The typical American loves to state that members of Congress are out of touch with the general public for many reasons. However, in light of the political scene the last few years, a growing ground-breaking idea is increasingly thrown around of installing a term limit for members of Congress. However, this is a horrible idea because reality is much more nuanced than your 75-IQ quips. Cue the pitchfork-sharpening…
Firstly, the whole idea around instituting term limits on members of congress solves for a mostly non-existent problem. Data from both 2012 and 2022 state that the average length of tenure for senators is less than two terms and the average tenure for representatives is less than five terms. Now, I hope that all of my faithful readers noticed the triggering A-word in those sentences. We all learned in math class that averages are skewed by outliers; these pitifully low numbers already account for abnormal tenures of members such as Bernie Sanders and pre-2008 Joe Biden. So, the median tenure is even less. “But Dan, five terms as a representative is a lot!”, well no, not really. Representatives have only two-year seats, so every election cycle they have to ruthlessly fight to keep their jobs. A representative being on the job for less than ten years is not a long time at all, and they get considerably less time to actually write and vote on legislation since they need to spend between thirty and seventy percent of their time fundraising.
Besides, unlike the President, members of Congress are still elected by the people. Therefore, the stereotype of the octogenarian who is still in office is (opinion incoming!) not necessarily a bad thing. If a senator keeps repeatedly winning elections (which we’ve established is rare), then when do we start to consider that maybe they are doing something right for their constituents? Government is supposed to be For the People, so a tone-deaf idea such as artificially capping the number of times they can fairly win elections does little besides restrict the choice of the voter.
To be more direct, the idea of restricting congressional tenure has been thrown around in the name of preventing those with cognitive decline from holding office. Some have gone so far as to yearn for older officials (of both parties) to undergo annual cognition tests as well; this isn’t a fringe opinion either. However, the term cognitive decline has become a dog whistle that really stands for age discrimination. Unsurprisingly, the Time article doesn’t seem interested in requiring young government lackeys to take the same test; in fact, the article even concedes that such tests could easily be weaponized against elderly politicians. Besides, since when has experience become a bad thing?
If the whole idea of only certain segments of the population being tested when it comes to democracy sounds discriminatory, then you’re catching on. Call me a bitter amateur historian but the whole concept of so-called senility tests just (another opinion inbound!) gives off Literacy Test vibes. For the uninitiated, literacy tests were installed at polls under the guise of ensuring that only those who understood the issues could vote. However, the real reason these were put in place was simply to stop black people from voting.
Saying “Well I won’t vote for old people; they aren’t qualified to hold office” is also not helpful. Seeing how advanced age is a protected class the same way that race and sex are protected classes, proclaiming a blatant refusal to vote for a candidate simply on that one criterion is just as bad as saying “Well, I won’t vote for women; they aren’t qualified to hold office”. Eventually, I’ll receive the rebuttal of “But Dan, you cited an employment law, that doesn’t apply to voting!”, and they are technically correct. However, pointing out a technicality does not make the behavior any less discriminatory.
If you’re still seriously concerned with octogenarians running the nation, then I’ll propose a radical solution; start fucking voting. Voter turnout in the 2022 was less than half of the eligible adult population. So, odds are likely that those who complain about the problem that old people work in Washington are probably not even showing up to the polls. How do the young-and-bored expect anything to change if they won’t vote? Don’t like that idea? Here’s an even better idea; assuming you are eligible, run for office. We’ve already established that a lengthy winning streak is rare, so why not throw your hat in the ring and ensure that your least favorite senior citizen cannot return to their congressional seat? I forgot, that involves putting forth an effort, which is not something a bigoted whiner is apt to do. This isn’t surprising, since only 12& of my generation is even interested in running.
The elderly are not ruining this country, though maybe your bigotry is…
Home Page 