Commercial pilots face mandatory retirement at 67. Foreign Service employees at the State Department are forced to retire at 65. Why, then, don’t members of Congress face mandatory retirement after a certain age? As some senior lawmakers grapple with health issues in public and with at least 20 members of Congress aged 80 or older, it prompts a debate about whether the time has come for change.
Straight Arrow News contributor Adrienne Lawrence expresses concerns regarding our older leaders’ abilities to effectively perform their duties, particularly in light of new legislation addressing modern topics such as TikTok bans and AI.
Our future is being decided and guided by a gaggle of people who predate the invention of bubble wrap. A significant number of our leaders have had early adulthood shaped by post-World War II American exceptionalism. They know what it’s like to have affordable housing, good jobs and daily life without mass shootings. But my God, they cannot relate to the lives and the needs of a solid percentage of Americans today.
We see the age disparity play out at congressional hearings all the time. Between potential TikTok bans and conversations about AI, the culture has shifted and evolved such that many of our leaders are often wholly unfamiliar and totally detached from matters upon which they must decide. We deserve leadership that connects with the existing and evolving culture in a way of life that reflects us all.
They need to have the capacity to shape the future for all Americans. Yes, all. That’s why I’m not saying members of the Silent Generation should stay silent in Congress or that the boomers need to back out of the three branches. No, their voices are important and also their presence is essential, as they too represent generations of a number of Americans. But what I am saying is that we need age limits and better efforts to ensure that we have representation in government that reflects we the people, because when it comes to leadership, age is far more than just a number.
