A modest proposal for the good of the country

As much as I’d like to not be thinking about the 2024 US presidential election, it has basically started with Trump’s announcement this past week. In light of that, I have a modest proposal that I believe would be for the good of the country. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution requires a US President to be at least 35 years of age. While targeting a specific minimum age is necessarily arbitrary, most would agree that ideally with age comes experience and wisdom. By placing a minimum age for the president, the founders (wisely, in my opinion) helped prevent the scenario where a young, perhaps charismatic, person gained the presidency who lacked the requisite experience to undertake the responsibilities of the position. While I’m sure there are folks out there who think this is unfair and “ageist”, I believe there are many more who can’t imagine someone under 35 being ready to be president.

While, I certainly concur that one can be “too young for the job”, I also believe someone can be “too old for the job”. As we go through adulthood, two trends are happening simultaneously… we gain experience & wisdom (positive) and we lose mental acuity (negative). Ideally, for positions of executive responsibility, we have people who have achieved an “optimal” balance of the two. There is a reason that most CEO’s and high ranking executives in large corporations are in their mid 40’s-mid 60’s. For most adults, this is the period of time in your life where you have seen enough of the world to gain valuable experience, and age has not caught up with you so much so as to significantly affect your memory, logic, and other cognitive abilities.

My modest proposal: A constitutional amendment stating that no one is eligible to be elected president who will have turned 75 prior to their inauguration.

Are there people over 75 who have capability of being president? Of course (just as their might be under 35 people capable). Thomas Sowell well into his 80’s could run intellectual circles around nearly everyone on the planet. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people are well past their intellectual primes by their mid 70’s. The job of president is extremely demanding even for relatively young people (look at the before/after shots of Clinton, Bush, Obama). It is not unreasonable to conclude that it can be too much for folks in their 8th decade.

Why shouldn’t we just let the voters decide? Legitimate question and I have sympathy for that point of view. Largely, I respond with two answers. First, it is very difficult for a voter to discern the mental capabilities of a candidate during a campaign. We typically have a few debates, where candidates give short, largely pre-canned responses to questions. Otherwise, nearly everything a voter gets is commercials, soundbites, etc. How can they possibly understand to what degree a candidate’s mental acuity has possibly diminished in their advanced age? This restriction would be a safeguard as we know with certainty that these abilities do diminish significantly as we age. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the chance that someone past 75 will experience relatively significant decline during their presidency (even if at 100% when elected) is not small. If this happens, we are left with a situation of 1) diagnosing it and 2) removing a president against their will. One can imagine this process would not go well, and very likely could result in violence. Best to try to avoid that situation if we can.

As we can see below, most US presidents were elected during the “sweet spot” of their lives, balancing experience with mental acuity. Roughly 25% of presidents were between 54-56 when elected, and 70% were between 48-62.

I truly believe that a large majority of Americans would support this proposal. If the Democrats and Republicans really cared about the good of the country, as they claim, then they could quickly work in a bipartisan manner to start the process of a constitutional amendment to get this implemented?

Do I believe the parties will do this for the good of the country? Hell no. However, we may have a narrow window of getting this done in any case. I don’t believe the constitution should be amended to deal with a short-term problem that does not align with a long term betterment of the country, but I am willing to have the powers that be use the wrong reasons to get the right result in this case. See, the Republicans have a Donald Trump problem. While he has a good chance of winning a Republican primary, there is a large number of people who will never vote for him and his chances of winning in 2024 seem low. In addition, he does not seem to be helping the party as a whole. Republicans are left with a situation where they would most likely prefer he exit gracefully but cannot afford to lose the new Republican votes he brought into the field. Similarly, the Democrats have a Joe Biden problem. They know he is not really up to the job, is unpopular, and is not a strong candidate in 2024. If the Republicans are somehow able to thread the needle of nominating someone else for 2024 and not completely pissing off Trump’s supporters, Biden would likely be toast in 2024. Moreover, there has to be folks in the Democratic party who see the need for new blood.

My amendment would disqualify both Biden and Trump from running in 2024. I truly believe this amendment is for the long term good of the country, but I don’t expect politicians to vote for it because of that. Instead, I encourage us to appeal to their short term self interest & use that to get it done.

I hope I have not offended any older readers. Share your thoughts.