When age wasn't a variable:

[no_hypocrisy]

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2019, 09:59 AM - Edit history (6)

Mahatma Gandhi
Winston Churchill
Nelson Mandela
Golda Meir
Eleanor Roosevelt
Mother Jones
Mildred Fenwick
Frank Lautenberg
Claude Pepper
Clare Booth Luce
Charles de Gaulle
Otto von Bismarck
Queen Elizabeth


BTW, my Congressional Representative, Bill Pascrell, Jr., is 82 years old and I'm voting to re-elect him in November2020. We need more Democrats like him in the House.

[Agschmid]

1. Please add the ages they were/are at the time of their leadership positions.

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, I do know Churchill was in his 70s while he led Britain from near certain defeat in WWII

Funny we don't comment on this much today as we try to use ageism as a cudgel against our candidates.

[Bettie]

8. That cudgel goes the other way too, you know

people are constantly complaining that these young people today need to sit down and shut up.

Apparently it is only ageism when someone suggests that we might eventually want some younger people to take a role in our government and the running of our party.

[hlthe2b]

11. Deflection is really not a good response especially when I've seen NONE of it against candidates

who are younger. In fact, it goes far beyond deflection to a disingenuous argument, which I believe you know.

[Bettie]

18. Right, no one ever tells the young ones to

sit down and shut up and "wait their turn" (which might come in about forty or so years).

I'd just like someone, some day to acknowledge that it cuts both ways. That the very same people who declare that ageism is 100% against older people can, at some point, recognize that it is also used to discount the ideas of younger people.

I'm in the middle, in terms of age, one of that generation that doesn't even get recognized as existing.

And all I was saying is that it goes both ways. If you choose to believe it only exists against older people, well, you are entitled to your opinion.

[hlthe2b]

22. Show me where this has been done to any of the current younger Presidential candidates?

Right, you CAN'T.


Very poor defense of your ageism which, apparently along with misogyny and fat-shaming, remains one of the last "acceptable" forms of bigotry for some on DU.

[treestar]

42. That is what younger people used to do

They did not previously feel entitled to take over no matter what the other voters wanted. There was some rebellion in the 60s but it was against The Establishment, not demanding to be at the top of it.

[Bettie]

45. I simply don't believe that only older people

have contributions to make and should be involved in discussions about their future.

If no one but me believes that, I don't care.

[treestar]

47. There's a difference between being in the discussion

and being in the lead.

[Bettie]

48. Fine. I give up

No one under the age of 70 should ever speak up, run for office, or do anything without express permission from at least ten people (signed and notarized) over 70 stating that they are permitted to do these things and speak up.

I honestly give up.

[ret5hd]

53. OK

[olegramps]

39. What would the preferred age be: Forty, Fifty, Sixty or older?

I can only imagine what level the stress is experienced when a person is required to manage literally dozens of important issues and at times even life and death issues at the same time. I thought that JFK would be up to the task because of his age. Its a shame that he wasn't able to be demonstrate it for a longer period.

I do think that the ability to select highly competent members for the cabinet and numerous important positions is imperative and that age could be compensated for if age is indeed actually an issue. I think that the Trump presidency has adequately demonstrated this failure by its numerous blunders on a daily basis. Trump is blinded by his own ignorance and at times downright stupidity that he has firstly a revolving door cabinet of nincompoops and his narcissistic blindness adding to his own totally lack of the grasp of the importance of major issues. I think that in contrast Biden would do a excellent job in his selection of advisers and this could compensate for a supposed lack of vitality. Maybe even a less rambunctious approach to major issues might be a better choice at times.

However, it is imperative that which ever Democratic candidate is chosen, they must defeat Trump. Every election is important, but I do believe that the nation's well being and future is in serious jeopardy. The threat that Russia and China pose can not be minimalised. Not just militarily, but both politically and economically the latter of which can not be solved by the haphazard manner of this inadequate administration. Far too much is at stake.

[Perseus]

12. It is really not ageism, it has to do with how age affects the individual

Some people are affected by age in their 60s, some others in their 50s, and some others never, they die at age 99 and their minds are still in perfect shape, they don't forget anything, they don't make mental gaffes, they are as good as they were 50 years ago.

But when we see one of our candidates having mental breaks, when they cannot utter full sentences without going off script then it has nothing to do with age, it has everything to do with how well their mental health is. Once a person reaches a point where their mental faculties are not 100% the deterioration continues, it is usually not reversible.

If we look at the creature (the so called president), he cannot stay on topic for more than one sentence, he goes off script after one sentence then he may come back, and the fact that he has no knowledge of anything makes it even worst. Besides the evil that eats his soul, we all know he has mental issues, and he is deteriorating rapidly in front of our eyes.

So please, leave age out of the conversation, it really has nothing to do with it, we all age different and in the case of our candidates we see Bernie Sanders with his full mental capabilities, he is sharp, while Biden seems to have some problems once in a while.

[hlthe2b]

13. It is ageism when, rather than looking at individuals it is used across the board and it WILL

be called out and you will be called out for doing it. Your convenient memory fails to note it was used heavily against HRC--including by Dems and some DUers.

[Perseus]

29. Yes, that is ageism, and that is why I say we need to stop it

We need to look at the current mental state of the person without looking at their age. I know people who are 94 years old and their mental state is much better than people under 50.

My nephew has pencil and paper while asking my Mom of 94 years old to go through the history of the family, and she didn't miss a bit, she recalls names, places, years, ages, stories, anecdotes, everything, and with the clarity of a 20-year-old. She not only spoke of the side of her family but of the side of my Dad's family. And she can talk politics, history, whatever you want to ask her and she will do it with clarity and exactness. So age has nothing to do with it, it is the mental state of the person. As I said, you are correct.

[hlthe2b]

30. Good. We agree.

[treestar]

43. There are younger people like that

Palin is an example, and there are many.

Dotard has always been a narcissist. Biden has always been a controlled stutterer. It depends on so many factors.

[EffieBlack]

15. Churchill was actually in his 60s during most of that time

He turned 70 a few months before the end of World War II. But I get your point.

Ageism seems to be much more acceptable when imposed on women who, once they reach a certain age tend to get dragged for being too old or hanging on to power, standing in the way of fresh faces, etc., especially if they exhibit any sign of not being as fresh, bouncy and dewy as a spring chicken while men of the same age are treated as grizzled elder statesmen whose dodderiness makes them more endearing.

For example, look at how Nancy Pelosi’s been treated here, especially when she ran for Speaker. Her experience was used against her without shame, even though she never showed any signs of slowing down or diminishment on her sharpness. Now, compare that to the way Biden is lauded for his 50 years in public life and defended for slip ups, which are treated as charming. Imagine what people would be saying about Pelosi - or Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren - if they were as gaffe-prone and rusty in the intellectual joints as Biden is. They would never be taken seriously.

I wrote this a few months back and think it applies well to this topic:

A reflection on ageism against women in politics

Ageism is a particular problem for women in politics, who, unlike their male counterparts, didn't have the freedom or opportunity to launch careers at a young age that enabled them to develop the requisite experience earlier in their lives. Because of discrimination or a decision to raise families (something men could do while building careers but women had to do as an either/or) or a combination of both, many women weren't able to start laying the groundwork for leadership roles until later in life. And now, when despite a late start, they do manage to catch up through sheer hard work, smarts and grit, they're dismissed because they're too old - or euphemistically, "it's time for new blood."

It's a Catch-22 for these women - the years they put in are used against them - "she's been around too long" - without any recognition that for many of those years they were "around," they didn't have any realistic opportunity to move into leadership positions. Yet they toiled away under that glass ceiling, supporting the cause with dedication and skill, while their male counterparts whisked past them, onward and upward . But now that the opportunities are available (opportunities they earned), they get no credit, only demerits, for all those years of experience.

Many of the powerful women we see men trying to push aside fall into this category: Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein - all women who started their political careers later in life. It's one of the reasons I was delighted to see Barbara Lee moved into a newly-created leadership position after being edged out as Caucus Chair by a younger man, likely because she wasn't a fresh enough face.

Unless and until we acknowledge and address this historical double standard and women have had a full opportunity to catch up, I'm not buying the "we need new blood" argument used against older women in power. Thanks to the long history of rampant discrimination, older women (and older minorities, for that matter) ARE new blood.

I, for one, am thankful they fought the good fight and are still willing to stay in the game. Their wisdom and experience enrich and benefit us all.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211496523

[hlthe2b]

16. No. He was 70 in 1943, 72 in 1945.

and as a heavy smoker, drinker and anything but physically fit during the time. Contrast that to our candidates today.

[EffieBlack]

19. He was born in November 1874, meaning he turned 70 in November 1944

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill

[hlthe2b]

20. wow. What a critical difference!

[EffieBlack]

21. Oh, good Lord

The difference was critical enough for you to try to fact check me on it, only to be proven incorrect.

Next time, you might want to check your facts before trying to challenge anyone about them - and then claiming the facts don’t really matter.

[hlthe2b]

23. No. I said he was in his 70s when he led Britain out of WWII and he was.

[EffieBlack]

24. And I said he was in his 60s during most of that time, which is a fact

You responded with incorrect information about his age during that period. I corrected you.

It’s not a big deal. Try to move on.

[hlthe2b]

25. It is you making months a big deal. Your argument to try to defend agesism

is simply to defend the bigotry of a vocal few.

[EffieBlack]

26. Whatever

Run along now.

[hlthe2b]

27. .. What a childish response.

You really should rethink your attitudes.

[First Speaker]

40. He was 65 in 1940, the year of decision...

...not his "70s". When he did turn 70, in late 1944, he was in fairly poor health, though it didn't really affect his leadership abilities. By the time of his second term as PM from 1951-55, he was in his late 70s...and had pretty much become a wreck. His age, unfortunately, *was* a factor by then, and his party had to practically use dynamite to get him out of Downing Street. I do not believe it is "ageism" to say this, especially as--while I am officially undecided--I am leaning towards Biden.

[hlthe2b]

41. Talk about missing the point. He was in late 60s/70s during crucial points of WWII.

You remind me of my little nieces and nephews who, until they decide to become "big boys and girls" think it critically important to say they are 3 1/2 (showing their cute little fingers to get those six months in).


So, since it is so important to you, but absolutely not pertinent to the point being made, but in the critical years, when the US came in to help an increasingly defeated Britain and its allies (December 7, 1941) to D-Day (June 6, 1944) to the end of the war in Europe (May 8, 1945), Churchill was:

24,479 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 67 years, 8 days including the end date. Or 804 months, 8 days including the end date.

25,391 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 69 years, 6 months, 8 days including the end date. Or 834 months, 8 days including the end date.

25,727 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 70 years, 5 months, 9 days including the end date. Or 845 months, 9 days including the end date.

RESPECTIVELY.

Given a man in his sixties who drank and smoked as he did in the 1940s would be similar to a man 10 or 20 years older today, your point is even more ridiculous.

[emmaverybo]

56. Yes, given his habits, and the lack of the diagnostics and cardiac healthcare

we have now, his medical health was probably comparable to someone much older today. Today he might be on blood pressure meds, cholesterol control, blood thinners, even started in his fifties. Biden has no vices, has had the privilege of good healthcare all his life, and keeps fit obviously with exercise and diet.

Gaffes and wording glitches under pressure, even occasional mangled syntax, are not specific to
early dementia. These notwithstanding, Biden has been a high-functioning politician for decades and one of the most influential and engaged vice-presidents in recent history.

While campaigning, Biden has demonstrated a mastery of facts and ideas on a range of substantive topics from climate change to foreign policy. He has given impressive speeches and extended interviews, spoken before donors numerous times, and authored an insightful Op-Ed on Central America.

Castro tested and challenged Biden’s memory. As it turned out, Castro was the one who didn’t keep track.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Churchill was 65 when he became PM and 70 when the Tories lost to Labour in 1945 (n/t)

[hlthe2b]

50. Talk about missing the point. He was in late 60s/70s during crucial points of WWII.

You remind me of my little nieces and nephews who, until they decide to become "big boys and girls" think it critically important to say they are 3 1/2 (showing their cute little fingers to get those six months in).


So, since it is so important to you, but absolutely not pertinent to the point being made, but in the critical years, when the US came in to help an increasingly defeated Britain and its allies (December 7, 1941) to D-Day (June 6, 1944) to the end of the war in Europe (May 8, 1945), Churchill was:

24,479 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 67 years, 8 days including the end date. Or 804 months, 8 days including the end date.

25,391 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 69 years, 6 months, 8 days including the end date. Or 834 months, 8 days including the end date.

25,727 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. Or 70 years, 5 months, 9 days including the end date. Or 845 months, 9 days including the end date.

RESPECTIVELY.

Given a man in his sixties who drank and smoked as he did in the 1940s would be similar to a man 10 or 20 years older today, your point is even more ridiculous.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Sorry you dislike having it pointed out that you're wrong; no need to be a dick about it (n/t)

[hlthe2b]

52. Your quote to me:

(for posterity): "Sorry you dislike having it pointed out that you're wrong; no need to be a dick about it (n/t)"

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Notorious RBG!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Great example!! Notorious RBG rocks!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Kurt V.]

7. Should be top of the list. also anna moses

[HopeAgain]

4. No ageism should apply...

but everyone ages differently and we should at least acknowledge for indications of mental decline if they appear.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Fair point!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[maddiemom]

9. Physical condition is a factor, too

Then, again, some "fitness nuts" have keeled over prematurely

[Hortensis]

32. Absolutely. Mental and physical condition important at all ages.

[gulliver]

36. Valuable experience and confidence gained with age usually far outweigh mental decline...

...in my experience.

[treestar]

44. ...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/make-your-brain-smarter/201508/the-potential-the-aging-mind

It is not all negative.

[USALiberal]

10. Reagan??? Get it??? nt

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Reagan didn't exactly have superior mental acuity at any age.

His issue was not age. It was organic brain function.

[USALiberal]

17. No, he got worse 2nd term. nt

[NoMoreRepugs]

28. Agree. His decline from not that lofty a place to start

with was, once we learned, extremely troubling.

[Hortensis]

33. Yes, he did. But what has that to do with my aunt at 103?

She still handles her own investments, on line. She'd still be living alone in her 9th-floor apartment overlooking Spokane if it weren't for occasional balance problems.

But USA, if you truly believe Reagan's dementia applies to you (catching?), perhaps you need to plan your own future around it. Dementia's all around, after all, and unfortunately whatever your age it's not a bit too soon. Alzheimer's can set in I believe up to a decade before it kills, but other forms of dementia, such as vascular, can manifest far younger and far longer.

[Hortensis]

31. Hey, guys, THIS is the age when "old" is pushed back big time.

Our founding fathers averaged very young by our standards (though not theirs). Attendees at the Continental Congress in 1775-76 and the gatherings that followed were typically in their 30s, though some in their 20s and even teens. It was a far, arduous journey from most homes, and older generations stayed home.

50s were old for that group. Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, father dead. Ben Franklin was by far the oldest at 69, and 81 (!) at the Constitutional Convention.

[Maraya1969]

34. Great Point. Leaders don't need to be able to jog around the block. They need wisdom and knowledge

and a strong desire to do the right thing for their country.

[Mira]

35. How about Adenauer...

the Germans called him "Der Alte" - the old one

[crazytown]

37. It's not age

it's the fact 'the kids don't want Biden'.

[samplegirl]

38. Absolutely

I’ve felt age discrimination ever since I lost my job at 59.

[Garrett78]

46. FWIW, the median age when taking office is 55. Reagan and Trump are exceptions.

[loyalsister]

54. Should we do away with all age requirements?

We have generally agreed that there should be minimum age requirements for school, labor, driving, military service, contractual agreements, consent for marriage, voting, and the presidency.
Biological progression and the naturally associated mental capacity (the brain is a physical organ) are considered to be markers of qualification for a lot of jobs and ordinary citizen participation.
It's considered relevant biological information for elected judges in Missouri, who are required to retire when they reach 70. It's not ageism.
Ageism is a belief that there is a natural inherent superiority based on age, not that any and all possible considerations that age might be relevant are bigotry.
Our bodies change with time and it matters. We didn't always impose minimum age requirements. But we now acknowledge that even though 15 yr olds sometimes appear to be as fully physically developed as someone in their 30s there are unseen relevant differences in neurological development. Most of us don't believe they are universally qualified to lead families, businesses, or governments. Exceptions don't disprove natural biological trends. Most people recognize natural bodily changes and decide to remove various demands and obligations from their lives rather than increase those pressures on a system which is gradually becoming less functional. Our candidates are not superhuman and pretending age is not a relevant factor will not transform them.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Don't Forget Dracula - He Was An Important Count

For some people, age ain't nothing but a number.