America’s Aged Leaders

America’s Aged Leaders

Diane Feinstein, President Biden, Mitch McConnell, and many other lesser-known political leaders have had their mental challenges related to aging.

In totalitarian regimes government officials do not need to try hard to “earn” people’s votes – they all get appointed by the regime based on loyalty to the “great leader” who himself tends to hold on to power well beyond the expiration of their top mental and physical shape.

In a true democracy, on the other hand, elected officials must remain mentally and physically agile and active to stay relevant, to be re-elected and popular among voters.

Based on the aging trends among U.S. government officials the U.S. is currently gradually sliding from being a true democracy to a kind of “GERONTOCRACY” most common among totalitarian regimes.

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Deng Xiaoping, Leonid Brezhnev

and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who is currently the President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, who seized power in a coup in 1979, and President Biden all represent this powerful gerontocracy team. However, Biden is the only one who represents a democracy and therefore is required to prove to us voters that despite his advanced age he is active and physically and mentally competent to manage the heavy workload of the president’s job. Yes, it’s important to listen to your advisers and delegate various duties for any president young or old, but ultimately presidential decisions should not be made by presidential “handlers” or “advisers” – the prerogative for decision-making belongs to the president.

The same applies to leaders of Congress, Supreme Court judges, and all state and local leaders with any sort of decision-making power – they need to rely on their advisors but must still make difficult decisions and take personal responsibility for them.

This means that, if an elected or appointed government official is losing his or her mental competency, they can not effectively represent the public and perform their duties and must be immediately removed from power if an independent commission of politically neutral doctors relying on commonly accepted medical standards determines that such an official is no longer in their top shape. The challenges of this process would include political attacks from allies of the politician in question, difficulty of picking an independent “medical jury” and unwillingness of the politician to undergo mental testing.

This doesn’t mean that the idea of regular mental testing for aging politicians (and perhaps for all politicians regardless of age) is not relevant or necessary to save the country from wrong decisions by mentally incompetent or mentally unstable leaders.

How do we know that President Biden can make the right decisions in the interests of Americans if he avoids press conferences, if he is being sheltered by friendly media from tough and provocative questions by the opposing media journalists, if he rarely speaks publicly without a teleprompter, and when he does, he makes bizarre statements with some regularity? The same applies to Mitch McConnell, Diane Feinstein, and many others. Believers in Donald Trump’s mental instability could also make an argument that Trump is unfit to serve because he easily gets agitated, makes rushed decisions during his presidency, would get into petty public disputes way below the presidential level, etc. – They even floated the Article 25 idea to impeach him. However, with Trump, at least we see active participation in public life, interviews, and rallies instead of hiding from the public as Biden does, Trump actively inserts himself in the public eye which allows us all to make a fair judgment about his mental competency and his physical and mental agility. And yet, it would be very beneficial for the public to evaluate him as well as all other politicians for mental and psychological fitness for the office.

Aside from regular mental health issues, there is the institutional problem of aging politicians being so deeply entrenched in their offices, entangled with various business lobbyists, unions, and political groups that benefit from this politician’s policies, that they are being artificially propped up at the expense of the public beyond the expiration of their ability to serve. This means that in a true democracy, it should be easier to replace the government official who is no longer efficient, competent, or useful and who has turned into government mold growing inside the government swamp.

However, to challenge and replace such politicians, the challenger needs money and resources that the general public doesn’t have or is unwilling to spend (micro-donations) and so the moldy establishment keeps prevailing and we keep sliding into the totalitarian establishment system.

To be fair, there are some strong arguments in favor of “gerontocracy” such as experience, stability, and the ability to calmly negotiate with the other side of the aisle rather than being a hothead like Ocasio Cortez or Marjorie Taylor Greene… Younger leaders may be even more emotionally unstable than their older counterparts. Younger leaders are normally inexperienced and less competent and can also make wrong decisions on a spur of the moment and are too proud to listen to their advisers.

In addition, the U.S. population is aging, living longer and so the fastest-growing voting bloc is probably the population over 50 – so why shouldn’t aging people be represented by aging politicians who understand their needs better than younger politicians?

On balance, however, there should be some basic minimal competency requirements for politicians, especially aging ones, which must include not only regular mental acuity testing; but accountability to the public which would include participation in regular press conferences; interviews with opposition press, some public speaking without teleprompter, and general availability for public evaluation of fitness for the office.

Age in of itself will not be a disqualifying factor if competency requirements are met and we will be getting mentally competent, experienced and personally accountable politicians in one package.