The Perils of Gerontocracy

Just about a year ago, I wondered in the space if government by the elderly is a good idea and offered up a little anecdote about my Aunt Viola who didn’t think so. “She was a lifelong Republican who surprised me in 1996 when Bob Dole ran for President at the age of 73. She pronounced him too old for the job. She was then 90, and perhaps knew whereof she spoke.”

Obviously, she was on to something as the first three years in power of the oldest man ever elected president have shown. Until Trump, the oldest president was Reagan who left office at the age of 78 by which time his mental deterioration was showing. Iran-Contra anyone? Instead of a ruling class, do we really want a drooling class in charge of our destiny?

It looks like the choice in 2020 will be the incumbent, who would leave office, if re-elected, at 78. Imagine what that would look like. Alarmingly, all the leaders of the pack from the Democratic alternative would be “mature” at the end of their first term in January of 2025. Biden would be 82, Bernie 83, and Warren 75. If nothing changes, the Congress would be led by McConnell, 82, and Pelosi, 84.

Do we really want a government headed by people who came of age when Ike or JFK were in charge? The world has changed. The issues we face are those of the 21st century, requiring familiarity with the threats posed by climate change, AI, cybercrime, and dozens of other new, esoteric, and worrying developments. I suspect none of the candidates knows a damn thing about Chinese history, coding, or the consequences of melting permafrost or a shift in the gulf stream.

You might object to my concerns as ageism, but I come by it honestly. I’m now as old as the youngest of the leading contenders and I don’t really think I, or any of my peers, are up to the task. First there’s the daily firehose blast of information needed to manage the huge bureaucracy of the federal government, the need to deal with the budget, medical care, income inequality, and foreign relations in a time of shifting alliances and allegiances,

But there’s also the need to keep up with emerging technologies and diseases, unanticipated economic surprises, and new threats or opportunities impossible to anticipate. As the Red Queen told Alice, “it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” But like Trump, most of my peers and I aren’t likely to spend much of our time running at all. We are too busy watching TV, tweeting, golfing, recalling past triumphs or obsessing about past slights or missed opportunities, and trying to remember to take our pills.

Of course, one person alone can’t respond to all that lands on a president’s plate, so a chief executive has to surround himself with expert advisors. We have seen what Trump’s look like. An over-the-hill gang who can”t even manage a criminal conspiracy competently, let alone geopolitics. We know very little about who would be appointed by his foes, but we can guess they will not be what one might describe as new blood, but from the same age cohort as the candidate.

If old candidates are a worry, an even bigger problem may be old voters. A useful read by Astra Taylor, “Out with the Old, In with the New” from the New York Times, points out that voters in the forthcoming election will skew old, as the pollsters say. And more of the same is in the offing. By 2034, the electorate will be the oldest in over 50 years.

Since oldsters participate in the process at a higher rate, their clout is greater. In 2018, 64% of those 54-72 went to the polls and voted, only 31% of those under 29 did so. And those 65 and older are three times as likely to donate to a candidate as those under thirty. Since both votes and money talk, the old are more likely to get what they want from government. It is also worth noting that 80% of people over 65 are white, as opposed to 51% of those ages 6 to 21. No wonder the government is unrepresentative of the population.

Age obviously tends to dictate one’s position on various issues. Those under 50 say they are in favor of the following policies — automatic voter registration, free college tuition, universal savings accounts, fees on greenhouse gas emissions, medicare expansion to more people. Those over fifty say –no,no,no,no,no.

Even more tellingly, when asked to agree or disagree with the statement–“the system is stacked against people like me — those under 64 said yes. Those 65 and older said no. They’re both right, it is. But that just proves the way the system is arranged is wrong. Need more proof? Trump won voters over 50 in 2016 and lost those under 50. He won those over 65 by his largest margin — 53% to 45%. Be afraid, be very afraid.