NationStates

Politicians..

Looking around the world it's notable just how old the leaders of the US are..

On the right, Donald Trump is 72, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is 76, and the ranking Republican senator, Orrin Hatch, is 84. And while the House speaker, Paul Ryan, is only 48, he is set to retire in November, leaving it open as to who will replace him.

On the left, Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the House, is 78, while Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate judiciary committee, is 85. What is more, the two leading contenders to be the Democrats’ nominee for president, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are 77 and 69, respectively

Consider this against Macron and Trudeau, both in their 40s, or even May and Xi Jinping, in their early to mid 60s. Angela Merkel is 64 and she's been around a while. In fact if you look around the world leaders tend to be in the 45-65 age group.

Government representation is growing old as a whole in the US.

But it’s not just leadership that’s graying. The average age of congressional representatives has been increasing since 1981. In 2001, it was 55 years old; in 2011, 58, and in the current Congress, 59. Typically, congressional representatives are 20 years older than their constituents.

So is it a good thing to be led by people who are probably out of touch in a fast moving world? What do we think is causing this in the US, or is it just a passing phase?

I could half believe it's the end of a cycle of established party people and the next generation is coming in shortly, or perhaps the youth vote has just dropped up to a higher age.. or perhaps Gen X is just a pretty small population compared to other generations and so they haven't come through in the US.

I think the risk lies part in a lack of proper representation as well as decisions being made where the impact is greatest on those furthest away.

Yet my mind is small and limited compared to the great pool of wisdom and impartiality that is NSG, so what do you think?

That's literally not a serious problem anywhere.

/thread

Vote for someone younger then.

And abolish the electoral college whilst your at it.

Indo-Malaysia wrote:Vote for someone younger then.

And abolish the electoral college whilst your at it.

Yeah just vote for someone based on their age. k

Also no.

Work done by that people worth more than age.. Age do not necessarily mean experience

Chernoslavia wrote:

Indo-Malaysia wrote:Vote for someone younger then.

And abolish the electoral college whilst your at it.

Yeah just vote for someone based on their age. k

Also no.

Did you think I was serious?

Well, I was about the Electoral College. It's nice getting to vote without some elitist group picking for you.

Indo-Malaysia wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Yeah just vote for someone based on their age. k

Also no.

Did you think I was serious?

Well, I was about the Electoral College. It's nice getting to vote without some elitist group picking for you.

And have Hillary as president? Lol no thanks. I don't want tyranny of the majority.

I live in the country with the youngest elected leader in the world (if I recall correctly) and she's a fucking disaster.

I normally err towards the 'age leads to experience' side of things - people like Winston Churchill and Konrad Adenauer were in their 80s for example and great leaders in my view (also the Queen is in her 90s, and if she ever felt the need to run for public office, I'd totally vote for her).

On the flip-side, Theodore Roosevelt was one of America's best Presidents and he was also the youngest.

To put it more simply, I don't think having older leaders is a bad thing, and is generally more good than bad, but I don't feel there's any wisdom in compelling countries to have older leaders, and I think that promoting 'young, hip' leaders is borderline suicidal. I haven't forgotten the utter shit-show that was Tony Blair....

People should be picked by their skills, not their age. I mean, if an old politician is good for his job, he can stay. Letting young, un-experienced people close to power structures might be as equally bad.

Also, just as VuduMaster said, ''Age do not necessarily mean experience'', and a young person might have a big experience as well.

Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't be a good leader.

I believe this is what you leftists would call ageism.

Was under the impression that it was regarding the increasing life expectancy of people and lowering birth rates, resulting in an "aging population" phenomenon that involves an increase in retirement social security costs, a decrease in tax income due to less people working due to decreasing birth rates and an increase in healthcare demand... But okay then.

I couldn't care less about the age of American leaders, but I prefer younger leaders for both my home country and where I'm living. Politics, like everything that has to do with mortals, is dymamic and I'd like to be led by someone who keeps up with the times.

I think class is a much more significant problem when it comes to how out of touch one is with the world than age, I'd rather elect an 85 year old retired factory worker to office than the 25 year old son of a billionaire, it just so happens in the case of the US and many other countries that the people in office are both very old and very rich, creating a double whammy of not understanding what things in grocery stores cost or how grocery stores even work.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Indo-Malaysia wrote:Did you think I was serious?

Well, I was about the Electoral College. It's nice getting to vote without some elitist group picking for you.

And have Hillary as president? Lol no thanks. I don't want tyranny of the majority.

And many don't want tyranny by the minority.

The average age of the Soviet Politburo in the 1980s was 70. I remember reading the disparaging comments in the West about that fact. Ironic.

The New California Republic wrote:The average age of the Soviet Politburo in the 1980s was 70. I remember reading the disparaging comments in the West about that fact. Ironic.

And the Soviet Union ceased to exist a decade later...

I don’t much care about the age of politicians, as long as their values are sound.

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
And have Hillary as president? Lol no thanks. I don't want tyranny of the majority.

And many don't want tyranny by the minority.

The real concern isn't about tyranny it's about people electing icky politicians I don't like

Kaggeceria wrote:Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't be a good leader.

I believe this is what you leftists would call ageism.

It's usually considered a good thing when leaders can relate to the broader electorate. If they're over 50, they really only relate to old folk unless they're one of those "hip" politicians.

Silver Commonwealth wrote:People should be picked by their skills, not their age. I mean, if an old politician is good for his job, he can stay. Letting young, un-experienced people close to power structures might be as equally bad.

Also, just as VuduMaster said, ''Age do not necessarily mean experience'', and a young person might have a big experience as well.

heh a big experience ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

i'm just kidding,

in relation to what the thread is actually about and not the comment, if there is someone who I agree with politically and happens to be younger, sure I would vote for them. But, all it seems like is older people are running. I personally don't care(to an extent) what their age is, as long as I agree with their policies and/or values.

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
And have Hillary as president? Lol no thanks. I don't want tyranny of the majority.

And many don't want tyranny by the minority.

Many are stupid.

Chernoslavia wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:
And many don't want tyranny by the minority.

Many are stupid.

Source?

Most politicians are crap, got nothing to do with age

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Many are stupid.

Source?

''sOUrcE?''

Chernoslavia wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:
Source?

''sOUrcE?''

Oh get a room