As we kick off September Healthy Aging Month, there has been a lot of recent media attention about our older political leaders, including President Joe Biden, and whether there should be an age maximum –  just as there is an age minimum – to serve in higher office. A recent Wall Street Journal poll showed 73% of voters said they feel Biden is too old to seek a second term. And it is not just Biden, other leaders who appear frail physically and mentally are sparking an ongoing debate about age and office. In fact, I have been interviewed just this past week on TV, radio and online news about the topic as a gerontologist and expert on aging and brain health.

Chronological Age vs. Biological Age – The Ageism Divide

We know that older people of the same age can have very different health status and cognitive functioning. It is the difference between chronological age (your birthday) versus biological age (your health status). For instance, Senator Bernie Sanders at 81 is still sharp and compared to the President, who is the same age but whose lapses in memory, balance issues and awkward behavior are cause for concern, there is a stark difference. Then there is the attention focused recently on Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, also 81, whose recent “frozen moments” while talking to the press are concerning. In government, especially at the national levels and highest offices, the stakes are too high in national security, economic decision-making and other life-threatening issues to just ignore this debate.

Similar concerns have been raised with nonagenarian Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose recent health challenge with shingles may be a contributing factor to her fragile physical health and whose confusion in Congressional sessions is alarming. Juxtapose Feinstein with the recent Congressional hearings held by Senator Chuck Grassley, who at 89 seems much more cognitively sharp than 90-year-old Feinstein. There are many other high-profile examples of people in their 90s and beyond who exceed age stereotypes, such as Clint Eastwood, who at age 93 is still directing movies, and TV showrunner icon, Norman Lear, who at age 101 is still producing entertainment (Netflix, YouTube) and weighing in on society and culture in various news interviews to mark his centenarian status.

What many Americans forget is age is just a number. The focus should not be on age but on cognitive function. This became a lightning rod moment for GOP hopeful candidate, Nikki Haley, who lost me and apparently a chunk of conservative older voters when she called for a competency test for politicians over age 75. This is a perfect example of ageism (and we do not like our leaders to have any “isms”). Haley, who at age 51, is the same age when Senator John Fetterman had his stroke, only need look at his example of cognitive impairment to realize mental fitness questions are not confined to older Americans.

Brain Health is as Important as Physical Health

The idea of a mental acuity test is not bad if applied to all elected officials regardless of age. And especially for the Commander in Chief where health transparency has been annually reported over the last several administrations after decades in the dark about the health of our leaders. Many presidents have suffered health complications while in office: John F. Kennedy had Addison’s disease and lived with chronic back pain; Chester Arthur had chronic kidney problems, Grover Cleveland and William H. Taft were both obese and had many health complications due to being overweight, and Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in office where rumor had it his wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, really ran the government on his behalf.

But all of this happened before the 21^st century where our longevity lottery tickets show average lifespans in 1900 were 47 and are now 78-82 (almost double). We are living longer, and our political leaders, many who have higher socieoeconomic status and access to the best health and medical care, are living well into their 80s, 90s and 100s. With this increase in longevity we need to embrace older representatives, as well as younger, but assess and vote for those who have the cognitive ability to serve the peoples’ interests and needs.

With the exception of Wilson, cognitive performance was not questioned but now that we have candidates living beyond their 80s, it is time to educate the public about brain health and mental acuity and to look at not just the physical health of our leaders but their cognitive health as well.

The Question is Not Age Limits, But Term Limits

With the median age of our Congressional leaders at 57.9 years, millennials are clamoring for better representation of their generation (27-42 years old). Despite the fact millennials surpassed the boomers as the largest generational cohort in the country (72.1 million versus the boomers at 71.6 million), the reality is we are living longer and thus, constituents are older as well. Yes, diverse demographics need to be considered in the halls of Congress but let us not just focus on youth (as Americans are wont to do) but realize we have to also support and recognize our older citizens. And this is not just a plea to Congress – this is for employers, investors looking at entrepreneurs, service providers, etc. We have a growing range of ages to support and while we need younger representatives, they cannot abandon the needs of their older constituents. While at the same time, older representatives need to show they can support younger constiuents and new ideas.

And that brings me to term limits. I have read the arguments against this idea, which IMO (in my opinion) are mostly put forward by the very people who hold office and are desperate to hold onto power and prestige (and maybe even profits). But instead of age limits, let’s bring in fresh brain power and thinking (and this does not just mean younger representatives but older ones as well) who are not mired in the tired ways of government but can innovatively tackle society’s issues. The argument against term limits says you need decades of serving in Congress to learn the art of negotiation and the ability to be on the right committees. Hogwash (IMO). A reasonable set of term limits would allow people to benefit from the experienced members in Congress while also embracing new members’ ideas that might break the juggernaut of ineffectiveness which seems to be the definition of our current government.

The other benefit would be to stimulate a more active voting population. Instead of just checking the box for an incumbent who has served 40 years (or even worse not even show up to vote assuming the incumbent will win), term limits would galvanize the people to look harder at policy and positions of new candidates and to refresh the thinking in Washington which has a tendency to get stalled with all the same faces and voices year after year. We also need the news media to do their job in reporting on issues that showcase the concerns about representatives whose cognitive fitness is questionable.

Our Founding Fathers intended for our Congressional (and state and local) representatives to be public servants. It is time to ask our leadership, and their families and staff, to be realistic about their ability to competently represent the people, to put aside selfish needs and focus on why they are there – to serve We the People.

©2023 Sherri Snelling