I’m not saying “you have to be truly old to be seemingly electable”. I’m merely saying that there are other candidates who do not receive that level of scrutiny over their ages (just look at the current president).
I don’t agree that it is a serious democratic problem (I presume you mean it as a problem for democracy). Rather, if they aren’t permitted to run, then it is a democratic problem. If the only viable candidates are that old, it’s not a problem for democracy per se but just a longer-term leadership renewal problem.
Or to put it differently, signing a 36-year-old James Milner isn’t a problem, it’s having only him as a viable signing that’s a problem.
Importantly, Biden is now the third president, at least, of the last century who has either by age or illness not been entirely in control of their own presidency. The previous 2 are both revered and among the nation’s most consequential presidents but have now had extensive reporting on how propped up they needed to be. It was not quite the same thing, but JFK’s Addison’s issues are in a similar bucket, although he at least remained in control of his own white house.
Yet here we are again. A president whose age was a known issue for such a demanding job and while the press was very interested in covering the output and perception of the public, maybe didnt do what it should have done to dig into these inner workings of the white house to find out who Biden’s Elenaor Roosevelt was because while they like to pretend they hold politicians to account in reality they are too deferential. So I think if the press are looking for a story here it is maybe this - a big part of our problem is the Kingly like positioning the press and our establishment give to someone who is essentially just a public servant
I find it one of the biggest problems politically with the US. Age. Supreme Court, for life. They sit there until they rot or die.
US presidents, old men in clear decline are electable, instead of men or women in their 50s or 60s and in their intellectual prime.
Of course they should be technically permitted to run, but that they are electable is a massive sociopolitical problem. Then there are individual exceptions, individual specific people who are well fit intellectually when they are 70+, but that’s hardly the norm in life. Many people are absolutely fit at 75 in bursts. But when you are a leader of state, you have to be intellectually sharp 24/7, and serious doubt then regarding age.
And in my article that I posted above, Feinstein, unfit beyond decline, is allowed by the party to cling on until she dies; frankly beyond disgraceful. It is obscene and a very significant democratic problem.
Often, the same “Bad Hombres” Trump talks about. They just assumed there was an understanding they were accepted as “white”. Racism in hispanic communities is incredibly confusing and counter intuitive. I mean, it seems absurd the head of one of the country’s most important white supremacy group could be called Enriqe, but it makes sense once you’ve spent time in hispanic communities.
I don’t think we do, actually. I agree that it’s a sociopolitical issue, but just not an issue of democracy.
I think it’s a massive issue that there aren’t candidates who are viable enough to have primaried Feinstein out of office sooner (to borrow your example), but it’s not the fault of democracy per se nor an indication that there’s an issue with the health of the democracy.
I agree it’s a problem that they’re still viewed as electable, but for example, California was presented with that question in 2018 and preferred the 85-year-old Feinstein to 52-year-old de León despite both being of the same party.
I think when you start to bar candidates based on age though, even if it’s just the party doing so, then you start having a democratic issue, even if it’s better in the longer-term.
I guess you reap what you sow. If they weren’t willing to do a little more understanding of precisely the kind of political landscape they were living in then I don’t know what I can say. It’s not as though they have 4 years of recent evidence right?
I am not talking about barring, I am talking about the fact that it is socially acceptable to cling on to power and pretend that you are the world’s sharpest mind at 78. I am talking about it being socially acceptable to not resign when in decline and I am talking about it being socially acceptable, even with some, commendable, to pick the Methusalah over the intelligent and wise man or woman who is 55.
As I said in my edit, there are always exceptions, always in life a few individuals; but when it is norm it becomes a major democratic problem. Of course it is a commentary on society as well, but society crucially accepts this as being socially acceptable unless there is actual visble form of senility, such as in the case of Biden. It should never have come to that. When your health declines, you are responsible and resign. It is your duty.
Adenauer was 73 when he was elected, 87 when he resigned. Conservative and not without other faults either, but even I have to admit that overall he was probably the right man for the right time.
I don’t entirely agree, but only due to unique American issues. The reality is that for the overwhelming majority of the Senate, maybe all but 10-15 seats, it is notoriously difficult to lose your seat. That is partly structural, partly cultural (name recognition…people hate politicians but come to like the person who represents them whose name they recognize), but also largely down to how the 2 parties have operated in terms of protecting incumbency.
The more difficult you make it for officials to be accountable to the voters the more strained Democracy is. So I would say that gerentoocricy that exists within our government is a problem of democracy, but not Democracy per se just the way it is practiced in the US system.
But again my point is that it isn’t a democratic problem, because it’s not a problem caused by democracy, nor does it affect the exercise of democracy whatsoever. It’s a social issue, a political issue, but as long as no one’s rights to being able to contribute to how the country is run are being infringed, then it’s not an issue of democracy.
For what you’re saying, perhaps it shouldn’t be socially acceptable, but that’s a societal issue. For what it’s worth, I think most people who are senile are rather unaware that they are senile, to the point where it even is a regular trope on TV/in movies.
There is nothing wrong in Biden running again, nor Feinstein running again. The issue is when voters decide to choose them. Why didn’t the Republicans choose a younger candidate with a semblance of intelligence? Well the latter condition would be hard to be met but apart from that?
Blame the population for regularly picking whoever you think are the wrong people, but it is not a problem of democracy.
Also I believe neuropsychological studies suggest that most people start declining from their 50s onwards, let alone their 80s or 90s, so by that standard I think most European leaders should be on their way out, no?
But in Political Science and History, sociopolitical issues that leads to the above mentioned, are called “democratic issues” (in this case problems), because it affects how Democracy functions.
It is the same with rise of intolerant Far Right, it is seen as a democratic problem, because they support positions that are not healthy for a well functioning democracy.
The same is also said about growth of alternative media, fake news etch. It does not affect how votes are counted, but it absolutely affects the health of democratic institutions by proxy.
For all my push back against the common idea that “the dems” as a party have much of a say of who gets their presidential nomination, somewhere they do as a party still have a lot of power is in making it incredibly difficult to primary an incumbent. If they want to do so.
In a small state like Maine it might not matter, but to run statewide in CA you need party support. It is just too expensive to do it otherwise. And as long as the party blocks resources to primary challengers then the idea of a Schiff or Katie Porter running a viable challenge against a protected party eldar is effectively nil. This is especially problematic in a state like CA that has more or less turned into a single party state for statewide elections.
So what is your democracy worth when you can freely cast your vote but only for candidates the elected establishment allow to be on the ballot? Voters did not so much choose Feinstein, as were told their choice was to vote Feinstein or vote Feinstein but be frustrated about it. It is different in degree, but not too far conceptually from places we refer to as a Competitive Authoritarianist.
I get where you’re coming from, but we’re talking about Kevin de León, senior enough in the Californian Democratic Party to be the President pro tempore of the State Senate.
He wasn’t a nobody. He was quite clearly permitted to be on the ballot. The party even endorsed him. Voters chose Feinstein.
With all due respect I think that is a demonstration of the issue not a refutation of it. The idea a guy out of the Sacremento chamber is a viable candidate for a seat as high profile as California’s, when up against a protected elder of the national party and supported by the DSCC is just not an accurate understanding of how our politics works. The state level party is a tiny fish compared to the support the national level organizations provide, and on the flip side can withhold
Look at who got into the race to replace her vs who stood against her in her last election. That difference is because of the how difficult the national party makes it to primary protected senetors.
Is it a matter of “how difficult the national party makes it to primary protected senators”, or is it simply a matter of incumbency advantage? And by that I mean the advantage that the network that one builds comes with, which isn’t really an issue of the national party itself.
I acknowledge that the network lends itself well to fundraising and endorsements, but that’s only an uphill battle and not at all a matter of there being politicians who are “protected” is it?
I’ve spent 5 posts saying it is the former. It is impossible to run in big states without resources from the DSCC and they literally withhold those resources for candidates who primary protected incumbents not to mention blow up relationships that are necessary for them to succeed on the job should they somehow win.
