The Vitality That’s Been Missing in Washington

By Darrell Berkheimer, As published in The Union

The explosion of support and cash contributions that erupted with President Joe Biden’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president is an excellent example of the vitality that’s been missing in our federal government.

It’s an example of the excitement raised over the potential for more and better political actions – sooner – that can result when aging leaders provide paths for youthful exuberance to participate in governing.

By now, most folks are aware of how – in less than 48 hours – Harris received more than $100 million from small contributors, plus the nearly 2,000 delegate endorsements needed to assure her nomination for President.

Much of that $100 million in contributions resulted from a massive phone calling initiated by young black women. And 60 percent were reported to be first-time contributors.

Then wealthy donors added another $150 million by the next day.

So it’s time to be quite blunt. Our nation has been operating with too many geezers controlling the three branches of our federal government.

In a July 14 guest essay for The New York Times, Yale professor Samuel Moyn wrote that America’s gerontocracy problem goes far beyond the president. He reported our “senioritis” is “remarkably unrepresentative” of the “more than 50 percent of Americans under 35 years of age, the cutoff to be president.”

He noted nearly a quarter of Congress members are 70 or older, with 21 over 80. And he added that our Supreme Court justices, appointed for life, last into their 80s; and that “at least five federal judges have passed 100 years of age on the bench.”

So gerontocracy problems have joined with plutocracy troubles as codgers and the wealthy continue to dominate our federal government actions – or, entirely too often, lack of action.

Yes, age brings a slow deliberation to the resolving of problems. Only such action has been overly-deliberate and too slow, as actions come long after they’re needed, compounding the problems. (The lack of appropriate immigration actions is a most appropriate example.)

Meanwhile, our younger voters are becoming more engaged and caring about what’s been happening in our nation. That was the subject of my commentary published this past December, when I noted the percentage of younger voters casting ballots has been climbing – because they care about social justice issues such as gun controls, climate change and especially personal freedoms, including abortion, racial and LGBTQ+ rights.

Historically, our youngest voters – aged 18 to 29 – cast ballots at rates as low as 15 to 25% – especially in midterm elections. Then they voted a record 31% in 2018 midterm balloting; and more than 50% in the 2020 presidential election. After that, a survey last November revealed 57% between ages 18 and 34 plan to vote this November.

But if we expect young voters to continue to be more active participants in our democratic republic, we need to provide candidates and issues with which they can identify. And let’s be honest, how many 20- and 25-year-olds identify with the views and priorities of 70- and 75-year-olds?

I believe most folks agree that it’s important to make space for youthful ideas to participate in our nation’s deliberations and decisions. But if we are to make space for younger participants from our nation’s 333 million population, we need to enact age limits, term limits and Supreme Court reforms.

Setting a limit of six terms in the House would total 12 years; and a limit of three terms in the Senate would add another 18 years. They would provide for a potential 30 years in Congress.

Won’t that offer more than enough experience and stability for those seeking to make federal government their careers? They simply need to maintain the support of their electorate.

And aren’t age limits of 70 for congressional candidates and 75 for presidential candidates quite reasonable? With such limits, a senator could serve until age 76, and a president until 79.

At the same time, to attract more budding young talent, we must put an end to party retribution against those who assist candidates challenging incumbents.

And finally, both gerontocracy and corruption issues involving Supreme Court justices could be resolved by enacting two reforms already proposed, but lying dormant, in congress. The one would enact an ethics code for the high court; and the other would establish 18-year terms with two new justices appointed during each four-year presidential term.

These are the changes needed because, as professor Moyn warns: “a social form of sclerosis will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.”