Politicians are aging as we speak. Five years ago, America elected the oldest president to ever assume office. Republican candidate Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 17th of 2017 at the age 70 years old. One election cycle later, democratic candidate Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20th at the age of 78. 

Not surprisingly, presidents are not the only politicians aging. According to the Library of Congress, the average age of a candidate is 58.4 for House members and 64.3 for Senate members, originally both chambers marked around late 40’s to early 50’s age just 20 years earlier. There are increasing signs of an aging population as America continues to elect older candidates. 

There are also other factors influencing the trend of an aging population. In today’s financial system, the accumulation of wealth of an individual increases over time. Running for office requires wealth to cover expenses for campaigning and communicating with constituents. Just through generational differences, Business Insider states millennials own only 4.6% of American wealth, while baby boomers own 53.2% respectively. 

A mainstream liberal perspective suggests in order to alleviate these economic disparities systemically, it would require a complete overturn of the meritocracy, making access easier for younger generations to advance into the political spectrum. While this change is possible,  it is difficult to enact and is estimated to create greater problems in the long run. Some problems resulting from such a transfer of power is that it would create a massive distribution of wealth from the boomer generation to the millennial generation through extreme taxes and potential inflation. Divisions between receiving the reparations within the millennial generation would be debated on concepts such as race, gender, and previous wealth. A modern example from the Covid 19 pandemic on federal stimulus distributions became highly controversial when the state of Oregon granted relief checks to black families solely on the basis of race, according to the New York Times. Lawsuits were filed attacking affirmative action laws. Trying to incorporate such a law on the federal scale with other factors included would be difficult if not impossible.

The boomers would lose money that has been built over years of serving in the workforce that is essential for their retirement and social security programs. The functioning of capitalism relies on the idea of accumulating wealth over time. Such changes would overturn how wages and business transactions are regulated in the economic free market, that restrict basic freedoms through lockdown government regulations. Because of these problems, a more practical solution is through legislative action in Congress that can balance the benefits and setbacks of such a limit.

Sartell High School’s Government and Economics teacher Roy Snyder gives an in-depth perspective on having an age limit and its merits. 

Snyder states, “It is not unprecedented before in other countries, such as Iran and Nigeria, which are not necessarily countries the U.S. is fond of comparing itself with. Historically, there have been U.S. politicians who have age-related complications that have deteriorated their decision making [and]…affect their authority in legislation. On the other hand, making policy and governing is a very difficult skill that can only be learned through experience, which is essential in order to enact a healthy governing body.” 

A harder argument to draw is based on the fact that there are young politicians who deal with health problems at a young age.

Snyder says, “Most people didn’t know, but President Kennedy was medicated due to health complications throughout his term, and he was one of the youngest presidents ever.”

Indeed, Kennedy suffered difficulties with chronic back pain and adrenal insufficiencies that caused him to take painkillers and steroids through office until his assassination in 1963. 

The idea of having an age limit is not so different from the 26th amendment. The 26th amendment describes 18 and up being the age to vote. These underlying beliefs about the voting rights to age come from the certainty that age does matter and has an impact on the course of the electoral results. Biological components of brain function are a factor in mental development, and policymakers have taken this into account and set the age limit of 18. 

The real argument being made is that politicians require stamina. According to the Bill of Rights Institution, Alexander Hamilton states in a foundational American document, Federalist 70, that the executive branch specifically requires energy and stamina to maintain. In the executive branch especially, being unable to react in such a position goes against this notion as both a leader and commander in chief. When the mental stamina is removed from the executive position, it disrupts the very nature of the executive branch and will affect the connecting branches of government to a lesser extent.

I firmly believe having an age limit on federal politicians is becoming increasingly necessary to implement into law, providing clear and strict rules to maintain stability and representation for American constituents. America wants its representatives to be competent in making decisions best fit for the country.

 I suggest implementing a law into legislation that has a designed cognitive test to determine the function of each politician, taken each year of the politician’s term. This test must be carefully constructed by experts in the psychological and academic fields of study without partisan bias. 

Whether the United States decides to implement an age limit is yet to be seen, but it will be safe to say the age limit of federal politicians will continue to increase as time moves forward.