this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43893 readers
683 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not just no, hell no.
People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That's bullshit; it's individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.
I used to work as a nurse's assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn't have been able to be a walmart greeter.
But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn't. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there's no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.
What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn't age, or even a given political bent, it's the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.
Now, I wouldn't object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that's going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that's a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.
But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I'm of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren't immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we're good to go as long as it passes muster legally.
Term limits have been shown to create ‘brain drain’, and ultimately what winds up happening is that that legislators must focus on career growth - either spending their time in office campaigning for the next elected position, or looking to opportunities beyond politics. It takes time and experience to become skilled in crafting bills that don’t have adverse effects and cannot be overturned or lawyered to do things they aren’t intended to do.
The net result is that it creates a slew of amateur legislators, and professional lobbyists, as legislators are forced to retire just as they become skilled at the job.
An alternative to a retirement age is mental/physical fitness reviews, but that’s also tricky. If there isn’t a defined process then unscrupulous people will just use a doctor of choice to get the results they want, but if there is a process, politicizing that process to serve one party or the other could mean using mandatory retirement to force key vacancies.
I do think that at some point we need to pry the hands of people off the levers of power, and I can’t think of a way that is as ‘non-corruptible’ as a set age limit. It would not always be personally fair, but it would probably be for the greater good.
I agree with the Idea that being in a position for too long increases the possibility of corruption. But, I'll counter with two thoughts:
1.) Shouldn't people have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them? If the people of Vermont want to keep on rejecting Bernie Sanders, why should they not be able to? (Valid counterpoint- Dianne Feinstein)
2.) This is the less trivial one - I fear that term limits would invite more corruption, as the representatives understand they only have a limited amount of time to grease as many palms and make as many connections as possible in their limited amount of time in office. We already have issues with the lame duck period, and those are currently measured in weeks. I can only imagine what I'd be like if a large portion of reps had full lame duck sessions.
There are plenty of other things we could do to limit corruption before we rule out term limits for that reason. We could also think about politicians who feel more free to "do the right thing" even when unpopular because they won't be afraid about winning the next election.
I'm honestly saddened by how far down I had to scroll to see a post that called this out as blatant agism.