Many young people have the mistaken understanding of olds that as their mental faculties diminish, they slide from wise, cogent beings into incoherent drooling dementos. As an old, and an old who has spent a good deal of time dealing with even older olds over the past few years, that’s not how it works. It creeps in, quietly at first, and then one day, you end up missing from Congress for six months and eating lime jello in a home for people with dementia, delightfully called a senior living center.
It’s one thing for a member of Congress to succumb to senility. After all, the ramifications aren’t necessarily different from those who entered Congress despite their inability to enjoy rational thought. It’s another for those who hold singularly important positions. One of the underdiscussed issues at the moment is who is the president?
After Biden’s debate performance, it’s undeniable that he’s on slope of senility. No doubt he has good time as well as bad, and during those good times, he’s fully capable of exercising the prerogatives of office. But what of the moments when his mental faculties are less than at their best? We need a president capable of performing the duties of the office at all times, 24/7. We know that’s not the case anymore, and what we do not know is whether he is still calling the shots, and if so, whether his decisions are sound or not. Even worse, we know that there are people in the White House aware of the problem, and yet have concealed it, denied it, and by doing so, violated the trust of a nation by leaving it in the hands of a man unable to fulfill his duty to a nation.
Lest anyone think this is some partisan smack, our president-elect is no spring chicken either. Trump has already showed signs of age-related problems, even if he’s appeared vigorous at other times. But over the next four years, as he ages from his spry 78 to the 82 he’ll be by the end of his term, the probability is strong that he, too, will suffer the ravages of age. And like Biden, the probability is high that those around him will conceal it, deny it, and by doing so, violate the trust of a nation by perpetuating a senile presidency rather than just a vulgar, deceitful, narcissistic, ignorant one.
Like it or not, Trump is old, just as Biden is old. We knew this going in, but then, age was hardly the worst of Trump’s extant problems. And yet, he was elected, and elections are how we choose our president, for better or worse.
But did anyone elect senile Trump? Will his devoted fans be willing to recognize and admit it should he start to fail as a consequence of age? Some will argue that age doesn’t necessarily mean a person is going senile, and while that may be true, at least to some extent, the rationalization doesn’t prevent a slide down the slippery slope of old age either. Excuses won’t stem the effects of creeping dementia, and won’t turn that 3 am rant from dementia into basis idiocy.
Have we reached the limits of the gerontocracy? Can we run the risk of another president who, during his term of office, has aged out of the ability to be reliably cogent day and night, every day? If, during the reign of Trump, can we trust one of the Steves, Miller or Bannon, to tell the public that Darth Cheeto is drooling and the time has come to invoke the 25th Amendment?
We’ve already seen that the Biden White House can’t be trusted, from staff to cabinet secretaries to the spare. We know the media didn’t help, although it’s likely to be far more accommodating when it comes to calling Trump senile. But then, will anyone trust the media when it cries, yet again, that the sky is falling?
But the likelihood is pretty darn good that the sky will fall over the next four years, at least when it comes to Trump falling prey to senility. It will likely creep in, first in small bites and later in more obvious chunks, but there will be times, perhaps between 10 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon, when he can still put on a decent enough show to get by. But what he won’t be is a person capable of performing the functions of president, at least to the extent he was ever capable.
Is this good enough? Should there be an age when the risk is just too great to endure? Even if elected at an advanced age, the person a year or two from now will almost certainly not be the same person as the one people voted for. What then? Who will answer the late night call when emergency strikes and we need a president to be ready to do his job? At what point is a person just too damn old to be trusted to be the president for the term of office?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some people become demented by the age of 40, some have all their faculties until well past the century so age should not be a barrier in itself but certain government official such as generals, government ministers, presidents and senior officials should be monitored by a team of medicos and psychologists to implement something like the 25th amendment if their abilities become less than a reasonable benchmark.
In theory, but only in theory, those closest to POTUS always hold the nation’s best interests highest in mind. They, one hoped in 1776 ish, would step in to protect the nation. Alas, the multi-tentacled intersection of power, fear, charm and national interest produces the occasional multi vehicle pile up. Far too often. But if one drew a hard line at, say, 76, for inauguration, that solves nothing. Nada. It was is and always will be up to the electorate to learn the hard way, I guess. It is strange that in my solo practice E&O insurance I need to designate someone to be my personal 25th amendment and step in to petition me into a lime jello room for the sake of my paying clients. That person is prepared for the bare knuckler that would ensue should she start that process. But unlike the VP, my designee has no ulterior motive. Maybe that’s the issue, leaving the decision in the hands of the one soul who was not only hand picked by the dementia patient but who also benefits most directly from doing so. No one takes the VP oath who doesn’t want to ascend. So yeah, vote. That’s it I guess.
How can anyone read Trump’s social media tirades and not conclude that he mentally incompetent now? And, even though he hates being upstaged, he doesn’t have the mental strength to tell Elon that it’s been nice playing “Government “, but it’s time for him to go time.
I.e.,your old, senile geezer is smarter, better looking, more agile, charming, and eriudite (sp?), and less dangerous and rude, than mine.
Yeah, sure.
Were it up to me, no one who had already served 20 years in Congress/ or was over 65 could be elected. Some people remain sharp long after 65, but that’s not the way to bet, and very few (if any) have the same sort of energy that those under 65 do. Congress and the presidency should be in the hands of people who are in the prime of life. Especially given the rapid advances in technology, I think the nation would be better served if this were implemented. Those who are over 65 and still want to serve in government can seek cabinet posts/ ambassadorships (and these should require approval of 2/3 majority of the senate). YMMV
On an entirely unrelated note, but taking advantage of it being Tuesday and hoping w/ Holidays looming our host is in a generous mood, I recently encountered this review of a toilet brush on Amazon; “Hurts to use! I don’t understand why these are highly rated. I’m switching back to toilet paper!”. Cracked me up.
Happy HannaKwanzaMas to all!
Advancing age and failing to get a joke can both be proxies for waning sharpness, but using age to exclude presidential candidates is constrained by law (or the Constitution’s silence on it). I say we make all candidates read Hal’s Amazon note—and if they don’t laugh for at least 7 seconds, they’re out!
The toilet brush review demonstrates that it is political metaphors all the way down.
It is deeply ironic that throughout the incessant howling about January 6, the true (and successful) “insurrection” was brought off by the shadowy cabal of unelected hangers-on who lurk behind the facade of the clueless Biden, pulling the strings of power.
Students of history will be aware it has happened before, with presidents, senators and judges. Here in the flats, we had the experience with a governor, long about 1991-1995. It’s not really an “age” thing, per se. Our nutty governor was not yet 70, and we have had centenarians on our federal bench who still served competently. So the answer is not to bar people at a certain age, but to have some kind of rational system in place to deal with dementia when it surfaces. Of course, in politics, there are always hangers-on who are vested in the office holder, and the inner circle of a senile official is likely to be made up of different people than the inner circle of the constitutional successor.
In Biden’s case, the issue was not well-hidden, but the party and the media ignored it because they balked at the prospect of a Harris succession. In my opinion, Biden’s real reason for tapping her to begin with was to force the party elite to prop him up until it became impossible. Even after he came clean to the extent of dropping out of the race, the deal was cut to continue propping him up until the end of his term. That was part of the price for him not to contest the sack-and-replace switcheroo for the campaign. Even when they had been forced to make Harris their candidate due to their DEI dogma and Harris’s unique access to campaign funds, they were still willing to keep nonfunctional Biden until January 20 rather than passing the torch to her.
They used to heed the words he said, but that was yesterday. Week. Month. Year.
What about the electorate? Should an octogenarian, who only votes for Biden, because he lookes so ‘Matlock’, really have the same weight as the vote of a man/woman in his/her prime?
There are good reasons why there is a minimum voting age, and for the same reasons it’s absolutely legitimate to discuss a maximum age-restriction. But if so, than not only for the president, than not only for politicians, but for the electorate as well.
You raise an interesting question, too bad you fucked it all up with your TDS. Do you not realize that Trump is the favorite in god’s waiting room?
Well, if it looks like President (elect) Trump is entering dementia territory, the MSM will bray it loud and clear.
Trump’s inner circle, after watching the Biden debacle for the last couple of years, will step in and ask the President to step down for the good of the country.
And I also think as mentioned by other commentators, that there really should be age limits for both houses of Congress and term limits would be a good idea, too.
No one has mentioned the fact that the oldest politicians have the most experience, and the most clout, in getting money for their constituents. A voter might look at what a young whippersnapper might be able to bring home, compared to a geezer with a seat on the appropriations committee, and decide, quite rationally, that the older guy would be preferable.
It isn’t just Presidents. Look at members of Congress; Pelosi, Grassley et,al.
The perks of the job are too comfortable. As FDR said perhaps apocryphally if you leave politics rich you’re a thief. Take away the niceties return the idea of serving as a public good and the olds might not find it so enticing.
I see two ways to deal with this problem. 1. Only elect billionaires, which introduces other problems, or 2. Require that anyone who runs for office make the financial situation of their entire family, out beyond the great gradparents and all of their progeny, completely open to public scrutiny, with serious jail time for the politician and family members if anything is hidden. This will cause a lot of good candidates to drop out, leaving the field to people who want the job because of the power it confers.
There are no good solutions.
I know I’m late to the game. I think there is a strong argument to be made that just as we put metaphorical (and literal) training wheels on kids and young adults, the same is true for older folks. In the Golden State, for example, drivers aged 70 and up have different criteria for renewing their driver’s licenses and may be issued restricted (provisional?) licenses, just like teens.
Dementia is especially troubling because it comes on slow, and then you’ve got a sudden, precipitous drop of mental faculties, followed by a period of stability and potentially some improvement. No matter how many minor improvements, however, it’s ultimately a one-way street. It’s like a child’s development, but in reverse.
Politicians are, at least in theory, representatives of the people. Which means it should go without saying but nevertheless be said given our current state of affairs that if someone has reached the point of being in memory care, no one else should be put in the position of having to pry the keys to the Capitol Building out of the politicos cold, dead hands. (I say this as someone who had to decide when to send a parent to memory care.)
Is the solution is an aged-based bright-line in the sand? Or something more akin to having older politicos do the MOCA test (that is, backwards math, drawing the hands on a clock, and reciting the person-woman-man-camera-TV chant)? I dunno. I’m not a fan of either. Bright-lines are just that but what happens when someone refuses to take the test? (See, e.g., Judge Pauline Newman.) On the other hand, the halls of Congress should not look like Weekend at Bernie’s, but it’s getting (gotten?) to that point.