current two term limit."
Well, Craig...given how insulting it is for you to say so, that would be a f**king stupid conclusion, given I do not nor never have dismissed his baggage. I simply don't put unreasonable emphasis on it while ignoring his good points. But given I am opposed to the principle of term limits, while not ignoring the stupidity, apathy and corrupt hearts of many Americans, I regard the presidential term limit as ill-advised. It came about because of the aforementioned low character Americans who continually supported the marxist FDR. It was enacted because the GOP failed to put up someone better or failed to effectively promote someone who was better.
Oh...I forgot to finish as I intended:
I have no problem reelecting effective presidents or representatives for life. The notion that we are not best served by the best people, and good people need to step aside for "new blood" on some wild notion that "new blood" means improvement "just because" is what's truly absurd. If you oppose my constant support for anyone...be it Trump or whomever...vote for someone else and campaign for that purpose.
Art,
My problem with your presidents for life solution, is that I've seen what happens on smaller scales when older generations refuse to relinquish control to younger generations. In my experience, the biggest problem is that it diminishes the number of younger people who are interested in taking those roles because they quickly learn that they are not welcome.
The longer the uniparty continues to protect and prioritize keeping old people in power, the less likely it is that we will see qualified people of younger generations willing to step up. It's also likely that those younger folks who do show interest will be attracted by the promise of a lifetime of gorging at the public trough, and by the promise of easy money.
Sorry, it's time to clean house. Starting with the ancient ones.
The problem with invoking the founders on this topic is that it's impossible to believe that they would have approved of this bunch of geriatric fools we currently have in congress and the White House. First they'd be appalled at the notion of a professional political class who've managed to parlay public "service" into multi millionaire status. Second, they'd be shocked at the low quality of our public "servants".
"My problem with your presidents for life solution, is that I've seen what happens on smaller scales when older generations refuse to relinquish control to younger generations."
There's no one in our system of government who can cling to power without the consent of the people. Thus, there's no worries about anybody refusing to relinquish power. It's not up to the person in power, but to the people who continue to keep them there with their intelligence deprived votes. The only result of term limits is that the same morons elect another jerk just very similar to the one termed out. That's how we get a Pelosi, McConnell, Biden. It's because of morons.
You want to clean house? Vote. Get others to vote. Get others to vote the way you believe is best. I might disagree and believe the old goat is still the best choice because of his excellent track record. That matters far, far more than any "gorging" he might have done along the way. That's not to say I'm good with enriching one's self through unethical liberties of the office, but that how we the people benefit by a politician's good work is what matters most, by a universe size wide margin!
Clearly, if the old goat ain't performing, then each of us has the obligation to proclaim his degraded abilities to everyone we know with a sound and articulate argument in favor of the goat's replacement...should there be one seeking the job.
So sorry, it's time to cut the crap and deny laws which deny us our ability to choose our reps.
"The problem with invoking the founders on this topic is that it's impossible to believe that they would have approved of this bunch of geriatric fools..."
This is akin to the whine against the 2nd Amendment. The founders weren't fools. The system they installed was focused on the consent of the people, not to inhibit it with laws. But believe me, I've no doubt they'd be aghast at today's crop of politicians, except that they often had battles between themselves, too, with the same shock at their opponents. The adage, "there's nothing new under the sun" comes to mind.
I agree that voting is the best answer. But as long as a significant incumbency advantage exists, and the current primary/caucus system is in place it remains incredibly difficult for anyone running against an incumbent.
Further, if we're going to appeal to the founders then let's be honest and acknowledge that they'd be appalled at the existence of this professional political class, who've all managed to turn their offices into riches. But hey, if you want to support these geriatric, bumbling idiots shouldn't be removed, then that's cool with me.
I'm with Truman on this.
But as long as a significant incumbency advantage exists, and the current primary/caucus system is in place it remains incredibly difficult for anyone running against an incumbent.
That is PRECISELY the point. Amen and I agree.
Post a Comment