Senility happens
I'm of an age myself where the spector of one's mortality looms a little larger and the fear of senility lurks like a bogieman in a dark corner. Thus I found this piece timely and pertinent to our current crisis of governance. Some of our most important leaders are well past the customary age of retirement. They've held office since before color television and the internets are little more than a mysterious collection of tubes that operate outside the realm of their experience and understanding.
They've been entrenched in the system for so long, all they know is politics as usual and are ill-equipped to deal with the changes that have arrived in this age of instant information. They continue to get re-elected based on the political patronage they can deliver, not on their competency at addressing the best interests of the nation as a whole.
One has to ask whether in these troubled times we can afford to simply ignore the age factor out of respect for our veteran legislators. Can we afford to put the most important matters of our lifetimes in the hands of aging men like Strom Thurmond, who proved his virility by marrying a 22 year old at the age of sixty-six but spent the last year of his tenure mostly in a hospital bed? Can we assume he was competent to govern at that point? I think not.
We test ordinary senior citizens for competency in order to maintain their driver's licenses. Shouldn't we also do the same for legislators beyond a certain age who are engaged in making critical and often earth shaking decisions for our nation before they are allowed to run for reelection? Perhaps that sounds disrespectful, but if they want unquestioned respect, they should take up a different line of work.
Competent governance requires a keen mind and clear sight. And to be fair, many elder statesmen keep both well into their golden years. But we can no longer afford to simply entrust our future to aging politicians without some kind of performance evaluation. A 70 or 80 year old man couldn't get a job in a grocery store without one. Why should we allow them to run our country without meeting the same requirement?
They've been entrenched in the system for so long, all they know is politics as usual and are ill-equipped to deal with the changes that have arrived in this age of instant information. They continue to get re-elected based on the political patronage they can deliver, not on their competency at addressing the best interests of the nation as a whole.
One has to ask whether in these troubled times we can afford to simply ignore the age factor out of respect for our veteran legislators. Can we afford to put the most important matters of our lifetimes in the hands of aging men like Strom Thurmond, who proved his virility by marrying a 22 year old at the age of sixty-six but spent the last year of his tenure mostly in a hospital bed? Can we assume he was competent to govern at that point? I think not.
We test ordinary senior citizens for competency in order to maintain their driver's licenses. Shouldn't we also do the same for legislators beyond a certain age who are engaged in making critical and often earth shaking decisions for our nation before they are allowed to run for reelection? Perhaps that sounds disrespectful, but if they want unquestioned respect, they should take up a different line of work.
Competent governance requires a keen mind and clear sight. And to be fair, many elder statesmen keep both well into their golden years. But we can no longer afford to simply entrust our future to aging politicians without some kind of performance evaluation. A 70 or 80 year old man couldn't get a job in a grocery store without one. Why should we allow them to run our country without meeting the same requirement?
posted by Libby Spencer at 6:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home