Summary
Rep. Annie Kuster, a 68-year-old Democrat from New Hampshire, retiring after 12 years in Congress, cites a desire to “set a better example” and create space for younger leaders.
Her decision comes amid growing public concern about aging politicians, with about a quarter of lawmakers over 70. Kuster’s successor will be Maggie Goodlander, 38.
Democrats are increasingly elevating younger leaders following setbacks in 2024, which some attribute to the perception of aging leadership, including President Biden’s controversial reelection bid.
Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.
Oh great, now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example” while their doddering GOP counterparts will lurch around until their 90s with, staffers following them around with portable defibrillators so if they die in hallway somewhere they can be revived before the next vote.
So?
It’s a lot harder for their voters to excuse it when only one party does it. Which hurts them in elections.
And that’s not even getting into how those geriatric politicians are a disadvantage. They have to be physically present to vote. And the majority leader could actually try to do something every day.
Eventually enough would be missing that things could be accomplished.
There’s literally nothing stopping us from trying except the lack of effort from our politicians, so let’s get better ones and let the Republicans keep their ineffectual ones.
What’s the problem?
I don’t really see any issue here.
It’s better than it sounds, she announced it like 9 months ago so there was a primary for the seat.
The article is paywalled but it makes it sound like she ran in 2024 and now someone is just getting the seat, which would have been bullshit.
There’s not really any issues at all here, and I can usually always find something to complain about.
The problem is that committee assignments are based on seniority, so if only one party has its long-serving Congresspeople step down, it cedes power to the other.
In other words, similar to how first-past-the-post elections lead to the two-party system, seniority rules leading to gerontocracy is a structural issue, not merely bad/incorrect/self-serving behavior on the part of individual politicians.
Edit: I’m not wrong, at least not completely. My argument just applies to the Senate, rather than all of Congress.
Did you not hear about AOC losing the vote to head the oversight committee?
And that’s not getting into when seniority is important, it’s within the same party…
Quick edit:
Weird I just noticed both comments were yours.
You can only reply to me once and just wait a couple minutes for a reply, there’s no need to start the same conversation multiple times. It’s rather annoying to most people in fact
Replies aren’t only for your benefit; other people read them too. I wrote the second reply because it was in a different branch of the thread and it’s possible people reading that branch wouldn’t see the first one.
If you thought you were helping, you could have googled it first instead of guessing, but feel free to reply as often as you want.
Fine, I googled it: seniority determining committee leadership is a Senate thing, but not a House thing.
It also might be that people in other professions would work longer if the structural issue of ageism was not so predominant there…about the only profession in the private sector where I see people doing it long past the average is doctors, but maybe that’s because they still have some labor protections as a profession, I don’t know…
The words smartest living physicist is like 94…
But he’s been “retired” for 30 years and his post work hobby has been figuring out what consciousness is.
Still insanely active and sharp as a tack. But it says a lot that he decided to retire from academia as soon as he was able.
From what I remember is their pay was largely predicted on experience. With a “more is always better” approach because until recently living past 70 was a big exception. Thy also have the bonus of usually having very good healthcare, and knowing when to get checked out.
So there were multiple reasons doctors were one of the first professions people stuck in for a very long time. Another example would be lawyers, but for different reasons
My hope is that people that want to do what they find meaningful work are able to do it longer, if they so wish. Rather than working to lower all boats, such as those in public service, who currently work longer. I submit it’s because they actually can.
I probably sound like a broken record here, but if people try to set some kind of rule or norm on when people “should” exit the workplace, and along comes tech to slow down aging or even reverse it we are going to have to very quickly adapt to that.
I get that people get exasperated with people like Pelosi holding back all kinds of progress, while making all kinds of money by insider trading. However, I’m not sure it’s just an age thing - that seems like red herring. It should be about competency and removing corruption, but people talk about “term limits” and “gerontocracy” instead. If Bernie were all of a sudden able to live to 150 - I wouldn’t want some stupid notion of a “norm” or, worse, some backward age-related rule to keep him from continuing to do the job if he so wished.
In the short term, if people want to start applying some kind of independently-verified cognitive test and candidates for office start taking it, I’d be all for that.
[1] Not that I think anything like that will happen that quickly, but talking about AI was mostly a “fringe” discussion mostly, too. Until it wasn’t. And most of the population, given the reaction to things like GPTLLMs are not AGI, and maybe never will be. But they are and will be incredibly disruptive. I think any breakthroughs related to age might be similar - it’s considered very “fringe”, until it’s not.
If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.
“Best we can do is younger, neoliberal folks.” - Democratic Party
Well, where are all the people voting progressives in the primary?
Younger folk tend to be more adaptable and likely more in tune with actual working class issues. So more of a chance than before at least.
Well… I’ll be damned. You’ve changed my mind. Thanks.
As long as they keep putting in replacements that’s are younger, this is a good strategy. The problem would be if they lose their seats, but if it puts the GOP further out of touch with voters and pushes Democrats closer, I’m all for it.
It’s progress.
Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.
If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you’ve got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there’s a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.
Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.
Yeah, I don’t understand why Democrats always think they must unilaterally disarm. It’s nauseating, honestly. How well did that work out for Al Franken, for example? We still have the orange pedo sitting in the WH here in a few weeks…