As the nation prepares for yet another presidential election matchup between Donald Trump and Joe Biden–a scenario where the two oldest presidents ever elected to first terms face off against each other again–it's hard not to notice that the average age of our candidates seems to be creeping higher and higher. That President Biden and former President Trump are both well into their early eighties and late seventies, respectively, begs the question: are we stuck with old geezers as the only viable options for leading the free world?
In a country that prides itself on its capacity to set a global example of progress and innovation, it's perplexing to see the top contenders for the presidency skew towards the older end of the spectrum. How did we find ourselves in a situation where age seems to be a prerequisite for the highest office in the land? Does there come a point when older doesn’t really mean wiser?
One factor to consider in this age increase of presidential candidates is the incentive structure inherent in politics. Politicians often find that power and influence grow proportionally with their tenure in office. The longer they serve, the more entrenched they become within the political landscape, accumulating seniority, and accruing greater sway over legislative decisions. This accumulation of power can serve as a compelling reason for some politicians to remain in office well into their golden years. Additionally, the absence of term limits for Congressional positions further fuels this trend, enabling incumbents to maintain their seats for extended periods without facing the pressure of turnover. This combination of increased influence, lack of term limits, and the potential for long-term stability within the political arena creates a powerful incentive for politicians to prolong their tenure in office.
Nevertheless, this reasoning doesn’t apply to outliers like Trump, who entered the political arena from an unorthodox background. Despite lacking political experience, Trump's candidacy marked a departure from traditional qualifications for the presidency, challenging the notion that political experience is indispensable. His success demonstrated that qualities such as authenticity and anti-establishment rhetoric can resonate with voters. Trump's outsider status appealed to those disillusioned with career politicians, indicating a shift in public perception about the qualifications for office. Still, why don’t voters opt for younger options with the same appeal–like Vivek Ramaswamey?
Recent polling data suggests that public approval ratings for both Trump and Biden are heavily influenced by party affiliation, with only little correlation to age. However, as Gen Z emerges as a politically engaged generation, their views on age and representation may play a significant role in shaping future elections.
Data suggests that a majority of U.S. adults perceive both Biden and Trump as too old for another term [1]. Despite concerns about their age, however, both Biden and Trump remain among the most electable options, as evidenced by their previous electoral successes and continued relevance in political discourse. This suggests a complex dynamic within the U.S. electorate, where voters may prioritize other qualities or policy positions over age–though it is clearly a widespread concern–when making their electoral decisions. The fact that two candidates perceived as too old by a majority of the population still emerge as viable contenders highlights shortcomings or limitations within the electoral system itself. It feels as if the main considering factors in elections are age, name recognition, party affiliation, and campaign strategies. To what extent does the electoral process truly reflect the diverse perspectives and priorities of the American populace?
Looking ahead, the implications of having older candidates on the ballot extend beyond mere numbers. If there's a perceived lack of representation for younger demographics, voter turnout, particularly among these groups, may suffer. Additionally, concerns about the competency of older presidents to effectively address the challenges of a rapidly changing world are becoming increasingly prevalent. As citizens, we must ask ourselves: do we deserve better than a choice between septuagenarians?
In a world that champions diversity and inclusion, it's crucial to rethink our criteria for selecting presidential candidates. While experience and wisdom are undeniably important, I firmly believe they shouldn't automatically equate to older age. As we look to the future, it's essential that we strive for a democracy that truly represents the diversity and more importantly desires of our population, while also ensuring that our leaders possess the skills and competence needed to address the challenges of our rapidly evolving world.
