It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.