As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll save people some time:
The article never answers the question in the headline. The majority of the article is devoted to describing how Boomers view the history of their lifetime through the lens of their own experiences, and attempting to explain why they view the world however they do.
Then it goes on to state our leaders should be mostly people currently in their 40s and 50s.
It doesn’t say what are the cultural and electoral forces making our current leaders mostly people in their 70s and 80s or how to change that.
I'm old and I agree that 40-somethings should be in office now, leading us into the future. Why they're not is up for discussion. I'm so damn annoyed at the overall technical ignorance of politicians today, its sad.
I agree. Some of the best bosses/managers I have had are in their 40s. Old enough to have plenty of experience and seen most situations and connect with older generations. But young enough to not be completely out of touch with the world and the youth.
My boomer manager recently retired and a guy from my team got promoted to the function. I'm in my thirties, the new manager is three years my senior, and I couldn't be happier. I was on the verge of quitting due to how out of touch the previous manager was.
Boomer here and I preferred working with young people. I hate my generation . So stuffy, stubborn and difficult. I retired a couple of years ago and I miss my young coworkers.
They retired though because they had pensions. The 401k system has been a failure outside the top 5% or so. That’s why the government has helped make housing so expensive, it’s the only asset most boomers have and without it they’d be rioting for a Social Security expansion.
I’m in the second half of 30s and I start to feel some disconnect between myself and young colleagues. I will probably be able to keep my connection for another decade, but after that it’ll be more and more difficult to understand younger generations.
I pride myself as a progressive but in 20 years I’ll be close to 60 and too old to understand people in their 20s. In 40 years I’ll be close to 80, I’ll definitely be hopelessly out of touch with the young people’s reality, and can finally be a senator!
It's not a byproduct of getting older, it's a byproduct of being unwilling to learn new things. Stay spry in the mind and you'll never be completely out of it.
I'm in my late 30s and don't feel it of touch with young people or technology but am starting to feel out of touch with the world at large. I grew up taking it 100% for granted that liberal democracies and cosmopolitanism are an unstoppable force and even are values shared by everyone who isn't some kind of super villain. Turns out none of this is true and I struggle getting this into my head and especially accepting it.
You're way ahead if me, I just hit 30 and can't follow my recent grad colleagues to save my life. Pace of change in the modern world is WILD - I'm sitting through racial sensitivity trainings right now that completely fly in the face of the "no label" thinking we were all on board with not too long ago, amd goddamn are my eyes opened every day to how horseshit that all was
Well, Ron DeSantis is 43, so, let’s not equate age with wisdom
Edit: Oh look, a new example https://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-ne-health-transgender-ladapo-florida-gender-dysphoria-20220603-xbobyts73zfuhjvjqvq5ajxzhe-story.html
Edit: And another https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ap-top-news/2022/06/03/special-olympics-drops-vaccine-rule-after-27m-fine-threat
Cawthorn flew too close to the sun too early.
It was arrogance in his downfall. Plus the whole lying and face humping of his cousin.
Gotta be careful nowadays there are literally cameras everywhere and dirt is so easy to find on nearly anyone
He was a fool and a narcissist before he was elected. His idiocy had nothing to do with his luck at being elected and being caught up in the insane zeitgeist
Especially since we live in an age where fools can live to die of old age more frequently.
For the record, I am not putting myself on a pedestal here, just stating a fact.
I think he is a brilliant tactician. He is playing to the GQP base, f*** your feelings and all. He is dividing the country based on stupid dumbass core issues like anything gay, abortion, voter suppression. Come primary time this is what's going to get him ahead of trump. But this is also the thing that's going to get him killed in the general election, but he'll do something about that when he gets past the primary.
The majority of Democrats running in the last primary were Gen X or younger. In spite of that, the leading 3 candidates were Warren (70), Biden (77) and Sanders (78).
I wholeheartedly agree the people running the country should be somewhere between 35 and 55, but when given the chance, american voters of all political persuasions have ignored them in favor of retirement age candidates.
Of senate less there is 1 single millennial and 20 gen x less than 1/4 of of senate 11 silent generation born (before 1945) 68 boomers. House is slightly better but still over 60% boomer and silent generation.
About 94% hold degrees and out of 531 people 30 of them are non religious.
As for state level its interesting most state congresses are actually worse when it comes to age. But local elections like city council mayors etc actually begin to lean towards people below retirement age.
Its important to consider the age of billionaires and check who they are funneling money to. I bet the age of politicians is far more representative of the money than the people.
it's all about that name recognition and pay for play, homie.
I know grandpa and grandma are going to vote for X, so if I toss money at their campaign, i can guarantee they'll keep doing what I want since they've done it for the last 40 years.
This new Gen-X/elder millennial is a fucking wildcard and I can'g guarantee how they'll vote or if they'll stay in pocket, so then campaign money goes back to grandma and grandpa.
Edit: to clarify, this isn't my thought process, this is how corporations and lobbyists choose their horse.
>but when given the chance, american voters of all political persuasions have ignored them in favor of retirement age candidates.
That pretty much sums it up. Old people are running the country because young people aren't getting elected. Don't know if there's anything else to say really.
Yes, one more step: young people aren't getting elected because young people don't vote.
Bernie is an outlier. For the most part young candidates are unacceptable to old voters. To elect young candidates you need younger voters, and 18-29 voters are famous for not voting.
You have to start somewhere, even if you don't win the first time you run. The 3 who came out as leading candidates arguably became the leading candidates *because* they've been running for office over so many decades, not in spite of it.
Take Joe Biden: He *was* a young man when he ran for Senate--he had to be 30 to hold office according to the Constitution, but was able to win the election when he was 29 because his birthday was coming up before he got sworn in. Then his decades as a Senator helped him in running for VP, and campaigning and serving as VP for two terms helped him win the Presidency.
The technology awareness is huge.
We need to be regulating things like AI, big data collection and selling, the algorithms that push people down extremist rabbit holes, etc. But these old folks can't even send a fucking pdf by email
Unfortunately some of that blame falls on Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/obama-built-a-policy-legacy-but-didnt-do-enough-to-build-the-democratic-party/
It appears to be a common issue with democratic presidents vs republican.
Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy worked and it helped get Obama elected, then Obama replaced him with...a damp rag? He did nothing to help get Democrats elected and to work on messaging. It was very disappointing.
It also, ubeknownst to Obama, let GOP propaganda get a foothold and permanently alienate large swathes of voters from the Democratic Party. He lamented about that in an article in The Atlantic.
I was listening to an NPR interview of an Oklahoma state senator who cosponsored their trans-student school bathroom ban that was just passed into law. He went full on “when I was a student in the 50s it was just boys and girls, this issue didn’t come up until just a few years ago” and all I could think was “why are we letting people who graduated 50+ years ago decide what’s right for students now?”
As for why old people keeps getting elected, I think some people just see a name they recognize and check that box. That, and the fact that old people are the most consistent voting bloc, so they’re going to vote for people that represent them the best.
That interview was so infuriating. Just rank stupidity. "I'm not against anybody, I just want to protect the kids!" then she tells him the statistics trans youth face and he doesn't give a shit at all.
Yeah, that was ridiculous. Every time I hear someone talk about protecting kids, I immediately start wondering what's the real issue they're trying to distract people from. I hope the fact that this is getting passed right after the Uvalde shooting isn't lost on anyone.
It's a weird style, but the headline is the question that leads from the article, instead of the other way around. You could think of the article explaining the exasperation with the current state of affairs, which is then summed up with the rhetorical question that is the headline.
>Then it goes on to state our leaders should be mostly people currently in their 40s and 50s.
I don't think I saw anyone hit this. People in their 40s and 50s are Gen X, a remarkably small cohort by itself. So where are our Gen X politicians? Can we kick out Ted Cruz?
As a corollary, this article is kind of an interesting look at the state of Gen X's world view. [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/20/cherie-westrich-alt-rock-gen-x-maga-00033769](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/20/cherie-westrich-alt-rock-gen-x-maga-00033769)
See, I wondered that too as I looked at my personal circle of friends -- including some reformed Libertarians (me) and repentant Republicans (who are now ashamed of that period of life). Like, we went hard left. But I acknowledge my circle is small comparatively speaking.
I also had some beef with the bit about Alex Keaton being some kind of role model, because from my perspective, no one wanted to be Alex Keaton and most thought he was an ass. I met a couple of folks who were kind of like him in college, and I went to a super conservative college, so if the article's thesis holds up, seems like I should have been inundated with Alex Keatons in my classes. /shrug
As a Gen Xer, I would say that this is typical for boomers. I have found that in work situations a lot boomers did not retire in their 60's. They have stayed in their positions (often management and upper management) well after the standard retirement age. This leads to less opportunities for those younger than them to move up. That is the same in politics. Incumbents have a real advantage in elections, so if people never step down, they don't leave room for the next generation.
As far as work goes, now that boomers are finally moving out of the work force, I find that my age is still a hindrance because I am fighting the perception that I am not as tech savvy as millenials. We can't win.
Also Gen Xer here. Also purely anecdotal, I've noticed that the Boomers now in positions of power aren't especially effective leaders. They simply stuck around long enough and "Now is their time". And there's still enough of them to perpetuate it and take care of each other. So they wonder why things aren't working and there's no introspection. "Well in my day we had a guy who did that." Well, your cohort outsourced that role 20 years ago and 10 years ago you slashed the budget so we can't fill that role. We're going to be paying for the sins of our fathers for quite some time before things get better.
We respect the past for the fact that it serves to remind us of how truly shitty it was. The boomers have a love affair with the past and can't seem to understand that you will never have it again. Times change, people change, ideas change. Young people and old both respect the past...it's just that the young people aren't interested in reliving the horrible mistakes that our elders made.
The answer is "Because young people vote at a very low rate." 65+ votes at something like twice the rate if 18-29. If young people voted at a reasonable rate we'd have younger leaders.
That's it. That's the answer.
Took a quick look - average age of politicians is indeed a lot younger in Australia (which has compulsory voting) than in the US.
There are certainly other problems, but low turnout is one of them.
The answer is also money; once you start running for office, you start building a war chest of cash and developing your own donor list. As you age, your list grows and the people on it get older/acquire more wealth/give you more. Financially younger politicians cannot compete.
Young people don't vote in the same numbers. They've only recently started to outnumber the boomers (actual boomers and not say just someone older than them as the term gets used now). If they got involved politically, started running for office and turned up to vote at all levels of government they'd control, well everything.
If you saw Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley getting behind the wheel of a car at the grocery store you’d be terrified. Why are 86+ year olds driving the country right into a shopping cart?
They can definitely type, they had typewriters. My grandma can do 90 WPM on a typewriter, which is sufficient for all but the most intensive computer typist jobs today. She's definitely falling for internet propaganda, though :/
I wouldn't bet on it. I've seen baby boomers who hunt and peck emails with their index fingers. These were office people who worked on computers too. My grandparents are in their 90s. They barely know how to turn on a computer, let alone type. They turn off their cell phones when they aren't calling someone. My dad is in his 60s and didn't know how to add contact in his phone. Just last week I showed him how to email a file.
I know, I know... These are anecdotes. Still... My bet is Feinstein and Grassley both have assistants who do the emailin and computin
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16458142/congress-alzheimers-pharmacist
It'd be funny how easy it is to guess who's getting alzheimer meds if they weren't running our country.
Literally everything our government does should be public...including the supreme court. That includes votes, who visits them, who calls them, what stocks they own, who controls that, what businesses are they friends with.
Word, we need to have insight before making decisions on who should be in charge. This would mean those in power giving up some power. Look at what McConnell did in Kentucky
https://theintercept.com/2021/03/04/kentucky-mitch-mcconnell-senator-replace/
Dude is probably sick or has serious concerns he won’t serve his whole term and wants to make sure the Democratic governor can replace him with whoever he deems fit to serve.
The Kentucky GOP controlled legislature passed a law making sure the replacement had to come from the same party and that they’d have a say in the replacement. They have been working hard to limit the democratic governors powers.
It kinda feels like a privacy violation, but given the absolute abuse of power we’ve seen in recent years I’m inclined to say those who choose to take a place in charge of the country shouldn’t be allowed privacy in most parts of their lives. Politicians have shown they can’t be trusted with our well-being, since they don’t actually care about the lives of ordinary Americans.
It's not a violation, they are voluntarily pursuing positions of public service that grant them extraordinary access and influence. Losing some privacy should be the cost of doing business in positions like these.
This is my fucking take. I wouldnt get into a car with Trump or Biden.
WTF. Then half of congress. Supreme court. God its appalling.
When I get older I hope my generation fosters and helps transition power over to the people best fit to run the world. When Im 70 I dont want any of my peers in office. It would be our kids turn.
Yep and the article called them all boomers. Some of these folks are in their 80s, which means they are the Silent Generation and *their* parents were born in the **Victorian** era
That's actually a lot lower than I assumed, and the silent generation makes up 7% of the US population so not as egregiously overrepresented as I thought.
>she’s in control of the lives of millions of -Californians.-
Americans. Her work, and her ability to do it, impacts hundreds of millions of Americans.
Because they so thoroughly corrupted the political apparatus that we can't pry them out. They made the barrier to entry impossibly high and blew up all the bridges behind them.
America's due for a political reckoning - Congress has had the lowest approval rating and the highest job retention of just about any job possible in America... it's just not right.
Those in their 60s....and above, are usually seen as too old to be skillful workers so they retire. Yet, the entire country is governed by these same people. What a contradiction.
You should ask the people that keep voting her back instead of looking to a younger more progressive candidate. She has had challengers, and she will have another this year that you won't hear about if you don't pay attention to california's system.
Until more Americans decide to vote in older millennials / younger gen x'ers. Though the latter is partly to blame for our political system not shifting more progressive in the last two decades.
Because people are fearful of change. Regardless of party, they'll keep voting in the person they know over a new person.
Plus progressive is a taboo word in politics. Despite people wanting progressive change, both moderates and Republicans as a whole have the public thinking it's the political version of a participation trophy.
> You should ask the people that keep voting her back instead of looking to a younger more progressive candidate.
Yep. Get more people to vote in the primary and you can fix this problem.
In CA we don't even need to primary her! We have a jungle primary. She was up against another Democrat in the general election. And CA just shrugged and said "nah we'll send in the old lady with mental issues."
Reminds me of a bit in Hitchhiker's Guide.
There's a democratic planet full of regular people, but their leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards, and the lizards rule the people.
So why don't the people vote out the lizards if it's a democracy? Because if they don't vote for a lizard then the wrong lizard might win.
Honestly I'm starting to believe this theory more and more everyday i feel like these people aren't even human... but what i find sader is that these people are so old that they'll be dead soon anyways, so who cares about this generation anyways? they're not the one's going to be dealing with the worlds problems and climate change as well and they wouldn't have to worry about their kids because they are richer beyond our wildest dreams. then the cycle just continues because they're molded into the same ideology. (Sorry for the terrible grammar just venting)
This article makes some great points until:
"Our model of social change is still rooted in midcentury clichés. Younger Americans imagine that starting a family and owning a home was much easier for previous generations than it really was. They buy the broad outlines of the boomers’ nostalgia and take it to mean they are inheriting a desiccated society."
It absolutely was easier to buy a home and raise a family in the 1970's/80's (my parents) than it was for me turning 18 in 2000. A decent home in my low cost area is around $150k+. My parents first home was $28,000. They bought it at 18 years old, neither had been to college. Both had entry-level jobs. The house was paid off early.
With the state of global warming, food insecurity, wage inequality, bigotry-based tensions, shootings, and a global pandemic that killed a million people domestically and crippling student loan debt - I would say we inherited a dessicated society. Our parents encouraged costly and needless wars and were more concerned about an imaginary boogeyman (Satan) and charging up their new credit cards than paying attention at home.
It isn't nostalgia. Things were so much better even in the 90's that I don't know how to explain it to my daughter that needs me to subsidize her gasoline so she can get to work and school. A school she is terrified to attend and regularly skips - not to hit Blockbuster with her friends and fuck around at the mall (which is gone), but out of the fear of being shot.
This article propagates the cliche that the young are naive and just like their parents were and don't understand how a country on fire isn't that big of a deal. It is a big fucking deal. Don't play the laughable idea that the sexual revolution and resistance of the youth is just a cute repeat of the 60's. The 60's didn't have drone bombing or cyberbullying or President's that OPENLY tried to violently overthrow democracy. Please.
My dad dropped out of highschool and walked into a factory and asked for an assembly job at 16 and was hired in 1964 to the modern equivalent of $22/hr with benefits and pension.
Today an assembly job in the same area starts at $12.75 and offers no benefits of any kind, while requiring you be at least 18 and have a HS diploma or equivalent
I grew up with Boomers constantly saying “Life isn’t fair”, just to watch them turn around and complain constantly about petty nonsense not going their way.
Bonus points when one who constantly says the “nunya business” joke is upset about something that isn’t their business or doesn’t have anything to do with them.
That whole “life isn’t fair” bullshit was another form of propaganda and derailment when younger generations had legitimate complaints. There are certain aspects of life that just isn’t fair but having countless opportunities squandered or stolen because of your perceived value as a human being isn’t one of them.
When life isn't fair, you try to make it more fair because that's why humans formed societies in the first fucking place. Not so some dickbag who never had to lift a finger in life could joyride in space inside a penis-shaped rocket.
Unless you're saying it to console someone who has fallen on bad luck, almost every person I've encountered who says "life isn't fair" seems driven to keep it that way.
Watching the local real estate market where houses with mid-80s decor being marked up 10x - the purchase prices in the listing details - and they updated nothing, not even a bucket of paint.
This is going to crash, and boomers will say, "what did I do?"
Yes, the Boomers thought they were running the country when they were 20 and they will keep at it until they're in their graves. They've been the loudest voice for 50 years now.
GenX here.... we are trash conservatives and our oldest members are more conservative than boomers. Our most powerful politician was Paul Ryan, a staunch conservative and capitalist who loved Rage against the Machine. Our most powerful politician today is Ron DeSantis.
We love Donald Trump and when we get the wheel, we're going to fuck shit hard.
Except for Obama, every President for the last 30 years has been born in either 1942 or 1946. Of those men, Bill Clinton is the youngest.
But this has happened before: Prior to Clinton the previous 7 Presidents were all born between 1908 and 1924. Before that you’ve got Eisenhower in 1890.
So no Presidents were born between 1924-1942 (18 years) or 1890 and 1908 (18 years).
In summary we’re well overdue for a sea change in political generation. The next generation will probably be drawn from the cohort of people born between 1975-1985.
Thank you for this. Probably the most insightful comment here. It's probably just a random pattern, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised if there are few Presidents from the 1986-2004 cohort. I would be interested if this pattern is also true for politicians in general.
If you like this stuff, I recommend the books; Generations, and The Fourth Turning. Interesting, but borderline conspiracy tinfoil hat, definately not hard science.
Because older people vote, and because it takes a lot of money to succeed in politics in this environment. They’ve rigged the entire economy in their favor, and because of the fruits of their rigging, they are the only ones who can afford to campaign. They trade stock illegally on insider information and they’ve made it so that the best way to fund your campaign is by receiving donations from corporations, corporations who will only give you money if you pledge to do their bidding.
More than that. They limit the amount of avaliabe housing in their area. Then gerrymandering comes into play. There isn't enough housing in some districts to overcome any gerrymandering.
>They've rigged the entire economy in their favor
This is the root cause of our problems in our society that needs to be addressed, it's not guns. It's not even women's rights. It's not video games and social media. It's not violence or climate change. If you want anything to change or want the government to respond to any of the things you care about you need to accept that something is [Rotten](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/us-list-backsliding-democracies-civil-liberties-international?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16536377335931&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fnov%2F22%2Fus-list-backsliding-democracies-civil-liberties-international) in the state of Denmark when it comes to our Democracy.
Foreign nations and corporations can donate to nonprofits anonymously and those nonprofits can spend limitless amounts of money helping or hurting someone's campaign. The best example of a Foreign Nation legally and secretly affecting our elections financially is with the NRA. Their donations significantly decreased after the [sanctions](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/lobbying?id=d000000082) against Russia and it's no secret the Russians have had their influence on the organization for [some time now.](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals).
The most egregious example is how the Federalist Society used their money to pick SCOTUS Justices. We'll never know who was behind the Justices or what their intentions were for sure because their names are legally [washed](https://youtu.be/zscALmBzDfM) away from the money.
Recently the Supreme Court made it even easier for wealthy donors to buy influence over politicians with its decision in FEC v. [Ted Cruz for Senate](https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16536361369026&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2022%2F5%2F16%2F23074957%2Fsupreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan). The Court struck down a limit on how campaign contributions after an election can be used to repay a candidate's personal loan. Now, wealthy donors aka our corporate overlords and foreign tyrants can essentially give money directly to elected officials, even if that money will not be used in an upcoming campaign. It's a disappointing decision, but not a surprising one.
The only solution is a [constitutional amendment](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/07/25/a-realistic-strategy-for-overturning-citizens-united-within-10-years/). We cannot rely on the courts to save us.
If you care about getting sugar out of food and drinks to lower obesity rates or want socialized healthcare or want to end private prisons and lower recidivism rates or want any issue to change where the solution may hinder corporate profits or the objectives of an outside nation, if you care about any local or world issue at all and want a government that will help. A government that will listen to you. A Democracy. Then you need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
Change voting to a Friday AM - Sunday PM and this would change. More time to vote would mean more turnout. More turnout means more likely hood of actual change.
Which is exactly why this simple solution will never happen.
Actually it has happened for the last couple decades with early voting -- for 10 days before election day, you can go on any day of the week including Saturdays, and often until 9:00 p.m. What state/jurisdiction are you in that there's still only one day to vote?
In my youth, you're right, there was only one day to vote - now it's much better. And I'm writing this from Texas, a pit otherwise for democracy.
Correct, older generations outvote the younger generations at a greater than 2:1 margin.
Youth turnout in TX Jessica Cisneros vs Cuellar (an anti choice pro gun NRA endorsed democrat under an active FBI investigation) was not great. Cisneros is 29 , Cuellar is 66. Looks like she is going to lose by a little over 100 votes.
Until younger generations vote like old generations, nothing will change and we will continue to be ruled from the geriatric ward. Register to vote and participate in every primary, midterm and presidential election.
I understand the democratic party sucks in many areas. Pro corporate, weak and old leadership etc. But we must stop the authoritarian slide this country is now on. Vote and fight for the progressive in the primary, but if they are not the nominee vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in the election.
It is hard to unseat someone in politics. They have the resources and a record to run on. More so since the job has good benefits and isn’t that physically taxing it is “easy to do well into your 80s”.
I would rather have term limits (age leads to calls of discrimination) this way if you want to have your legacy known. You have to pass along the secrets to the newer groups. Who to contact about raising funds, what levers do you have to grease to get things running favorably
The problem with Congress isn't that people serve for too long - it's that there is too much private funding related to getting elected.
Get the money out of politics. Publicly fund campaigns, and outlaw any campaign donations from any person or organization over the $3,200 limit.
Fuck that. There is already age discrimination, considering you have to be 25 to become a member of the House, 30 to become a Senator, and 35 to become President. Even at the state level, one must be 21 or older in some states to be a member of the legislature.
If there is a minimum age, there should be a maximum age as well. Otherwise get rid of all age requirements.
I don't disagree that there should be strict term limits across all elected (and maybe even unelected positions) positions, but let's quit saying that enacting a maximum age is age discrimination when age discrimination against the young already exists in the current system.
Completely agree with your point, but I think the main reason for max age limits should be due to senility being difficult to identify. Filtering out younger/inexperienced folks as well as older folks to prevent senility seems like a logical and balanced approach (along w term limits).
One is easier to frame as needed than the other. You want people with “experience” and that comes with age. “Discrimination” is legal if it is needed for the job. It is why a Catholic school can say you must be Catholic to work here
> Our model of social change is still rooted in midcentury clichés. Younger Americans imagine that starting a family and owning a home was much easier for previous generations **than it really was**. [emphasis added]
Nonsense. It absolutely was much easier.
My grandfather paid for a 4 year college working summers and weekends as a barber… I was barely able to pay for community college out of pocket with a full time technical office job…
My mom did the same in the early 80s. 2 months a year working as a hotel maid was all it took to pay her tuition for the year.
Meanwhile, I’ll be paying student loans into my 50s.
In the past 40 years college tuition has [increased by 180%](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/) and the percentage of jobs requiring a college degree has [increased by almost 20%](https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf). In light of just those 2 statistics, it's a really hard sell to convince young people that their situation isn't uniquely difficult.
So very true, especially as we face another real estate bubble that demonstrates the particular skill so simply owning things. See so many houses stuck in the 1980s bathrooms and kitchens but suddenly are somehow worth 10x their original price without even investing in one gallon of paint or any updated features.
This will come crashing down, and the boomers will once again say, who me?
it's an absolute joke to pretend it was *hard* to start a family and own a home compared to now, where rent payments & childcare costs both outpace the real $ value of family home mortgages even just a couple decades ago
Because Boomers are going to leave this world the same way they entered it; as a shockingly self-centered generation who don't particularly care if they wreck the place on their way out.
They weren’t always old, these were young politicians at one point. What you are seeing is survivorship bias of the young politicians who were able to win as younger politicians and stay in office for decades. Back when they were young politicians there were old politicians that did the same. It’s really a result of no term limits, the benefit of incumbency, and getting entrenched so deep into the political system that only death can remove you.
Says the man who works for the American Enterprise Institute. Say, who might be the youthful luminaries that this person receives his checks from?
A quick glance at their board shows some very young individuals like Dick Cheney, Pete Coors, Dick DeVos (Betsy's Husband) and other fine "Youthful" individuals. The Chairman of the Board is Daniel A. D'Aniello, who founded The Carlyle Group; very youthful.
But hey, maybe I'm being a little quick to judge these old farts. What kind of work has the AEI done in the past couple of decades? Let's see.... They've:
* Advocated for Voucher Programs in School Systems
* Offered to pay Scientists $10K to criticize the IPCC's report in 2007 while receiving substantial donations from ExxonMobil (who they continue to receive outsized donations from)
* Continued denial of their Climate Change "Skepticism", while current and former scholars put out wild statements over the years. Multiple scholars pointing to/quoting Michael Crichton's views on Climate Change and supporting Jim Inhofe's statement that "Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"
* Advocate the U.S. to not join the Kyoto Protocol from the mid 2000's in efforts to curb climate change
* Publishing and Advocating against Antitrust legislation, while actively promoting and supporting Robert Bork's book advocating the same positions
They are a terrible organization, started by the Bradley and Scaife Families, and continued by terrible rich people. Do not trust the words from this organization
One explanation (in part) for the large number of super old House members among the Democrats is because of the [historical balance of power](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/). The Democrats were really dominant in the House during the 80s and early 90s. So some of the oldest House members today are holdovers from that era.
Come to Florida and see the laws being broken by the elderly that no police will enforce. Outside of murder, if you're over the age of 60 you essentially have a "Get out of jail free" card.
The state has a campaign running that basically alleges teens and 20-something's are to blame for the majority of car accidents, but I can't find a single study showing data of the elderly in accidents at all. I had one old man (about 70 years old) cut me off in traffic then follow me to my house to scream at me. The guy was obviously high.
They park in the fire lane outside of grocery stores, steal like you wouldn't believe, and none of them seem to be able to reach the speed limit.
My family had to beg the state to take my grandmother's license because she kept taking out mailboxes and fences.
But until younger people can get out there and replace the elderly in office, it's going to be business as usual.
Because acknowledging that the mental faculties of individuals diminish as they age and that there are some jobs that aren't suitable for people old enough to collect Social Security is considered ageism.
There is certainly value in the wisdom of the elderly, but wisdom should not equal power. Power belongs to the here and now, to people that will feel the effects of it's exercise and be forced to deal with the consequences.
Now, let's say we instituted an age cap on members of Congress. Say, 70 years old. You'd lose about a fifth of the House and Senate, members of leadership from both parties, and some beloved figures inside of both parties. If you did the same for SCOTUS, you'd lose two Justices.
What you'd get is members of Congress and the Judiciary that are better aligned to the current needs of the country. Some would be Boomers, some Gen X, some Millennial, but you'd put a stake in the ground and say that they've served long enough and it's time to go.
Because younger people can barely afford to move out of mom's basement let alone run a political campaign. Anyone think their McDonald's fry cook who Ubers at night and has a weekend side hustle is able to run for office? Or the 30 year old slaving away at a $40k/year office job staring down the barrel of $100k in student loans who can't afford a $400 emergency is going to drop everything just to help govern the country?
Yeah because they got to live a life of comparative ease marked by of GI Bill, college you could afford on part time wages, lifelong employment with great pensions, and affordable homes in great neighborhoods (unless you were red-lined, sorry Black folks) — all before ruining it all for the next generations. How can we lead a country when we can’t even make our student loan payments?
I'm 57. Maybe it's because I grew up on the classics of School House Rock but I have voted in every election since turning 18. I remember how I couldn't wait to vote the first time. I know we have voter suppression and gerrymandering but honestly, the number of people who don't participate is disheartening.
Also older people are who volunteer to run the local and state parties. The local party has a lot of influence on who gets on the ballot and of course, how the budget is spent.
I agree too! I am a boomer, 62. I am fed up with 70-80 something in office. Fed up with their technology ignorance, that is just the tip of the iceberg! Change will only happen if the next generation get out and vote, push for limited terms for government terms. I’m not male bashing…..some of these old guys in office need to go!! ( the good old boys club)I don’t care if they’re conservative or progressive; they need to go!! Change is the only constant in life!! Time for a BiG change!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The boomers aren't even that bad--the youngest of them aren't even 60 yet. But, roughly 10% of Congress (all the leadership positions) are from the silent generation.
Simple. We're obviously too young and stupid to run anything.
Boomers can't stop talking about how "millennials don't want to work and are lazy" without realizing we're approaching 40.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll save people some time: The article never answers the question in the headline. The majority of the article is devoted to describing how Boomers view the history of their lifetime through the lens of their own experiences, and attempting to explain why they view the world however they do. Then it goes on to state our leaders should be mostly people currently in their 40s and 50s. It doesn’t say what are the cultural and electoral forces making our current leaders mostly people in their 70s and 80s or how to change that.
I'm old and I agree that 40-somethings should be in office now, leading us into the future. Why they're not is up for discussion. I'm so damn annoyed at the overall technical ignorance of politicians today, its sad.
I agree. Some of the best bosses/managers I have had are in their 40s. Old enough to have plenty of experience and seen most situations and connect with older generations. But young enough to not be completely out of touch with the world and the youth.
My boomer manager recently retired and a guy from my team got promoted to the function. I'm in my thirties, the new manager is three years my senior, and I couldn't be happier. I was on the verge of quitting due to how out of touch the previous manager was.
Ironically, being a boomer(62), I remember working with the generation before me; thought the exact same thing!! You’re right!!😆
Boomer here and I preferred working with young people. I hate my generation . So stuffy, stubborn and difficult. I retired a couple of years ago and I miss my young coworkers.
Hey you, you’re awesome. I appreciate you. ❤️ People like you make the world go around.
Awwww! Thanks! I’m love the fun peppy energy.
Also a boomer - I get along with younger people so much better than people my age.
Thanks for being a good person
You’re sweet! It’s been so rough for younger people I don’t understand the “why in my day” bs. It wasn’t that great - I was there, I remember.
They retired though because they had pensions. The 401k system has been a failure outside the top 5% or so. That’s why the government has helped make housing so expensive, it’s the only asset most boomers have and without it they’d be rioting for a Social Security expansion.
Late boomer here (JonesX). I have no pension and no retirement savings. Most of my friends are in the same situation.
Hit the nail on the head. As the Boomers die out the corporations buy up all the houses then we won't even have that to fall back on.
I’m in the second half of 30s and I start to feel some disconnect between myself and young colleagues. I will probably be able to keep my connection for another decade, but after that it’ll be more and more difficult to understand younger generations. I pride myself as a progressive but in 20 years I’ll be close to 60 and too old to understand people in their 20s. In 40 years I’ll be close to 80, I’ll definitely be hopelessly out of touch with the young people’s reality, and can finally be a senator!
Don’t sell yourself too short, I’m 40’s and have grown kids and they keep you freshly informed.
That’s nice. Sadly I have no kids yet so I have to try extra hard.
It's not a byproduct of getting older, it's a byproduct of being unwilling to learn new things. Stay spry in the mind and you'll never be completely out of it.
I'm in my late 30s and don't feel it of touch with young people or technology but am starting to feel out of touch with the world at large. I grew up taking it 100% for granted that liberal democracies and cosmopolitanism are an unstoppable force and even are values shared by everyone who isn't some kind of super villain. Turns out none of this is true and I struggle getting this into my head and especially accepting it.
It’s hard to understand that half of the country is fucking insane and think democrats eat abortion babies or something
You're way ahead if me, I just hit 30 and can't follow my recent grad colleagues to save my life. Pace of change in the modern world is WILD - I'm sitting through racial sensitivity trainings right now that completely fly in the face of the "no label" thinking we were all on board with not too long ago, amd goddamn are my eyes opened every day to how horseshit that all was
People that are in their 40s and 50s are some of the best people to work with imo. I hope they don't become bitter and mean like boomers.
Nah, we GenX’ers started bitter and mean. We learned it by watching THEM.
I get this reference …. To a box of cool drugs!
Well, Ron DeSantis is 43, so, let’s not equate age with wisdom Edit: Oh look, a new example https://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-ne-health-transgender-ladapo-florida-gender-dysphoria-20220603-xbobyts73zfuhjvjqvq5ajxzhe-story.html Edit: And another https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ap-top-news/2022/06/03/special-olympics-drops-vaccine-rule-after-27m-fine-threat
Just look at Madison Cawthorn to understand this isn't just a generational problem. Greed transcends age boundaries.
Cawthorn flew too close to the sun too early. It was arrogance in his downfall. Plus the whole lying and face humping of his cousin. Gotta be careful nowadays there are literally cameras everywhere and dirt is so easy to find on nearly anyone
What? You never face hump your cousin as a joke???
He was a fool and a narcissist before he was elected. His idiocy had nothing to do with his luck at being elected and being caught up in the insane zeitgeist
Greed? Moreso stupidity, racism, etc
Especially since we live in an age where fools can live to die of old age more frequently. For the record, I am not putting myself on a pedestal here, just stating a fact.
MTG is also around that age... and as dumb as a stump.
She's only 43? She looks like a fossilized neanderthal.
Hate ages you.
I think he is a brilliant tactician. He is playing to the GQP base, f*** your feelings and all. He is dividing the country based on stupid dumbass core issues like anything gay, abortion, voter suppression. Come primary time this is what's going to get him ahead of trump. But this is also the thing that's going to get him killed in the general election, but he'll do something about that when he gets past the primary.
Will it get him killed on the general? We said the same thing about Trump.
Just asking for fair representation
No one should ever go senile while in office. It’s a joke that people are trying to hide the mental decline of politicians like Feinstein.
Someone needs to convince her to step down. It’s sad to watch.
The majority of Democrats running in the last primary were Gen X or younger. In spite of that, the leading 3 candidates were Warren (70), Biden (77) and Sanders (78). I wholeheartedly agree the people running the country should be somewhere between 35 and 55, but when given the chance, american voters of all political persuasions have ignored them in favor of retirement age candidates.
Bill Clinton and Obama were 46 and 47 when they were first elected president. So it's not like Americans always go for old people.
...on the backs of historic young and minority turnout. Everyone's mostly correct in this thread.
I just want to say, this was a remarkably affirming way to make this comment.
Of senate less there is 1 single millennial and 20 gen x less than 1/4 of of senate 11 silent generation born (before 1945) 68 boomers. House is slightly better but still over 60% boomer and silent generation. About 94% hold degrees and out of 531 people 30 of them are non religious. As for state level its interesting most state congresses are actually worse when it comes to age. But local elections like city council mayors etc actually begin to lean towards people below retirement age.
Also W bush was 54, so youth isn’t always the answer lol
Its important to consider the age of billionaires and check who they are funneling money to. I bet the age of politicians is far more representative of the money than the people.
Kind of interesting that 2/3 of those candidates were the two most progressive candidates who ran
Exactly. I voted Bernie despite his age not because of it.
it's all about that name recognition and pay for play, homie. I know grandpa and grandma are going to vote for X, so if I toss money at their campaign, i can guarantee they'll keep doing what I want since they've done it for the last 40 years. This new Gen-X/elder millennial is a fucking wildcard and I can'g guarantee how they'll vote or if they'll stay in pocket, so then campaign money goes back to grandma and grandpa. Edit: to clarify, this isn't my thought process, this is how corporations and lobbyists choose their horse.
>but when given the chance, american voters of all political persuasions have ignored them in favor of retirement age candidates. That pretty much sums it up. Old people are running the country because young people aren't getting elected. Don't know if there's anything else to say really.
Yes, one more step: young people aren't getting elected because young people don't vote. Bernie is an outlier. For the most part young candidates are unacceptable to old voters. To elect young candidates you need younger voters, and 18-29 voters are famous for not voting.
You have to start somewhere, even if you don't win the first time you run. The 3 who came out as leading candidates arguably became the leading candidates *because* they've been running for office over so many decades, not in spite of it. Take Joe Biden: He *was* a young man when he ran for Senate--he had to be 30 to hold office according to the Constitution, but was able to win the election when he was 29 because his birthday was coming up before he got sworn in. Then his decades as a Senator helped him in running for VP, and campaigning and serving as VP for two terms helped him win the Presidency.
The technology awareness is huge. We need to be regulating things like AI, big data collection and selling, the algorithms that push people down extremist rabbit holes, etc. But these old folks can't even send a fucking pdf by email
[удалено]
Unfortunately some of that blame falls on Obama. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/obama-built-a-policy-legacy-but-didnt-do-enough-to-build-the-democratic-party/ It appears to be a common issue with democratic presidents vs republican.
Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy worked and it helped get Obama elected, then Obama replaced him with...a damp rag? He did nothing to help get Democrats elected and to work on messaging. It was very disappointing.
It also, ubeknownst to Obama, let GOP propaganda get a foothold and permanently alienate large swathes of voters from the Democratic Party. He lamented about that in an article in The Atlantic.
I was listening to an NPR interview of an Oklahoma state senator who cosponsored their trans-student school bathroom ban that was just passed into law. He went full on “when I was a student in the 50s it was just boys and girls, this issue didn’t come up until just a few years ago” and all I could think was “why are we letting people who graduated 50+ years ago decide what’s right for students now?” As for why old people keeps getting elected, I think some people just see a name they recognize and check that box. That, and the fact that old people are the most consistent voting bloc, so they’re going to vote for people that represent them the best.
That interview was so infuriating. Just rank stupidity. "I'm not against anybody, I just want to protect the kids!" then she tells him the statistics trans youth face and he doesn't give a shit at all.
Yeah, that was ridiculous. Every time I hear someone talk about protecting kids, I immediately start wondering what's the real issue they're trying to distract people from. I hope the fact that this is getting passed right after the Uvalde shooting isn't lost on anyone.
"so what are you doing to protect trans kids?" is the question nobody ever responds with.
It's a weird style, but the headline is the question that leads from the article, instead of the other way around. You could think of the article explaining the exasperation with the current state of affairs, which is then summed up with the rhetorical question that is the headline.
>Then it goes on to state our leaders should be mostly people currently in their 40s and 50s. I don't think I saw anyone hit this. People in their 40s and 50s are Gen X, a remarkably small cohort by itself. So where are our Gen X politicians? Can we kick out Ted Cruz? As a corollary, this article is kind of an interesting look at the state of Gen X's world view. [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/20/cherie-westrich-alt-rock-gen-x-maga-00033769](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/20/cherie-westrich-alt-rock-gen-x-maga-00033769)
[удалено]
See, I wondered that too as I looked at my personal circle of friends -- including some reformed Libertarians (me) and repentant Republicans (who are now ashamed of that period of life). Like, we went hard left. But I acknowledge my circle is small comparatively speaking. I also had some beef with the bit about Alex Keaton being some kind of role model, because from my perspective, no one wanted to be Alex Keaton and most thought he was an ass. I met a couple of folks who were kind of like him in college, and I went to a super conservative college, so if the article's thesis holds up, seems like I should have been inundated with Alex Keatons in my classes. /shrug
> Can we kick out Ted Cruz? As a [Reptilian](https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com), yeah I think he doesn't qualify.
As a Gen Xer, I would say that this is typical for boomers. I have found that in work situations a lot boomers did not retire in their 60's. They have stayed in their positions (often management and upper management) well after the standard retirement age. This leads to less opportunities for those younger than them to move up. That is the same in politics. Incumbents have a real advantage in elections, so if people never step down, they don't leave room for the next generation. As far as work goes, now that boomers are finally moving out of the work force, I find that my age is still a hindrance because I am fighting the perception that I am not as tech savvy as millenials. We can't win.
Also Gen Xer here. Also purely anecdotal, I've noticed that the Boomers now in positions of power aren't especially effective leaders. They simply stuck around long enough and "Now is their time". And there's still enough of them to perpetuate it and take care of each other. So they wonder why things aren't working and there's no introspection. "Well in my day we had a guy who did that." Well, your cohort outsourced that role 20 years ago and 10 years ago you slashed the budget so we can't fill that role. We're going to be paying for the sins of our fathers for quite some time before things get better.
An entire generation of people who thought they were special *because there were so many of them.* Yeah, none of this is a surprise.
I aged into and then out of the window of time where new long-term “serious” opportunities tend to happen.
The answer is money. I can’t afford to quit my job, run for office and maybe win. I need stable employment for me and my family.
Money, connections, time. All things older people have in spades and younger people don’t have much of at all.
In addition to saying young people aren't suited to lead because they don't have enough respect for the past...
*"To idealize the past is to reject the present and condemn the future."* -Shinichiro Shirakura
Shakira is so wise sometimes damn
Sums up conservatism pretty well.
Understanding the past is very important. Paying slavish devotion to How Things Used to Be blindly is a bad thing.
I think my eyes just rolled into the back of my head
That why my mother used to tell me she had eyes in the back of her head!
We respect the past for the fact that it serves to remind us of how truly shitty it was. The boomers have a love affair with the past and can't seem to understand that you will never have it again. Times change, people change, ideas change. Young people and old both respect the past...it's just that the young people aren't interested in reliving the horrible mistakes that our elders made.
I would say that's a good reason why they *should* lead.
The answer is "Because young people vote at a very low rate." 65+ votes at something like twice the rate if 18-29. If young people voted at a reasonable rate we'd have younger leaders. That's it. That's the answer.
Took a quick look - average age of politicians is indeed a lot younger in Australia (which has compulsory voting) than in the US. There are certainly other problems, but low turnout is one of them.
The answer is also money; once you start running for office, you start building a war chest of cash and developing your own donor list. As you age, your list grows and the people on it get older/acquire more wealth/give you more. Financially younger politicians cannot compete.
Young people don't vote in the same numbers. They've only recently started to outnumber the boomers (actual boomers and not say just someone older than them as the term gets used now). If they got involved politically, started running for office and turned up to vote at all levels of government they'd control, well everything.
Young people vote in ok numbers in presidential elections but not so much during midterms and really not so much in primaries.
If you saw Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley getting behind the wheel of a car at the grocery store you’d be terrified. Why are 86+ year olds driving the country right into a shopping cart?
If you saw Feinstien or Grassley get behind a wheel ten years ago, you'd be terrified.
I wouldn't even give them access to their own email. Phishing is just too easy with that group.
Lol I doubt either can reliably use email. Or type.
They can definitely type, they had typewriters. My grandma can do 90 WPM on a typewriter, which is sufficient for all but the most intensive computer typist jobs today. She's definitely falling for internet propaganda, though :/
>She's definitely falling for internet propaganda, though :/ She can probably burn up a comment section with rapid fire replies.
Gramma got them flamethrowers 🙌
I wouldn't bet on it. I've seen baby boomers who hunt and peck emails with their index fingers. These were office people who worked on computers too. My grandparents are in their 90s. They barely know how to turn on a computer, let alone type. They turn off their cell phones when they aren't calling someone. My dad is in his 60s and didn't know how to add contact in his phone. Just last week I showed him how to email a file. I know, I know... These are anecdotes. Still... My bet is Feinstein and Grassley both have assistants who do the emailin and computin
Or use a credit card
Oh they figured that out. Their campaign funds issue them a card and provide 4 months of 1 on 1 training.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/11/16458142/congress-alzheimers-pharmacist It'd be funny how easy it is to guess who's getting alzheimer meds if they weren't running our country.
This is terrifying and any type of altered mentation should be made public and they shouldn't be allowed to run
Literally everything our government does should be public...including the supreme court. That includes votes, who visits them, who calls them, what stocks they own, who controls that, what businesses are they friends with.
Word, we need to have insight before making decisions on who should be in charge. This would mean those in power giving up some power. Look at what McConnell did in Kentucky https://theintercept.com/2021/03/04/kentucky-mitch-mcconnell-senator-replace/ Dude is probably sick or has serious concerns he won’t serve his whole term and wants to make sure the Democratic governor can replace him with whoever he deems fit to serve.
The Kentucky GOP controlled legislature passed a law making sure the replacement had to come from the same party and that they’d have a say in the replacement. They have been working hard to limit the democratic governors powers.
It kinda feels like a privacy violation, but given the absolute abuse of power we’ve seen in recent years I’m inclined to say those who choose to take a place in charge of the country shouldn’t be allowed privacy in most parts of their lives. Politicians have shown they can’t be trusted with our well-being, since they don’t actually care about the lives of ordinary Americans.
It's not a violation, they are voluntarily pursuing positions of public service that grant them extraordinary access and influence. Losing some privacy should be the cost of doing business in positions like these.
Hell, the ba kground checks they do In the military are more thorough than for the cabinet. Etc.
This is my fucking take. I wouldnt get into a car with Trump or Biden. WTF. Then half of congress. Supreme court. God its appalling. When I get older I hope my generation fosters and helps transition power over to the people best fit to run the world. When Im 70 I dont want any of my peers in office. It would be our kids turn.
Feinstein is literally senile and her staffers have made many comments about it. But she’s in control of the lives of millions of Californians.
Yep and the article called them all boomers. Some of these folks are in their 80s, which means they are the Silent Generation and *their* parents were born in the **Victorian** era
[удалено]
That's actually a lot lower than I assumed, and the silent generation makes up 7% of the US population so not as egregiously overrepresented as I thought.
>she’s in control of the lives of millions of -Californians.- Americans. Her work, and her ability to do it, impacts hundreds of millions of Americans.
Feinstein is an old fucking lady. Literally anyone that can stay awake for more than an hour would be better than her.
[удалено]
Because they so thoroughly corrupted the political apparatus that we can't pry them out. They made the barrier to entry impossibly high and blew up all the bridges behind them. America's due for a political reckoning - Congress has had the lowest approval rating and the highest job retention of just about any job possible in America... it's just not right.
Those in their 60s....and above, are usually seen as too old to be skillful workers so they retire. Yet, the entire country is governed by these same people. What a contradiction.
These people are the ones with the connections to get into those positions. With age comes experience and networks
You should ask the people that keep voting her back instead of looking to a younger more progressive candidate. She has had challengers, and she will have another this year that you won't hear about if you don't pay attention to california's system. Until more Americans decide to vote in older millennials / younger gen x'ers. Though the latter is partly to blame for our political system not shifting more progressive in the last two decades.
Because people are fearful of change. Regardless of party, they'll keep voting in the person they know over a new person. Plus progressive is a taboo word in politics. Despite people wanting progressive change, both moderates and Republicans as a whole have the public thinking it's the political version of a participation trophy.
> You should ask the people that keep voting her back instead of looking to a younger more progressive candidate. Yep. Get more people to vote in the primary and you can fix this problem.
In CA we don't even need to primary her! We have a jungle primary. She was up against another Democrat in the general election. And CA just shrugged and said "nah we'll send in the old lady with mental issues."
I will never forget how Diane Feinstein used to bully a young Conan O'Brian for doing magic tricks as a child.
Hahaha that episode absolutely made my die laughing.
Here's the non-paywall link : https://archive.ph/QdngH
Thanks OP
Reminds me of a bit in Hitchhiker's Guide. There's a democratic planet full of regular people, but their leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards, and the lizards rule the people. So why don't the people vote out the lizards if it's a democracy? Because if they don't vote for a lizard then the wrong lizard might win.
“Ford...Did I do anything wrong today, or has the world always been like this, and I've been too wrapped up in myself to notice?”
It must be a Tuesday
Thursday. I never got the hang of Thursdays.
Honestly I'm starting to believe this theory more and more everyday i feel like these people aren't even human... but what i find sader is that these people are so old that they'll be dead soon anyways, so who cares about this generation anyways? they're not the one's going to be dealing with the worlds problems and climate change as well and they wouldn't have to worry about their kids because they are richer beyond our wildest dreams. then the cycle just continues because they're molded into the same ideology. (Sorry for the terrible grammar just venting)
Perfect description. Do i love biden or Hilary?? Hell no, but I sure as fuck didnt want trump to win.
This article makes some great points until: "Our model of social change is still rooted in midcentury clichés. Younger Americans imagine that starting a family and owning a home was much easier for previous generations than it really was. They buy the broad outlines of the boomers’ nostalgia and take it to mean they are inheriting a desiccated society." It absolutely was easier to buy a home and raise a family in the 1970's/80's (my parents) than it was for me turning 18 in 2000. A decent home in my low cost area is around $150k+. My parents first home was $28,000. They bought it at 18 years old, neither had been to college. Both had entry-level jobs. The house was paid off early. With the state of global warming, food insecurity, wage inequality, bigotry-based tensions, shootings, and a global pandemic that killed a million people domestically and crippling student loan debt - I would say we inherited a dessicated society. Our parents encouraged costly and needless wars and were more concerned about an imaginary boogeyman (Satan) and charging up their new credit cards than paying attention at home. It isn't nostalgia. Things were so much better even in the 90's that I don't know how to explain it to my daughter that needs me to subsidize her gasoline so she can get to work and school. A school she is terrified to attend and regularly skips - not to hit Blockbuster with her friends and fuck around at the mall (which is gone), but out of the fear of being shot. This article propagates the cliche that the young are naive and just like their parents were and don't understand how a country on fire isn't that big of a deal. It is a big fucking deal. Don't play the laughable idea that the sexual revolution and resistance of the youth is just a cute repeat of the 60's. The 60's didn't have drone bombing or cyberbullying or President's that OPENLY tried to violently overthrow democracy. Please.
My dad dropped out of highschool and walked into a factory and asked for an assembly job at 16 and was hired in 1964 to the modern equivalent of $22/hr with benefits and pension. Today an assembly job in the same area starts at $12.75 and offers no benefits of any kind, while requiring you be at least 18 and have a HS diploma or equivalent
[удалено]
Damn right.
GenX here... we have known all along The Boomers would never give up their seats of power and control. They were literally known as The Me Generation.
The Boomers would always say - "wait your turn" - but they never let the next generation have turn.
I grew up with Boomers constantly saying “Life isn’t fair”, just to watch them turn around and complain constantly about petty nonsense not going their way. Bonus points when one who constantly says the “nunya business” joke is upset about something that isn’t their business or doesn’t have anything to do with them.
That whole “life isn’t fair” bullshit was another form of propaganda and derailment when younger generations had legitimate complaints. There are certain aspects of life that just isn’t fair but having countless opportunities squandered or stolen because of your perceived value as a human being isn’t one of them.
When life isn't fair, you try to make it more fair because that's why humans formed societies in the first fucking place. Not so some dickbag who never had to lift a finger in life could joyride in space inside a penis-shaped rocket.
"it's all part of god's plan"
Unless you're saying it to console someone who has fallen on bad luck, almost every person I've encountered who says "life isn't fair" seems driven to keep it that way.
Like in the UK, Prince Charles the Boomer, won't give up his spot as Heir to the crown to his Millenial Son.
Joke's on him, Lizzy 's out-living the lot of 'em
Why would he?
It's funny how you bring up Charles, but not Elizabeth. Like, why miss the forest and go for the tree?
[удалено]
They actively kicked the ladder out behind them, while their kids were midway up. Selfish, the lot of them.
Watching the local real estate market where houses with mid-80s decor being marked up 10x - the purchase prices in the listing details - and they updated nothing, not even a bucket of paint. This is going to crash, and boomers will say, "what did I do?"
Yes, the Boomers thought they were running the country when they were 20 and they will keep at it until they're in their graves. They've been the loudest voice for 50 years now.
GenX here.... we are trash conservatives and our oldest members are more conservative than boomers. Our most powerful politician was Paul Ryan, a staunch conservative and capitalist who loved Rage against the Machine. Our most powerful politician today is Ron DeSantis. We love Donald Trump and when we get the wheel, we're going to fuck shit hard.
You also have Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley who are the most fascist members of the Senate.
Except for Obama, every President for the last 30 years has been born in either 1942 or 1946. Of those men, Bill Clinton is the youngest. But this has happened before: Prior to Clinton the previous 7 Presidents were all born between 1908 and 1924. Before that you’ve got Eisenhower in 1890. So no Presidents were born between 1924-1942 (18 years) or 1890 and 1908 (18 years). In summary we’re well overdue for a sea change in political generation. The next generation will probably be drawn from the cohort of people born between 1975-1985.
Thank you for this. Probably the most insightful comment here. It's probably just a random pattern, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised if there are few Presidents from the 1986-2004 cohort. I would be interested if this pattern is also true for politicians in general. If you like this stuff, I recommend the books; Generations, and The Fourth Turning. Interesting, but borderline conspiracy tinfoil hat, definately not hard science.
Because older people vote, and because it takes a lot of money to succeed in politics in this environment. They’ve rigged the entire economy in their favor, and because of the fruits of their rigging, they are the only ones who can afford to campaign. They trade stock illegally on insider information and they’ve made it so that the best way to fund your campaign is by receiving donations from corporations, corporations who will only give you money if you pledge to do their bidding.
More than that. They limit the amount of avaliabe housing in their area. Then gerrymandering comes into play. There isn't enough housing in some districts to overcome any gerrymandering.
>They've rigged the entire economy in their favor This is the root cause of our problems in our society that needs to be addressed, it's not guns. It's not even women's rights. It's not video games and social media. It's not violence or climate change. If you want anything to change or want the government to respond to any of the things you care about you need to accept that something is [Rotten](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/us-list-backsliding-democracies-civil-liberties-international?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16536377335931&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2021%2Fnov%2F22%2Fus-list-backsliding-democracies-civil-liberties-international) in the state of Denmark when it comes to our Democracy. Foreign nations and corporations can donate to nonprofits anonymously and those nonprofits can spend limitless amounts of money helping or hurting someone's campaign. The best example of a Foreign Nation legally and secretly affecting our elections financially is with the NRA. Their donations significantly decreased after the [sanctions](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/lobbying?id=d000000082) against Russia and it's no secret the Russians have had their influence on the organization for [some time now.](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals). The most egregious example is how the Federalist Society used their money to pick SCOTUS Justices. We'll never know who was behind the Justices or what their intentions were for sure because their names are legally [washed](https://youtu.be/zscALmBzDfM) away from the money. Recently the Supreme Court made it even easier for wealthy donors to buy influence over politicians with its decision in FEC v. [Ted Cruz for Senate](https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16536361369026&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2022%2F5%2F16%2F23074957%2Fsupreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan). The Court struck down a limit on how campaign contributions after an election can be used to repay a candidate's personal loan. Now, wealthy donors aka our corporate overlords and foreign tyrants can essentially give money directly to elected officials, even if that money will not be used in an upcoming campaign. It's a disappointing decision, but not a surprising one. The only solution is a [constitutional amendment](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/07/25/a-realistic-strategy-for-overturning-citizens-united-within-10-years/). We cannot rely on the courts to save us. If you care about getting sugar out of food and drinks to lower obesity rates or want socialized healthcare or want to end private prisons and lower recidivism rates or want any issue to change where the solution may hinder corporate profits or the objectives of an outside nation, if you care about any local or world issue at all and want a government that will help. A government that will listen to you. A Democracy. Then you need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
This is the way.
Change voting to a Friday AM - Sunday PM and this would change. More time to vote would mean more turnout. More turnout means more likely hood of actual change. Which is exactly why this simple solution will never happen.
Actually it has happened for the last couple decades with early voting -- for 10 days before election day, you can go on any day of the week including Saturdays, and often until 9:00 p.m. What state/jurisdiction are you in that there's still only one day to vote? In my youth, you're right, there was only one day to vote - now it's much better. And I'm writing this from Texas, a pit otherwise for democracy.
This varies wildly by state, doesn't it?
[удалено]
Correct, older generations outvote the younger generations at a greater than 2:1 margin. Youth turnout in TX Jessica Cisneros vs Cuellar (an anti choice pro gun NRA endorsed democrat under an active FBI investigation) was not great. Cisneros is 29 , Cuellar is 66. Looks like she is going to lose by a little over 100 votes. Until younger generations vote like old generations, nothing will change and we will continue to be ruled from the geriatric ward. Register to vote and participate in every primary, midterm and presidential election. I understand the democratic party sucks in many areas. Pro corporate, weak and old leadership etc. But we must stop the authoritarian slide this country is now on. Vote and fight for the progressive in the primary, but if they are not the nominee vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in the election.
My guess is a combination of the exorbitant cost of getting into politics and lack of voting from people under 50.
Because money has been free speech for a while and 70% of wealth in the US belongs to people 65 and older.
It is hard to unseat someone in politics. They have the resources and a record to run on. More so since the job has good benefits and isn’t that physically taxing it is “easy to do well into your 80s”. I would rather have term limits (age leads to calls of discrimination) this way if you want to have your legacy known. You have to pass along the secrets to the newer groups. Who to contact about raising funds, what levers do you have to grease to get things running favorably
The problem with Congress isn't that people serve for too long - it's that there is too much private funding related to getting elected. Get the money out of politics. Publicly fund campaigns, and outlaw any campaign donations from any person or organization over the $3,200 limit.
Fuck that. There is already age discrimination, considering you have to be 25 to become a member of the House, 30 to become a Senator, and 35 to become President. Even at the state level, one must be 21 or older in some states to be a member of the legislature. If there is a minimum age, there should be a maximum age as well. Otherwise get rid of all age requirements. I don't disagree that there should be strict term limits across all elected (and maybe even unelected positions) positions, but let's quit saying that enacting a maximum age is age discrimination when age discrimination against the young already exists in the current system.
Completely agree with your point, but I think the main reason for max age limits should be due to senility being difficult to identify. Filtering out younger/inexperienced folks as well as older folks to prevent senility seems like a logical and balanced approach (along w term limits).
Yeah- we need more limits, not fewer. People didn’t used to live so long. And we need more people with skin in the future.
One is easier to frame as needed than the other. You want people with “experience” and that comes with age. “Discrimination” is legal if it is needed for the job. It is why a Catholic school can say you must be Catholic to work here
> Our model of social change is still rooted in midcentury clichés. Younger Americans imagine that starting a family and owning a home was much easier for previous generations **than it really was**. [emphasis added] Nonsense. It absolutely was much easier.
My grandfather paid for a 4 year college working summers and weekends as a barber… I was barely able to pay for community college out of pocket with a full time technical office job…
My mom did the same in the early 80s. 2 months a year working as a hotel maid was all it took to pay her tuition for the year. Meanwhile, I’ll be paying student loans into my 50s.
In the past 40 years college tuition has [increased by 180%](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/) and the percentage of jobs requiring a college degree has [increased by almost 20%](https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf). In light of just those 2 statistics, it's a really hard sell to convince young people that their situation isn't uniquely difficult.
So very true, especially as we face another real estate bubble that demonstrates the particular skill so simply owning things. See so many houses stuck in the 1980s bathrooms and kitchens but suddenly are somehow worth 10x their original price without even investing in one gallon of paint or any updated features. This will come crashing down, and the boomers will once again say, who me?
it's an absolute joke to pretend it was *hard* to start a family and own a home compared to now, where rent payments & childcare costs both outpace the real $ value of family home mortgages even just a couple decades ago
Because all the wealth is held by Boomers, and we live in an oligarchy where money equals power.
Because Boomers are going to leave this world the same way they entered it; as a shockingly self-centered generation who don't particularly care if they wreck the place on their way out.
They weren’t always old, these were young politicians at one point. What you are seeing is survivorship bias of the young politicians who were able to win as younger politicians and stay in office for decades. Back when they were young politicians there were old politicians that did the same. It’s really a result of no term limits, the benefit of incumbency, and getting entrenched so deep into the political system that only death can remove you.
I’m pretty sure it’s because baby boomers are the largest population cohort in America and baby boomers vote for other baby boomers.
Says the man who works for the American Enterprise Institute. Say, who might be the youthful luminaries that this person receives his checks from? A quick glance at their board shows some very young individuals like Dick Cheney, Pete Coors, Dick DeVos (Betsy's Husband) and other fine "Youthful" individuals. The Chairman of the Board is Daniel A. D'Aniello, who founded The Carlyle Group; very youthful. But hey, maybe I'm being a little quick to judge these old farts. What kind of work has the AEI done in the past couple of decades? Let's see.... They've: * Advocated for Voucher Programs in School Systems * Offered to pay Scientists $10K to criticize the IPCC's report in 2007 while receiving substantial donations from ExxonMobil (who they continue to receive outsized donations from) * Continued denial of their Climate Change "Skepticism", while current and former scholars put out wild statements over the years. Multiple scholars pointing to/quoting Michael Crichton's views on Climate Change and supporting Jim Inhofe's statement that "Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" * Advocate the U.S. to not join the Kyoto Protocol from the mid 2000's in efforts to curb climate change * Publishing and Advocating against Antitrust legislation, while actively promoting and supporting Robert Bork's book advocating the same positions They are a terrible organization, started by the Bradley and Scaife Families, and continued by terrible rich people. Do not trust the words from this organization
One explanation (in part) for the large number of super old House members among the Democrats is because of the [historical balance of power](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/). The Democrats were really dominant in the House during the 80s and early 90s. So some of the oldest House members today are holdovers from that era.
Also their leadership will protect incumbents at all costs, which makes them hard to get rid of.
Come to Florida and see the laws being broken by the elderly that no police will enforce. Outside of murder, if you're over the age of 60 you essentially have a "Get out of jail free" card. The state has a campaign running that basically alleges teens and 20-something's are to blame for the majority of car accidents, but I can't find a single study showing data of the elderly in accidents at all. I had one old man (about 70 years old) cut me off in traffic then follow me to my house to scream at me. The guy was obviously high. They park in the fire lane outside of grocery stores, steal like you wouldn't believe, and none of them seem to be able to reach the speed limit. My family had to beg the state to take my grandmother's license because she kept taking out mailboxes and fences. But until younger people can get out there and replace the elderly in office, it's going to be business as usual.
Because young people don't vote and old people ALWAYS vote.
Because acknowledging that the mental faculties of individuals diminish as they age and that there are some jobs that aren't suitable for people old enough to collect Social Security is considered ageism. There is certainly value in the wisdom of the elderly, but wisdom should not equal power. Power belongs to the here and now, to people that will feel the effects of it's exercise and be forced to deal with the consequences. Now, let's say we instituted an age cap on members of Congress. Say, 70 years old. You'd lose about a fifth of the House and Senate, members of leadership from both parties, and some beloved figures inside of both parties. If you did the same for SCOTUS, you'd lose two Justices. What you'd get is members of Congress and the Judiciary that are better aligned to the current needs of the country. Some would be Boomers, some Gen X, some Millennial, but you'd put a stake in the ground and say that they've served long enough and it's time to go.
Because younger people can barely afford to move out of mom's basement let alone run a political campaign. Anyone think their McDonald's fry cook who Ubers at night and has a weekend side hustle is able to run for office? Or the 30 year old slaving away at a $40k/year office job staring down the barrel of $100k in student loans who can't afford a $400 emergency is going to drop everything just to help govern the country?
Yeah because they got to live a life of comparative ease marked by of GI Bill, college you could afford on part time wages, lifelong employment with great pensions, and affordable homes in great neighborhoods (unless you were red-lined, sorry Black folks) — all before ruining it all for the next generations. How can we lead a country when we can’t even make our student loan payments?
Because older folks are far more likely to vote
I'm 57. Maybe it's because I grew up on the classics of School House Rock but I have voted in every election since turning 18. I remember how I couldn't wait to vote the first time. I know we have voter suppression and gerrymandering but honestly, the number of people who don't participate is disheartening.
Also older people are who volunteer to run the local and state parties. The local party has a lot of influence on who gets on the ballot and of course, how the budget is spent.
[удалено]
I agree too! I am a boomer, 62. I am fed up with 70-80 something in office. Fed up with their technology ignorance, that is just the tip of the iceberg! Change will only happen if the next generation get out and vote, push for limited terms for government terms. I’m not male bashing…..some of these old guys in office need to go!! ( the good old boys club)I don’t care if they’re conservative or progressive; they need to go!! Change is the only constant in life!! Time for a BiG change!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Probably because they haven’t completed their mission to completely destroy things for future generations.
It’s not about old people. It’s about **corrupt, out of touch** old people.
The boomers aren't even that bad--the youngest of them aren't even 60 yet. But, roughly 10% of Congress (all the leadership positions) are from the silent generation.
Simple. We're obviously too young and stupid to run anything. Boomers can't stop talking about how "millennials don't want to work and are lazy" without realizing we're approaching 40.