Summary
Rep. Annie Kuster, a 68-year-old Democrat from New Hampshire, retiring after 12 years in Congress, cites a desire to “set a better example” and create space for younger leaders.
Her decision comes amid growing public concern about aging politicians, with about a quarter of lawmakers over 70. Kuster’s successor will be Maggie Goodlander, 38.
Democrats are increasingly elevating younger leaders following setbacks in 2024, which some attribute to the perception of aging leadership, including President Biden’s controversial reelection bid.
Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.
Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.
They are our fucking employees. We should be able to choose the terms of their employment. Seems like a pretty fundamental tenant of a fucking democracy to me.
We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.
Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery…I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.
What moral quandary? No one but pedophiles complains about the fact that age minimums for certain activities exist. Cognitive function is a bell curve and old people are on the back end of it. That’s just a fact of life. What is controversial about it?
Well, with age also comes wisdom, so forcing people out when they might be hitting a stride is rather immoral (and foolish) if you ask me.
It’d be one thing if we were to start applying cognitive tests beyond a certain age…I’d hate to lose the likes of Bernie just based on a number. If someone is sharp and able-bodied well into their nineties or even later, what is the point in pushing them out?
But again, as I say, even this line of reasoning is rather static and fixed in time. This kind of discussion may age very badly if/when age extension/age reversal comes online, and I don’t want us setting something up that will likely come off extremely anachronistic just based on one of the last remaining prejudices that, at this point in time, is still permissible and even fashionable in polite company - and that is ageism. The rules of government are rather famous for not keeping up with the times and it seems foolhardy to try to put something into place that may very quickly become ridiculous.
We most often don’t choose the person either. The parties usually decide for us who is even allowed to run.
They are our fucking employees.
Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.
We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.
There’s no such thing as a “national referendum”, legally speaking. We don’t vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.
Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?
The problem is people like, “their,” geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he’ll be seeking reelection in two years when he’ll be 80. Even though I think he’s been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I’m probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn’t choose to step down.
How would it be age discrimination? There are plenty of fields where you are no longer able to work at a certain age such as being a pilot or air traffic control. If we can’t trust a 70 year old pilot to fly a couple hundred people then why the hell can we trust a 70 year old politican to steer the entire country with policy?
There is no age limit for pilots. As long as you pass the health checks you can keep flying.
Flying a plane just isn’t analogous to being a politician though.
As in, if a politician has a heart attack or stroke it doesn’t put hundreds of lives at a grave and imminent risk.
Oh great, now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example” while their doddering GOP counterparts will lurch around until their 90s with, staffers following them around with portable defibrillators so if they die in hallway somewhere they can be revived before the next vote.
So?
It’s a lot harder for their voters to excuse it when only one party does it. Which hurts them in elections.
And that’s not even getting into how those geriatric politicians are a disadvantage. They have to be physically present to vote. And the majority leader could actually try to do something every day.
Eventually enough would be missing that things could be accomplished.
There’s literally nothing stopping us from trying except the lack of effort from our politicians, so let’s get better ones and let the Republicans keep their ineffectual ones.
What’s the problem?
She’s set to be replaced by Maggie Goodlander, a 38-year-old Democrat who most recently worked in the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden.
I don’t really see any issue here.
It’s better than it sounds, she announced it like 9 months ago so there was a primary for the seat.
The article is paywalled but it makes it sound like she ran in 2024 and now someone is just getting the seat, which would have been bullshit.
There’s not really any issues at all here, and I can usually always find something to complain about.
The problem is that committee assignments are based on seniority, so if only one party has its long-serving Congresspeople step down, it cedes power to the other.
In other words, similar to how first-past-the-post elections lead to the two-party system, seniority rules leading to gerontocracy is a structural issue, not merely bad/incorrect/self-serving behavior on the part of individual politicians.
Edit: I’m not wrong, at least not completely. My argument just applies to the Senate, rather than all of Congress.
The problem is that committee assignments are based on seniority, so if only one party has its long-serving Congresspeople step down, it cedes power to the other.
Did you not hear about AOC losing the vote to head the oversight committee?
And that’s not getting into when seniority is important, it’s within the same party…
Quick edit:
Weird I just noticed both comments were yours.
You can only reply to me once and just wait a couple minutes for a reply, there’s no need to start the same conversation multiple times. It’s rather annoying to most people in fact
It also might be that people in other professions would work longer if the structural issue of ageism was not so predominant there…about the only profession in the private sector where I see people doing it long past the average is doctors, but maybe that’s because they still have some labor protections as a profession, I don’t know…
If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.
now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example”
Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.
If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you’ve got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there’s a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.
Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.
Reached for comment, Nancy Pelosi said “what an idiot, these are her prime grifting years!”
Time to elect a 72 year old replacement!
The summary of this article is misleading, and I hit a paywall before being able to read the whole article.
She announced her retirement back in March 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/27/annie-kuster-retiring-house/ and did not run in the 2024 election.
This specific announcement is that one of the reasons is she is retiring is to allow younger folks a chance to lead.
