Time to take baby boomers off the ticket

[DonViejo]

By David Von Drehle Columnist November 24 at 6:32 PM

-snip-

If our four best presidents entered office at an average age of 50, why am I reading about potential candidates for 2020 who will be in their 70s? Former vice president Joe Biden says he is thinking about making a run. If he won, he would take office at 78. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been touted as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination. He would be 79. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) beams as throngs of Democrats chant her name. If she runs and wins, she would take the oath at 71.

Until Donald Trump came along, the United States had never sent a septuagenarian to occupy the Oval Office. (We did keep one there in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was reelected at 73.) We’ve sworn in more than twice as many presidents under the age of 50 as over the age of 65. That serious people are discussing candidates who would be pushing 80 is unprecedented — and sclerotic for our political system.

My point is not to disparage the elderly, for I am rapidly becoming one myself. But no thriving society finds its fresh thinking among its oldest leaders. The wisdom of years is a check, not an engine. Though age takes its toll in different ways on different people, in the aggregate the science is clear: Mental agility, executive function and creativity all tend to decline as we pass through middle age. A nice summary of the research, published by the distinguished Dana Foundation, noted: “Older adults tend to be slower in conceptualizing and less ready to change strategies when circumstances shift.”

Studies have found that the brain reaches its peak processing power by age 20. (Other mental peaks come as late as 40 or beyond.) This youthful period of high performance is associated with creative lightning bolts: the physics of Einstein, the poetry of Keats, the music of Lennon and McCartney.

Admittedly, leadership is not a simple matter of speedy thinking. It also requires enough knowledge and experience to make wise decisions, as well as the savvy to read people and situations. For the gifted leader, though, a little experience goes a long way. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was only 39 when he was murdered, younger than any U.S. president. Yet few could match his ability to inspire, to frame the debate, to match strategy with tactics, to seize the moment and to hold coalitions together.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-to-take-baby-boomers-off-the-ticket/2017/11/24/7b4aa97c-d154-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html

[treestar]

1. The younger baby boomers are

53 and in early 60s and they are not too old for anything.

[hlthe2b]

4. just posted the same. Obama IS a baby boomer (56 yr old)

[hamsterjill]

23. Thank you!!!

I’m not quite ready for the rest home myself either. Painting with a broad brush (in this case, a whole generation) is going to disqualify a lot of talent.

[matt819]

48. Sure

But look at how fucked up things are because of many of them (us - I'm a mid-stage boomer).

[hlthe2b]

2. the census includes those born 1964 and after-- as young as 53 today... This is ageist assholery

[Turn CO Blue]

43. Your definition of generation places my parents and I into the same generation, which I find silly.

It depends on how old your parents were when you were born.

I was born in 65 - and I am in GenX.

My parents were the earliest born after WWII. Both sets of grandparents were involved in or served in the WWII effort - hence the "boom" in childbirth after that war.

My dad served in Vietnam, a different generation's war.

So to give even more nuance, my mother was the firstborn (born in 44) from WWII parents, but her sister, my aunt, was the very lastborn (born in 63).

So my aunt and I are less than two years apart - but she is a Boomer and I am a Gen-X'er. And believe me, the generational difference of our parents and ourselves shows up in everything from our perspectives to our fashion.

[hlthe2b]

49. Your definition is your own. The Census is the source I cited.

But apparently that is important for you to believe otherwise, so knock yourself out.

The term “baby boomer” refers
to individuals born in the United
States between mid-1946 and
mid-1964 (Hogan, Perez, and
Bell, 2008).
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf

[bluestarone]

56. agree with this

but 70 is not too old i feel

[WinkyDink]

68. Don't care. It's an absurd definition, to include Korean Conflict babies. So you AND

the Census can knock yourselves out.

Since when does one generation comprise 21-- 23 years?

Yeah, that would be never.

Unless, of course, you AND the Census can point to, say, "the Greatest Generation," or, say, the current "Millennials" and claim either group spans MORE THAN TWO DECADES.

I'll wait.

And I'll add this: Obama's generational cohorts weren't sent to Vietnam.

[hlthe2b]

73. If you dont wish to discuss the ACTUAL topic

then why are you compelled to post here?

You have the right to your own opinion but not your own facts

[tazkcmo]

3. Not all boomers are 70.

The last of us are in our 50's. Is that too old and stale?

[Sancho]

5. Young people don't vote...

[Voltaire2]

6. We are so far the worst generation ever.

As a boomer I fully accept that we have basically squandered the planets resources, pillaged the public treasuries, and damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the democratic institutions of the world. We are unfit for anything other than being let out to pasture.

No more.

[Cirque du So-What]

19. You are welcome to put yourself out to pasture

I was a conservationist as a teen and have been ever since. One cannot pigeonhole a demographic comprising nearly 40M people.

[Alice11111]

59. Agree. On Boomers watches: The Civil Rights Act, Roe

v Wade, MLK, Integration of schools....We protested the war. Some died at Kent State.



Boomers changed the direction of our country and made it great.

[crazycatlady]

72. While they were in power-- two wars and a crippling recession

(All on Boomer George W Bush's watch)

[dembotoz]

7. Ballot box decides age of candidates

They will run til they stop getting elected

[Squinch]

8. Dumb idea.

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. I'm fine with electing younger boomers, but I generally agree with the point of the piece.

Disclaimer: I'm an early boomer.

[Sunlei]

10. Some people still in the "prime of their lives" in 70s & 80s, even some in 90s-don't WASTE them.

That's like throwing them away before they're done.

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. Jimmy Carter, anyone?

Still physically working at 93.

what we need to be thinking about is how intelligent and educated a candidate is.

[Sunlei]

40. JC is a Great American & active. Rs want Ds to forget about midterms & focus on 2020.

[Blue_Adept]

32. Very few of them will be handle the complexities of the world as it exists today

I love Carter as much as the next guy as mentioned above, but there's no way I'd want him to be running things. Just the vast difference in technology and what's required to operate a white house these days, never mind actual policy.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. The age of presidents going back to the 1700s is kind of irrelevant. People age better today.

I think many of us also mature slower. And women seem to keep it together longer than men.
That said, someone in their 60s is probably OK but I think it's nuts to run a septuagenarian for the most stressful job in the world. But that's not to say at all that we take them out of the game entirely. These are the experienced men and women you want in key positions. I'd like to see Biden come in in 2020 as Secretary of State. He's got the background and the gravitas to quickly clean things up post-Trump.

[Hortensis]

12. I think they should start with voting their numbers

and work their way up from there. I'm not making excuses for my own boomer generation, but so far the performance of younger generations is tragically unimpressive.

In fact, we could reasonably elbow Comey, Russia, the MSM including the NYT, white male malcontents, and the Koch types all aside and just go straight to blaming the low turnout of 30-45 Democrats and left-leaning uncommitters for 2016. It couldn't have happened without that.



Btw, note that younger Republicans alone wiped the floor with them in all three bottom age groups. In a manner of speaking, they all "own" the Trump-Koch government.

But, they should feel totally free to vote in numbers that could at least replace a fair number of boomers with younger generations. Starting in 2018, please. We're in crisis, and that'd work for all of us.

[Thor_MN]

20. What is that graph supposed to represent?

It can't be showing how each age cohort voted, as the numbers total more than 100% for each age cohort.

It can't be showing what percentage of each group voted, as you can't know the affiliation of those that didn't vote, besides the fact that percents of groups with different total members are meaningless.

I can't see a way that those stats mean anything.

[Hoyt]

21. 62+ years of age -- 67.1% of Democrats turned out to vote; 71.5% or GOPers voted; 57.5% of other

voted.

Other age groups are shown. Chart shows that older people -- regardless of party affiliation -- tend to get out an vote more often than other age groups.

Who knows whether the chart is accurate and if it means anything other than older folks tend to vote more compared to other age groups.

[Thor_MN]

25. So, percentages of voters registered for a party...

Which leads to meaningless comparisons as presented since the number of people registered for each party is not equal. Consider that the blue lines should in theory total 3 million more than the red lines and the green lines should be a tiny fraction of the red and blue.

[Hoyt]

27. Like I said, it doesn't mean much more than older folks tend to vote more often than younger.

I'm in the oldest group. With some exceptions, I'd vote for someone 50 years old or so, if all other things were equal. I'd also vote for a woman because men have had their chance and have performed miserably, with some notable exceptions.

[cwydro]

67. Amazing.

I remember a younger poster here (forgot the name) who practically bragged that he/she had not voted in his/her life - I think that poster was in his/her early 30s or thereabouts. I remember being astounded at that.

[WinkyDink]

13. The term "Baby Boom" refers to the generation sired by returning WWII soldiers. Obama's year, 1961,

is QUITE THE DELAYED REACTION (WWII for America = December 1941-1945).

So WHATEVER Wikipedia or any other "source" says to the contrary, NO-ONE born in the 60s can be said to be a Baby Boomer.

IOW: If you don't remember where you were on 11/22/63 or on 2/09/64*, fuhgeddaboutit.

*Beatles on "Ed Sullivan"

Signed, '49er WD.

[Maeve]

31. That is one definition

The early boomers were mostly that--the boom caused by returning soldiers. On that, there is agreement.

But the flood of babies continued and the generally accepted def is that the boomer generation spans 1945 to 1965. I am a mid-boomer (1955) and my dad was 9 when Pearl Harbor was bombed. By the late '60's, the big family days were coming to an end and school populations were stabilizing, then shrinking--baby bust.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. There's a wonderful book out there,

Generations by William Strauss and Neil Howe which carefully examines the different generational types in this country over a 400 year time scale. Utterly fascinating.

They make the case for the Boomer generation, that is a more or less cohesive cohort with similar experiences and (in certain ways) outlooks, to be those born between 1943 and 1960. Which would make Obama a GenXer (called Thirteeners in the book), and I strongly agree. He's not at all in outlook or behavior like a Boomer.

I wish I could persuade more people to read this book. They spend nearly a hundred pages explaining how they came to the theory of generations that they use here, and then the next 350 pages carefully describing all of the generations and generational types that have shaped this country, and projecting how things might play out well into the 21st century. The book has a copyright date of 1991, but trust me, it doesn't feel dated.

Strauss and Howe also wrote a couple of other books, including The Fourth Turning which I also highly recommend.

[susanna]

52. I enjoyed the book as well for many of the reasons you mention.

My husband and I are separated by eight years; he is a tail-end Boomer and I am an Atari-wave Xer/13er. We think a lot alike. (He's not at all like a Boomer even though he fits the objective "date" criteria - he's one year older than Obama.)

Also agree about The Fourth Turning. (Bannon gets it wrong, IMHO. I have a lot to say on that topic lol.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

53. I've been pushing this book for some time, and I think

you may be the first person here who's read it, or at least the first person who's let me know that.

I need to do a reread. I can't recall if they make it clear that people born on the cusp of a generational change might wind up a lot like the one they just missed, either by being a year too young or a year too old. I suspect that at least sometimes that will be influenced by the presence of siblings who are full on a specific generation.

And yes, Bannon totally misunderstands The Fourth Turning. And misunderstands it in a genuinely dangerous way. It's as if he simply read a review of it and glommed on to the notion that things can change dramatically and suddenly, but because he only read a review, missed the finer points of what actually happens, and how important the first three turnings also are.

[susanna]

58. I could stand a re-read myself.

I've been unpacking books from a recent move, and of course they will be in the last box I unpack...I have a lot of books. Sigh. As for husband? His brothers are both Gen X so I think it might be sibling influence for him being less Boomer-ish.

Agree so much re: Bannon and The Fourth Turning. I always understood that fourth turnings were something that happened, for lack of a better word, naturally. If my memory about the lead-up to a fourth turning is correct, they come about as a confluence of events reaching critical mass, and only after a seismic societal event of some sort.

I do think Bannon (cynically) attempted to bring on a fourth turning prior to/during the election on through manipulation, deceit and propaganda. If I am right, he is missing one important qualifier: the great preceding shock that gives the fourth turning its tsunami quality.

As a matter of interest, are we due for a legitimate fourth turning? If so, I think it could be the post-election period that delivers the seeds, with the election being the shock that resonates and amplifies (which it seems to be doing).

Thanks for talking about this with me! I have not met many people who read both books either. Kindred spirits...

on edit: forgot to respond to something...oops

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

60. Such a delight to have FINALLY come across someone who has read the book.

And siblings matter.

I recall figuring that out a very long time ago in terms of pop music. Because my oldest brother is six and a half years older than I am, I tended to know music from a half-generation before. And that's partly why I didn't initially get the Beatles.

As it is, almost none of us are purely our generation. Strauss and Howe allude to that, but understandably don't go into detail. They're more interested in the broad sweep of things.

I have found that since I first read that book, only a couple of years after it came out, I've almost always interpreted most things in terms of Generations. I look at someone's birth year, place them into their correct generational place, and go from there. It's a bit like someone who has recently converted to a specific religious sect, who interprets everything through that lens. At least I'm self-aware enough to recognize that this is not the only way to interpret things, but oh my oh my, is it powerful.

Which is why I really wish more people would read that book.

[susanna]

61. I know! Me too. Glad to discuss it with you.

I talked about Generations and The Fourth Turning years ago (because I have been here forever on DU) and no one seems to have read them, or didn't find it interesting in the past - at least enough to talk about. i just let it go.

Now, at least with The Fourth Turning, everyone knows about it because, well, Bannon.

People need to read both books to really understand Strauss & Howes' reasoning. I'm the first to admit I don't think that their theory is perfect; I object to some of the things they put forward, but the bulk of their theory was extremely resonant with me back when they wrote it.

My worry is that people (now) might read them through a backwards filter based on what has already happened (especially as regards T4T). I would tell them to read both anyway, because I still believe they are relevant, and thoughtful people will make the connections that need to be made.

As for using it as a filter in the day to day understanding of those around us? Yes. Oh so much yes. It's incredibly powerful.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

62. It is so important for people to read that first book in its entirety.

Their theory cannot be captured in 25 words or less. It's complex, and needs to be understood.

It's also important to read the books in order. I think the main reason Bannon has it so wrong is that he stumbled across that one book, read a synopsis of it, and thinks he fully understands it. he doesn't.

Certainly people may disagree with various specifics, but I honestly think their theory is so important that it's impossible to understand the history of this country without understanding this.

[susanna]

63. In complete agreement.

They both deserve the scrutiny of thoughtful people.

Generations at the top of the list.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

64. I know how often I recommend it to people, and I guess that you

are doing so also.

[susanna]

74. Yes I am!

[left-of-center2012]

14. We need more 80 year olds and 90 year olds in Washington

Young whippersnappers don't remember life under FDR !

OK ~ just kidding.

[LakeArenal]

15. So Joe Biden Out....

Go tell Joe to his face.

[lpbk2713]

16. This denies the potential of a large segment of our society.

Not a well thought out plan.

[pamdb]

17. baby boomers

As a baby boomer (age 66) I completely agree. I want someone younger, I really like the Obama family.

[JonLP24]

18. I think we should focus on who has the best policy

BTW this post was alerted on but I decided to excuse myself from the jury. It is from the Washington Post anyway.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. + 1 million

I want substance over style.

FDR looked like hell when he died in 1945, but he got the job done!

[Hoyt]

24. Don't have issue with older folks running, but would like to see more younger candidates and women

in general elections.

I actually think more women in office -- regardless of age -- would do the country a lot of good.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Democrats, that is all I care about, whether they are 18 or 108...

[beachbum bob]

30. Wisdom comes with age, trump is an exception...

Making generalizations of baby boomer generation pretty well reveals the ignorance of those younger than us....

[alarimer]

33. Ageism

The last acceptable prejudice.

[mentalsolstice]

57. Off topic: Ageism isnt the last acceptable prejudice

Don’t want to get into a pissing match....disability will always be the last acceptable prejudice. However, there is some overlap in the two groups.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. Any good pols from the "beat" generation?

We Baby Boomers are just too young to hold a responsible job.

[delisen]

35. This is an example of authoritarianism

We are being pulled to the right by the rising authoritarianism in the US and in the wider world with calls to limit the candidates to a supposed peak age range for candidacy-as though candidates are not individuals but just members of a cohort or group.

The "baby boomer" phenomenon vape about because delayed births during WWII and a sort afterward skewed the population younger, and delayed gratification for consumer goods ushered in a new age of materialism and growth in services.

Among those service were programs like Medicare- which has fueled medical research, increased healthiness and longevity.
Of course there is a larger contingent of older leaders than in earlier times.

Of course there is less room at the top and a larger contingent of ambitious younger politicians.

In a nuclear age, now combined with an economic age of rampant automation and income inequality, and global climate change-the most important characteristics in leadership are wisdom and a dedication to human rights.

I think attempts to press for a peak age range for leadership ability are authoritarian and anti-democratic-the modern equivalent of the old Democratic Party "smoke-filled room."

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. I agree.

At the very least we shouldn't be trying to elect those already past 70. At least not to the Presidency.

[crazycatlady]

38. I'm the child of boomers

But I think that if we need a younger bench (the GOP has a large bench of Gen X politicians that we don't) then we need to start electing them at a state and local level.

I interviewed for a Gubernatorial candidate who's 2 years older than me running for governor. I worked for a now DA elect that graduated in the same HS class as me (year not school). We need to start electing younger people for office at all levels.

[still_one]

39. How old is Putin?

[Brainstormy]

41. A really stupid plan. n/t

[MFM008]

42. You are 100% correct

How do you get excited about an 80 year old in office.
My mom is 80 and when the phone rings she just looks at it and she doesn't have dementia.
The age of retirement is 65 for a reason.

[StevieM]

46. For the record, the retirement age is going up to 67 in coming years.

I think that plenty of people are capable of working well into their 70s.

As I posted above, I like Jay Inslee, who is going to be 69 in 2020, and Tom Steyer who will be 63.

[JenniferJuniper]

55. Depends on the job as much of the person

I have an exceptionally mentally tasking job and don't see myself making it past 60, despite the fact that I really need to work longer. I know I am slowing down and given the "do more with less" mentality of the industry I am in, I need to be getting faster. I'm in a niche situation and would probably only be qualified for a minimum wage job in the service industry when I leave. With no benefits.

My father had a heavy labor job, he was on the verge of physical collapse when he retired at 65. Had he developed arthritis in his hips or knees, he would have had to leave long before.

I think most people are at their peak in their 40's and 50's. Old enough to have far more wisdom than the young but sharp and strong enough to be on the top of their game.

[StevieM]

44. Well some people define baby boomers as extending to people born in 1964.

Is someone who is 56 years old too old for the job?

Other people say it ended in 1959. Is someone who is 61 too old for the job?

The "leading edge" baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1955. Is a 65 year old out of the question?

My two preferred candidates are Tom Steyer, who will be 63 in 2020, and Jay Inslee who will be 69.

I fully expect Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders to both run. I won't vote for either one of them but I don't see a reason why they shouldn't run.

[jalan48]

45. I think we let the primaries determine who the people want as the Presidential candidate.

Or are you suggesting a system where elites decide who to run?

[CBHagman]

47. Imagine if Von Drehle had written that women should not make decisions affecting other people.

Imagine if he had written that gay and lesbian Americans should not make decisions affecting other people.

Imagine if he had written that men ought not to serve in political office.

Imagine if he had written that Muslims should be disqualified from leadership roles.

Follow the exercise with any other demographic group.

How is this any different?

Discrimination based on birth year is still one of the last socially acceptable forms of bigotry. In fact it has a certain cachet in some circles. I certainly see a lot of it in the pages of The Washington Post, and unfortunately I see it frequently on DU.

Birth year doesn't determine temperament, talent, education, conscience, or knowledge, and it definitely shouldn't shut someone out of elected or appointed positions.

[crazycatlady]

54. Then there is legalized discrimination in the Constitution

Discrimination by birth year goes both ways. If you want to run for Congress (House), you have to be at least 25 when the term starts. Senate is 30 (last time someone younger than 30 was elected was in 1972, but he turned 30 before he took office), POTUS 35.

Many states also have age requirements for elected office.

[msongs]

50. tell the kiddies if they dont vote their cell phones will be cut off nt

[LonePirate]

51. Harris/Kander 2020 or Kander/Harris 2020

[DFW]

65. For what it's worth

Howard Dean very much agrees, and he's putting his energy where his mouth is. He and Hillary are involved in a number (I can't say how many until one of them says so publicly, but it's more than just a few) of initiatives around the country trying to recruit present and future dynamic, young (20s and 30s) Democratic candidates to fill out our future ranks. Howard just turned 69, by the way.

[sadiegirl]

66. Doesn't matter gender or age if WE don't get out and vote and call in to all the RW talk shows with

truth and facts. Even if they don't want to hear it someone is out there listening living the wretched life Trump promised to eliminate for them. They now know he lies bigly and their only hope is to elected different Congress and a President who really intends to help them and not Russia.

The end of net neutrality might be just the issue to bring them all down.

[Vinca]

69. Exactly right. As much as I want younger Dems to step into the starring roles, it's all for naught

if voters sit home and pout because their candidate isn't the nominee.

[lillypaddle]

70. Preach!

[FarCenter]

71. The next candidate should be younger than Obama who by 2020 will be 12 years older than when elected

Preferably the candidate will be in their early 50s. By that age performance has declined somewhat, but the added experience is a good trade off. That is typically the age of appointment to responsible positions in corporations, military officers, etc.