On McConnell, Feinstein, aging and mandatory retirement ages
In the wake of Mitch McConnell's second "freezing" incident, there is a lot of chatter about imposing a mandatory retirement age for elected officials. Given how much I utterly despise McConnell, and think he has damaged this country in some truly profound ways, it is certainly tempting to jump on the age limits bandwagon. But as I've thought about it further, it seems to me there are some very real and practical issues that deserve careful consideration before we rush into such a major change.
As I said, I despise McConnell. But at the same time, I recognize that he is not a MAGA Republican, and that Biden has been able to work with him on at least a few issues. Wishing him gone from his post might be a question of being careful what we wish for, because his replacement could be far, far worse. And it is not clear to me that McConnell is, as yet, incapacitated by whatever condition he has. Sure, he has these freezing spells, and he has taken some falls of late, but whether he is experience a TIA, a ministroke, a seizure, or some Parkinsonian-like condition, that doesn't necessarily mean he is unable to perform the responsibilities of his position, or that he is incapable of understanding the issues before him.
The situation with Feinstein is, I think, rather different. She is clearly cognitively impaired. Yet, McConnell has said that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will block any replacement Gavin Newsom might appoint, so if she were to resign, losing her from the Judiciary Committee might well mean the end of any further judicial confirmations under Biden.
As for Biden, it is clear that he has slowed considerably on a physical level, but I have seen no signs that he doesn't grasp the issues he is confronting. HIs occasional verbal stumbles are the result of a stutter he has battle his entire life.
At the same time, there is Bernie Sanders, who despite having had a mild heart attack a couple of years ago, remains as sharp on the issues as he ever was.
I think of Benjamin Franklin, who, nearly 250 years ago, at the age of 70 and afflicted with various ailments including gout, undertook an arduous voyage to France to be this country's first ambassador there, and critically, secured funding and military assistance from the French king, which were so very critical to the success of the American Revolution. That accomplishment took a number of years, and required great patience, which Franklin displayed even when Congress thought he was merely partying it up in Paris. Congress then sent the much younger, and extremely impatient, John Adams, to "work with" Franklin, and Adams became thoroughly exasperated with his elder colleague. But Franklin had the wisdom and experience to know how to play a long game, and knew full well that if he pushed too hard, and at the wrong time, his entire mission would end in failure.
Now, to be clear, I am not, in any way, making a comparison between McConnell and Franklin. Franklin was a statesman of the first order, whereas McConnell is a craven and ruthless political operator, and nothing more. But I just think we need to think all of this through VERY carefully before we set ourselves on a path we might later regret.
In addition, a mandatory retirement age, no matter how you might want to spin it, is a form of age discrimination. Look, aging and its effects are hugely variable from one individual to the next. And the Constitution takes very seriously the idea that the people have a right to choose the persons who will represent them. So, if the people of a given state or district wish to re-elect an octogenarian, who are we to say they shouldn't be able to do so?
= new reply since forum marked as read
