Blog

Is there an age when politicians should leave public office? Looking at age, national leaders are out of sync with the people they represent.

The median age in the U.S is 39 years. The median age of members in the U.S. House of Representatives is 58. Sixty-one representatives are 70 to 79 years old, and 11 are 80 years old or older.

The median age in the Senate is 65. Thirty senators are between 70 and 79, and four are 80 and older.

Somehow, these retirement eligible politicians are supposed to be able to relate to the needs of much younger Americans. Think about it, a 70 year-old politician is years beyond raising young children, buying that first house, dealing with childcare and the like.

Advanced age in office usually coincides with being in office far too long. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been a senator for 48 years, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been in the house for 36 years. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have both served in the house for over 40 years. Do these people even remember what it’s like to go to the grocery store?

Political life in Washington, D.C., means pushing press releases, drumming up money for the next election, seeking coveted committee assignments, and burnishing a political image. As time in office continues, office holders become insulated, and constituents back home take a back seat—except to the extent that some constituent attention is necessary to stay in office.

Office holders get seduced by power and focus on staying in office. They learn how to raise money and develop relationships with powerful interests that help keep them in office and become political juggernauts. Removing them from office becomes nearly impossible.

Think of all the interviews you’ve seen of politicians. Do you think they’re working for the good of America, or are they working to promote some personal agenda, like support from PACs or an uptick in notoriety?

Controlling the beast of politics means imposing terms limits and precluding politicians from staying in office beyond the point where they forget why they got elected.

And there’s another benefit to term limits. It will force the parties to pay attention to developing the next generation of leaders. It’s not as if people like Grassley or Pelosi are indispensable. They’re not indispensable, but they are untouchable.

The military has the right idea. Military members generally serve in a post for about three years. Sure, the military and Congress are vastly different in structure, but the constant turnover in positions in the military means no one is allowed to get too comfortable with a billet. Change is constant.

No matter how well you perform, you move on to the next assignment. Assuming standards are met, everyone gets a chance for promotion and bigger opportunities. And, of course, poor performers don’t get command opportunities.

As highly regarded as Colin Powell was, he served as chairman of the Joints Chief of Staffs for four years. You didn’t hear him say, “Did quite the fine job, didn’t I, handling Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in the Gulf War? I think I should be chairman for another four years.”

For Congress, a 10 to 15 year limit might be right. We don’t need to set an age limit because few politicians take office late in life. The geriatric crowd in Congress all got started when they were young.

Bring in fresh views and new energy. Make way for the next generation. Focus on keeping the system vibrant, because, just like a loaf of bread, politicians get stale with time.

But the reality is, the system will likely never change because the those in charge are concerned only about themselves, and they like things just the way they are.

[This post was published as an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch on September 17, 2023.]

__________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

_______________________________________________________