Longevity Compromises Security
Senator Strom Thurmond was 101 ½ years old when he passed away in 2003. He was the longest serving Senator in United States history, serving 48 years (1954–2003). He declined to seek re-election in 2002 and was succeeded by Senator Lindsey Graham. That distinction was short-lived as Senator Byrd surpassed his service record shortly thereafter. Thurmond stated in his retirement celebration,
“I don’t know how to thank you. You’re wonderful people, I appreciate you, appreciate what you’ve done for me, and may God allow you to live a long time.”
That is fine and dandy, friends. But must they live out their twilight years in political office? Currently, the United States Senate has seven octogenarians serving with several tipping toward 90. How sure are we as to their effectiveness at that age? Are these senators able to comprehend the intricacies of the worldwideweb or know the difference between DNA, RNA, or BRB? What contributions to the public good could these elder statesmen make outside of the United States Senate, taking note of the activities of former President Carter?
To serve in the United States Senate, one must be 30 years old, nine-years a US citizen, and a resident of the state they serve. There are no members below 40 currently. As a matter of fact, there are only twelve members in their forties, most tipping 50. So, who speaks for the younger generations? Who understands TikTok, Snapchat, or even Facebook? Who in the senate knows personally someone with student loan debt? Or a service member with PTSD from service in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Longevity in the US Senate and House of Representatives has been perceived as a net benefit, yet, when have we seen any activity from the senate benefiting the American people lately? Ten years? Twenty? Real Clear Politics average Congressional Job Approval Rating hovers around 18% (13% — 22%). 70.3% of polled voters disapprove of our current crop in Congress.
Now this nation is facing an epic pandemic that is most deadly to people over 60 and those with preexisting conditions. Want to know how many senators fall in that age group? Sixty-Nine!
Something has to give.
This writer says, we ought to limit service in US House and Senate to 20-years within an age range of 25–75 in the House, 30–80 in the Senate.
Newt Gingrich attempted a term-limits law, signed by Bill Clinton, but was over-turned by the Supreme Court back in the mid-nineties. The Brookings Institute offers “Five reasons to oppose congressional term-limits,” on their website.
- “Takes power away from the voters.
- Severely decreases congressional capacity.
- Limits incentives for gaining policy expertise.
- Automatically kick out effective lawmakers.
- Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow revolving door.”
All pure bunk.
One thing I know about government in the states and in DC, is that those staffers that populate every elected office are highly educated and talented in policy, economics, public outreach and political analysis. Any one of these young people could serve if called upon with distinction. By running the same candidate over and over again takes choice away from the voters: two candidates to choose is better than one. Congressional capacity expands as fresher candidates with expertise in new areas come online more frequently and leave when their strengths diminish. Lawmakers who are stuck in the re-election cycle are increasingly dependent upon the fundraising rackets to keep them in office, thus lowering their effectiveness to their constituency, compromising their effectiveness to this nation and its security. By limiting service to twenty years, this allows these congressional leaders opportunities toward service back in their states or in the private sector or back to their law firms as emeritus members.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state being a congress-member is a life-time appointment. There is no reason for members staying three or four decades in office while there are more effective, dynamic leaders waiting in the wings for a chance at that seat, unless, these long-serving members are dutifully serving the racketeers who hold their political careers like a cat holds a rat’s tail?
This issue is made more pressing as we face a pandemic, global climate change, the demise of the US empire, a looming depression, and constitutional crises every twenty minutes thanks to an undeserving president (T). This nation needs innovative, nimble leadership to weather these storms.
Congress must take “Generational Equity” very seriously. Two generations must not lord over the other two later generations. This nation has a flat tire and it cannot roll on unless the other half of the tire is inflated. That means, there should be an age window of 50 years with service no more than twenty years within this window. If the house & senate sees aged members leave, opening the door to younger members, Congress might see much better approval ratings and greater public participation. There are thousands of very able leaders ready to step in to bring dynamism back into our government.
Seeing the reality of term-limit measures not passing SCOTUS muster, this should be an internal rule of both the house and the senate requiring aging members leave before their 75th birthday (House) and 80th birthday (Senate). These departing congress-members simply supply the governor of their state a list of worthy successors mentored by them or others. No real shock to the political system. Cutting off longevity at a reasonable age keeps the nation focused on the majority of the people with appropriately aged representation.
This nation ought to limit service in US House and Senate to 20-years within an age range of 25–75 in the House, 30–80 in the Senate.
