this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024

534 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26020 readers

2002 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

534

68-year-old congresswoman says she's retiring to 'set a better example' amid concern over aging politicians (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Rep. Annie Kuster, a 68-year-old Democrat from New Hampshire, retiring after 12 years in Congress, cites a desire to “set a better example” and create space for younger leaders.

Her decision comes amid growing public concern about aging politicians, with about a quarter of lawmakers over 70. Kuster’s successor will be Maggie Goodlander, 38.

Democrats are increasingly elevating younger leaders following setbacks in 2024, which some attribute to the perception of aging leadership, including President Biden’s controversial reelection bid.

Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 106 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.

They are our fucking employees. We should be able to choose the terms of their employment. Seems like a pretty fundamental tenant of a fucking democracy to me.

We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery....I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

What moral quandary? No one but pedophiles complains about the fact that age minimums for certain activities exist. Cognitive function is a bell curve and old people are on the back end of it. That's just a fact of life. What is controversial about it?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 15 points 9 months ago (15 children)

The idea is that we choose every election.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

We could have more choices if we replaced First past the post voting by passing state level electoral reform.

But then the Democrats would have to actually compete for yiur vote so that's a hard pass.

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

They are our fucking employees.

Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.

We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.

There's no such thing as a "national referendum", legally speaking. We don't vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.

Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The problem is people like, "their," geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he'll be seeking reelection in two years when he'll be 80. Even though I think he's been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I'm probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn't choose to step down.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It would still be age discrimination. The way to go is term limits.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

If there can be a minimum age, there can be a maximum age.

[–] asdf1234idfk@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

How would it be age discrimination? There are plenty of fields where you are no longer able to work at a certain age such as being a pilot or air traffic control. If we can't trust a 70 year old pilot to fly a couple hundred people then why the hell can we trust a 70 year old politican to steer the entire country with policy?

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

We can do an article V convention to amend the constitution with these limits in order to circumvent DC politics entirely. But they will tell you that it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and could cost us democracy itself!…I say we go for it anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 71 points 9 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

[deleted]

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

So?

It's a lot harder for their voters to excuse it when only one party does it. Which hurts them in elections.

And that's not even getting into how those geriatric politicians are a disadvantage. They have to be physically present to vote. And the majority leader could actually try to do something every day.

Eventually enough would be missing that things could be accomplished.

There's literally nothing stopping us from trying except the lack of effort from our politicians, so let's get better ones and let the Republicans keep their ineffectual ones.

What's the problem?

[–] dephyre@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She's set to be replaced by Maggie Goodlander, a 38-year-old Democrat who most recently worked in the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden.

I don't really see any issue here.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

It's better than it sounds, she announced it like 9 months ago so there was a primary for the seat.

The article is paywalled but it makes it sound like she ran in 2024 and now someone is just getting the seat, which would have been bullshit.

There's not really any issues at all here, and I can usually always find something to complain about.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.

[–] VivianRixia@piefed.social 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Best we can do is younger, neoliberal folks." - Democratic Party

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

Younger folk tend to be more adaptable and likely more in tune with actual working class issues. So more of a chance than before at least.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

As long as they keep putting in replacements that's are younger, this is a good strategy. The problem would be if they lose their seats, but if it puts the GOP further out of touch with voters and pushes Democrats closer, I'm all for it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example”

Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.

If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you've got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there's a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.

Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 59 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reached for comment, Nancy Pelosi said "what an idiot, these are her prime grifting years!"

[–] alaphic@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

I'm still not entirely convinced that she's not a lich, tbh

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Time to elect a 72 year old replacement!

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago

Thankfully, her replacement is 38.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

The summary of this article is misleading, and I hit a paywall before being able to read the whole article.

She announced her retirement back in March 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/27/annie-kuster-retiring-house/ and did not run in the 2024 election.

This specific announcement is that one of the reasons is she is retiring is to allow younger folks a chance to lead.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I bet the private sector is more efficient at their systemic ageism. This will be interesting to see how this pans out if/when things like life extension/reversal come online.

load more comments