Skip To Content


Scott Galloway@profgalloway

Published on October 21, 2022

Youth leans toward the novel, and age toward the safe. Entrenchment is the preferred strategy of incumbents. “Change is good” … unless you’re already killing it. In Google’s first decade, the company seized the search engine market, launched Maps, Mail, and Chrome. The company’s track record of abandoned projects ever since is so extensive, there’s a website dedicated to it. Stagnation? Maybe. But over that time, playing defense has earned $1.4 trillion in profit for Google’s shareholders.

Meta has been playing defense since it dropped the “The,” and every failure has made the Zuck angrier. His accumulated rage has resulted in a $60 billion fit of “I’ll show you,” despite every signal that can hold light pointing to a cosmic failure. Like … a failure of the ages. A tech failure to end almost all failures. Bad. The … Metaverse.

Tech companies aren’t the only ones that attempt to build moats at the cost of innovation. Politics rewards durability. Incumbents remain incumbents via a system that tilts toward the status quo. The U.S. House reelection rate in 2020 was 95%. The mortality rate for Americans the (average) age of our representatives is approximately 2%. Meaning, with a two year term, it will soon be a coin flip whether they were voted out or left the rotunda feet first. The result: A daily occupation of our nation’s capital (and our capital) by a group that is a cross between The Golden Girls and The Walking Dead. Our leaders are too old.

There are real benefits to age, specifically experience and perspective. But that additional perspective and experience comes at a cost, as our representatives have a difficult time understanding new technologies and how society has changed. Folks who have ideas for change and the hunger to set them in motion are shut out, left with staff roles or positions in private enterprise.

In business, entrenchment is profitable for shareholders, though eventually an innovator will rise. In politics, the biggest winner is often the politician — and when governments are dysfunctional or allocate scarce resources poorly, we all suffer. We need more churn.

Moving Day

We should impose term limits on our elected officials and judges. The House and Senate have virtually become life-tenured positions, in which members accrue wealth via insider trading and devote their time in office to … their time in office. (Congresspeople trading stocks is blatant insider trading, full stop.)

America is similar to most countries in that our legislators keep getting re-elected indefinitely. A key difference: Our Supreme Court justices can remain until death. This is rare. Most developed nations either have judicial age limits — the U.K., for example — or term limits. In Germany, justices on the Federal Constitutional Court are appointed for a single 12-year term.

Term limits would improve the functioning of the Supreme Court and remove the toxic jockeying for seats we’ve seen in recent years. Give each of the nine justices a single 18-year term, staggered so an empty seat comes up in the first and third years of each presidential term. (Early departures would be filled through the end of the term to keep the schedule.) When life rarely exceeded 60, life tenure was a defense against politicization. With justices sitting for decades and into their 80s, life tenure makes it worse.

Term limits are also effective in business. Companies with more outside directors who have extended tenure produce significantly fewer patents and these patents receive fewer citations. These businesses also register lower R&D productivity (i.e., they’re less innovative). Yet only 6% of the companies in the S&P 500 have formal tenure limits on directors. Entrenchment begets entrenchment — not a single S&P 500 board has fired its CEO since 2020. On every public board I’ve served on there are directors who’ve served the company well — and should have stepped down a decade ago.

Hard Cap

Term limits would go a long way toward reducing the instinct to entrenchment that’s endemic to our government. But we should recognize the need for another limit, one that reflects biology. Mandatory retirement ages. (Cue the “like your work, but was disappointed” comments on this post.)

From AI and genomics to Auto-Tune and TikTok, the issues facing elected representatives are evolving … faster and faster. I try to stay up on everything happening in tech, and it’s getting harder as I get older. It’s true that age can bring wisdom. (It doesn’t always.) But wisdom can’t erase a biological truth we’re less comfortable with: Age makes us stupider.

By the time we hit 40, our brains begin to deteriorate. Literally. The prefrontal cortex thins, the cerebellum shrinks, neurons become physically shorter, and arterial walls harden, decreasing blood flow. The decline is slow at first — we lose roughly 0.2% in brain volume per year. By 60, that number reaches 0.5%. Soon the rate of brain atrophy looks like Moore’s Law. We used to know this, but then decided that engaging in a discussion on the topic renders you an ageist. And being accused of an “ist” means you risk sanctioning, or worse. Ageism is not politically correct. But neither is biology.

Ours is the oldest government in U.S. history. Almost a quarter of Congress is older than 70. If he’s re-elected — and lives out his term — President Biden will leave the West Lawn on Marine One for the last time at the age of 86. This is fucking ridiculous. BTW, an obese 82-year-old (Trump) wouldn’t be much better. The Senate Majority Leader is 71, the Senate Minority Leader is 80, and the Speaker of the House is 81. Two hundred years ago, the median age of a Congressperson was 44; today it’s 62. Put another way, the average representative is 24 years older than the average American (38). It’s true we live much longer today, but your modern brain doesn’t care that it’s less likely to die from sepsis or smallpox. When George Washington took office at 57, he was old for his time, but his brain was still just 57. Indeed, the founders had little need to include upper age limits in the Constitution — hardly anyone lived past 70.

The situation is, again, unique. Our government is older than that of any other nation. In China, the average member of the National People’s Congress is 53. In the U.K. Parliament, it’s 51; in Germany’s Bundestag, 47.

The notion of someone clinging to power for decades conjures a cartoon of a Third World dictator. However, it’s us. Specifically, the U.S. Congress. The news out of Iran this month is stirring, but the counterpoint to all these young people finding their voice is the 83-year-old Supreme Leader sending out thugs to beat them. Khamenei was 39, in his prime, during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The women protesting in his streets today are much younger than that — many of their parents weren’t even born in 1979. Who has the more legitimate claim on the future of Iran? The young Iranians in the streets, or the octogenarian having them beaten? In the U.S., people under the age of 40 have seen their wealth, as evidenced by their share of GDP, cut in half. Why? Network effects? Globalization? No. Because their government does not represent them. The dysfunction of the governments in Iran and the U.S. has many factors, and one of them is that they simply won’t retire. We need to age-gate the most important elected offices.

I’m not alone in calling for age limits. Former President Jimmy Carter expressed concern over the age of the 2020 presidential candidates, stating: “I hope there’s an age limit … If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don’t believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president.” Who else agrees? Six in 10 Americans.

Yes, it’s ageist, and so is biology. Science doesn’t care about our feelings. And yes, a bright-line rule would exclude some good candidates. We have a 79-year-old president who is registering one of the most productive terms in U.S. history. Also, we’ve seen the footage of our Speaker’s steady hand at 80 years old on January 6. But what you didn’t see in that video was the brilliant 56-year-old who didn’t have the experience but did have the perspective of someone who hasn’t spent 43% of her life in Washington. What else wasn’t shown in that video: a government more concerned with governing and less with re-election that may have averted this mess.

It’s not just about cognitive decline. Ours is supposed to be a representative democracy, and the “representative” part matters. A politician of any creed, color, or gender can effectively represent a diverse community. But a government body, an assemblage of what should be our best and brightest, must represent our diverse experiences within a range, or it will not be regarded as credible, legitimate, or, most important, a body people want to join. Age is a component of this, an important one in our changing world. Fifty percent of the US population is under the age of 38. Among our elected representatives, that number is 5%.

Peace With Honor

One of the most difficult conversations I’ve had with my dad was telling him he should stop driving. Telling the man who taught you how to drive that his neurocognitive architecture isn’t fit for a basic life function — and will never be again … that’s something nobody is ever ready to hear. But someone needed to tell him, because in his view, he was fine.

Dynamic firms lose customers when they shed slow-growing products, fire employees who aren’t contributing, lose employees whose human capital could be more productive elsewhere, and change plans to evolve with the market. There is no growth without churn. Survival is the ultimate teacher, but its incorrect lesson, as we age, is: more of the same.

A more physically and mentally robust leadership. A representative democracy that’s better able to shape policies that stanch the record transfer of wealth from young to old. New people, new ideas. Churn.

Life is so rich,

P.S. For more thoughts on what we can do better, join my free lecture on Adrift next Tuesday from 12-1 p.m. ET. Sign up and I’ll see you there.



  1. Frances says:

    Makes a lot of sense to me. The gab in social issues juxtaposition with US politics has never been so far apart! Hopefully with the rise in Independents, it will straighten itself out. Status quo doesn’t work anymore.

  2. bartb says:

    Fantastic!!! I’m sending this out to as many people as I know! Your post should be carved in stone and air dropped on Pelosi and McConnell’s heads (from 1,000 feet – so they get the message).

  3. Matt M says:

    A note in support – I’ve been in favor of term limits for a long time, you’ve inventoried a great (and non-partisan) rationale. Thanks for the cogent piece.

  4. Pat Seward says:

    Rich of you to assume Trump wouldn’t change the rules and serve only one more term.

    Great post.

  5. Larry says:

    I agree with nearly all of this but if I may, the average age of Congress has increased since 1800, but so has US life expectancy. An interesting statistic would be to chart Avg Age / Life Expectancy over time. (Congressman are likely wealthier vs the pop as a whole, and thus prob live longer anyway, but could still be thing to calc over time.) Also, when you say, “Fifty percent of the US population is under the age of 38. Among our elected representatives, that number is 5%.” Although that’s true, the better comparo is probably to the % of the US population that’s 21 to 38 yo. Still a shocking stat no doubt, but 10 year olds can’t get elected to Congress:-) These are nits. I think your underlying arguments for term limits are sound. Thanks for your analysis!

  6. John T says:

    Progessives are supposed to be the change agents and their only solution was Biden or Sanders. It’s probably because the elites hold all the power. And they want to retain power.

    Scott, one day please right a post on just how Biden has been so productive because I’ve not seen anything that helps the majority of Americans, only the progressives. And that’s more of the same.

  7. Robert D says:

    I understand the desire for some to place term limits on politicians. However, regardless of the small slips in mental acuity that a person may have with age, these abilities will differ tremendously among people. It’s a complicated issue but I think we must take all of these on a case-by-case basis, and that’s where age limits might become tricky. While still younger than Mr. Galloway, I am now old enough to have watched many politicians (and political commentators) consistently for at least 20 years, and I find that many of them now have far better insights in their 60s or 70s than they did in their 40s and 50s. We do have a testing ground to make these comparisons between older and younger when it involves government. While not the majority, we have plenty of under-50 congresspersons and government officials. A.O.C. and Ilhan Omar are far younger than Nancy Pelosi. But would most reasonable liberals rather have them as House leaders? I don’t think it’s right to cherry-pick neuroscientific facts to make the sweeping claim that “age makes you stupid.” Yes, *very* old age can indeed lead to steep drops in cognitive abilities for *many* people. But it really needs to be a merit-based system. If you’re clearly doing a better job at something than your younger competitors are, you should be allowed to keep your job. But as Mr. Galloway says in his last section, people rarely want to admit when they’re slipping.

  8. Magi says:

    I agree, term limits is one of the most important changes needed to safeguard out democracy. Power corrupts & purchased power is even more dangerous.

  9. Marco says:

    I call it the generation that does not let go.

  10. Joe E says:

    I agree on term limits along with not being able to lobby after a set amount of years. The Constitution requires a minimum age limit for the office of President and Senators. Maybe it is time to rethink a maximum age limit. I thought it was good article I know its been on the minds of many of us.

  11. W says:

    As a teenager i used to repeat what many people believed “age is just a number” but when i got older i realized that age is experience , simply because the more you go through and the more you see the more you learn especially if your were a traveler.
    But i know for a fact that your theory doesn’t reflect the reality of All senior citizen , it really depends on how you’ve aged and you can see that crystal clear in Japan for example , nearly all Japanese people who were borne in the 50’s have a healthy lifestyle , they eat healthy , they practice physical activates and they meditate , therefore now you see 70 or even 80 years old people in Japan doing jobs most young people can’t do and if they did they still can’t do it better than them.

    • W says:

      But since most of the modern world population are not aging in the same way those Japanese people did including myself i agree that the brain capabilities get weaker through time , yet in both cases the adaptability to change remains an issue.
      Surprisingly not long ago i heard an old Japanese man at the age of 83 actually encouraging his generation to open up for change and learn from younger generations. And i’m telling you the guy barley looks 60 but he is 83 (Aged Well)

      • W says:

        After all i don’t disagree with you Scott.
        But i have a request if you don’t mind, could you please use simpler language in your articles in order for you to reach more people? i had to look up the definition of 5 words in this article that i don’t think i’ll ever be using in a normal discussion.
        Sometimes simplicity is greatness.

  12. Mark Choate says:

    ” We have a 79-year-old president who is registering one of the most productive terms in U.S. history. ” You would assume Scott is also impressed with Kamala and how she has secured our border.
    How did such a good person, excellent father, brilliant mind get to that place? Scott says there is no God, and he did move his family out of America. A puzzle.

  13. Ionesco Major Sambalam says:

    Did your dad give up driving, Scott?

  14. Mark Choate says:

    ” We have a 79-year-old president who is registering one of the most productive terms in U.S. history. ” ?? Wow. I assume you hope he runs for reelection.

  15. Piotr says:

    Very cool analysis. Lots of interesting insights. You forget though societies get older which is natural. And obviously it affects all aspects of life. And for the last US elections if you wanted younger president (still not very young though:) you’d have to opt for populism as well.

  16. Mike says:

    Scott Galloway for President? Or maybe Florida Senator? One problem that our nation has, is that our brightest & strongest are working for or running corporations, not running for office.

  17. Eric says:

    I object more to the extreme age of some of our elected officials, than to the lack of term limits (though I would support those as well). Governance and lawmaking is a complicated thing, and there is a degree to which we want deeply experienced people at the reigns. (Pelosi is too old, but she is still an undeniably skilled legislator. McConnell is skilled too, assuming you can stomach his tactics and naked hypocrisy.) Mandatory retirement after age 65 would be appropriate: an earlier commenter said that pilots must retire at this age because of “tradition”. On the contrary, they must retire because of the predictable physical and mental decline that accelerates at this age — which the Prof directly addresses. If you can’t safely fly a commercial aircraft past 65, then perhaps we shouldn’t let all these septuagenarians run the country.

  18. Tony says:

    I agree there needs to be term limits, but did you really just call Biden a “good candidate?” And when you say “one of the most productive terms in US history” I agree, if by “productive” you mean producing misery and absolute garbage policies on just about every major issue. He’s also produced a lot of funny/sad moments with his handshakes with invisible people and talking to dead people. He should be resting at home(not on the taxpayer’s dime) eating his ice cream and enjoying the fruits of his family’s decades of corruption.

    • Eric says:

      Biden is too old to be president, and is obviously in physical and mental decline (as most 80-year olds are to some degree). But if you deny that this term has been hugely productive on a legislative basis, it just shows that you’re not paying attention — or more likely, only paying attention to skewed or incomplete news sources.

  19. Jose Ortiz says:

    I m 62. Your diagnosis is perfect. However it doesn t address why is this happening. Is there a supply of younger politicians? Are younger people interested in politics, in the common welfare, or more interested in how they progress as an individual in the private market? In many cases us older people recognize our weaknesses and try to supplement them with younger/updated/ specialized people. Worth understanding politicians teams. Abrazo Jose M

  20. RR says:

    Those in power will always be able to stay in power, since they are supported (funded) by the older and very wealthy of our country. It is simply another form of a monarchy. And I guess we can thank all the pharmaceutical companies for helping to prolong these lives beyond when they are no longer productive members of society and don’t have the good sense or moral character to allow younger generations to make the decisions that will affect their lives.

  21. Ron Dion says:

    As for the House and Senate, public campaign financing would have a huge impact on age–not to mention loosening the grip of large campaign contributors. All federal judges, including the Supremes, should be limited to a single 20-yr term. A generation is enough.

    • Sealharris says:

      I agree with you, Ron, and not only to reduce aging politicians. With so many problems in our country that could be significantly improved with sufficient funding (think homelessness, mental health services), I consider it immoral to spend millions on political campaigns that are ugly, repetitive and divisive.

  22. Stan says:

    In agreement. Well put. We will be looking at your retirement soon then, as you approach 60? No more ventures that take a lot of brain power and adaptation such as new TV shows, or businesses?

  23. J. Peterson says:

    The Google Cemetery is, itself, dead. is the new authoritative source. Now up to 275 dead or dying projects.

  24. BP says:

    Low hanging fruit/subject for Prof G. I don’t disagree, but not much here that’s uniquely THE DOG.

    • James says:

      I agree. Gingrich also wanted term limits and yet nothing happened. No pragmatic solutions mentioned because it IS hard to change.

  25. Ted says:

    I’m 78, in good shape and I agree with you. No one 70 or over should be allowed to run again, complete your term and go home. No lobbyists over 70 either !!

  26. Carlos says:

    Term limits must be mandatory in any modern democracy

  27. Philip Kay says:

    Myself and most everyone I know agrees with this. I’m 52, I fear being saddled with entrenched leadership for my whole lifetime, especially as it pertains to SCOTUS. It needs to be fixed immediately or the nation will be left in the dust by the rest of the planet.

  28. Herb La,berton says:

    This 78 year old agrees 100%

  29. Peter Coates says:

    I am a man of “dignified years” myself, and I say, hear here. When power is hogged by the old, society not only suffers because of their declining mental powers and drive, but because their concerns are yesterday’s. The old don’t live fully in today, let alone tomorrow. In digital electronics, we’re facing an era of social change that is truly epochal. It’s no time to be ruled by people who grew up with dial telephones.

  30. Mark says:

    What isn’t mentioned is that this is likely a strong reason why politics have become so polarized. The longer one is representing their side of the aisle, the less likely they are to agree or listen to the opposing viewpoint.

    This made me laugh: “But a government body, an assemblage of what should be our best and brightest…” Has that ever been true? IF so, it’s never been less true.

  31. duncan says:

    Frequently I think you are FOS, but I always read you. This time I agree wholeheartedly. Although I am 86 and run my business successfully that I started at 73, then without an age thought, I could no more fulfill Presidential duties today than kick ass in competitive swimming as I did at 20.

  32. Kurt says:

    Per usual, right on the money!!!!! If it’s ageism, then so be it. everyone is tired of the same ol, same ol. Let’s not forget how low the rating for congress has remain steady. it’s around 10%.

  33. Mark says:

    The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that it was a test: “If I mailed in a column that posited a worn out high school libertarian premise, like term limits and an infusion of youth would solve Congressional dysfunction, would anyone notice?” Or possibly, “am I attracting smart readers? Or just engineering types who figure because they know math they know everything?”

    In either case, if I were Scott Galloway today, I’d be very depressed by the test results.

  34. EfD says:

    Best Ever! From the man who defies the axiom “Common sense is not all that common!”, once again Scott, bullseye!

  35. Mark says:

    This column, one of his weakest ever, is piling up lots of “likes” from Scott’s readers. It makes you wonder.

  36. Bud says:

    I agree with term limits. And they should be applied to University Presidents, University department heads, local politicians, and the big Kahunas from publicly traded companies.

  37. Carlos Rojas says:


    As always I agree with most of your analysis and recommendations. I do think, though, this statistic is completely out of context:

    “Fifty percent of the US population is under the age of 38. Among our elected representatives, that number is 5%.”

    Comparing the whole US population with a body of government which is a subset of the population is wrong. No congressperson could be younger than, at the very least, 35.

  38. Don says:

    I was with you until you took a predictable left turn, and tried to prop up the current feckless administration and took a cheap shot at Trump (again). Zip up your pants, your bias is showing.

  39. Brian Fox says:

    Best article in some time Scott. Term limits are BADLY needed, and age limits is probably also a good idea. Nearly every politician is disconnected from the reality of the average citizen. What we have today is not what was intended!

  40. Scott says:

    I concur we need term limits because we need more churn to ensure a healthy strong leaders of this country. We need age limits to ensure our leaders are young and understand technology and are more creative.

  41. Chin says:

    China? You think China’s “representatives” do any deliberations when you included them in the comparisons?!

  42. PatH says:

    Agree, agree, agree. But it’s like pissing in the wind trying to change it. I’m a Dem for life, but there is nothing more I’d like to see than Nancy P. step down and endorse AOC as next speaker; Hoyer, the same; Schumer, ditto; and on and on. Be mentors while you hand off the reins to young innovators as it is wildly broken now. The question is HOW to change it as the two party leadership groups are locked and loaded until they get carried out feet first?

  43. Mark says:

    So, what you’re saying is, when presented with two candidates, vote for the younger one?

    People’s capacity decline with age, certainly. But age is far from the most important factor in determining what contribution a person can make in any enterprise: knowledge, intelligence, common sense, humility, empathy, imagination, and likeability all matter, and not all of them decline as we age.

    Indeed, the idea that trimming 20 years off the average age of Senators and Representatives is one of the silliest and least worthy ideas Scott Galloway has gifted his followers. It’s hard doing this every week, and you’re going to have some losers. This is one.

    See Rasputin’s comment below—a much better diagnosis that this week’s “No Mercy.”

    • Mark says:

      Jim Jordan (58) vs. Val Demings (65)
      Marjorie Taylor Green (48) vs. Nancy Pellosi (81)
      Matt Goetz (40) vs. Bennie Thomson (78)
      Ron Desantis (48) vs. Charlie Crist (66)

      Scott—Worst column ever.

  44. Really? says:

    Loved this post.

    But this cracked me up:

    We have a 79-year-old president who is registering one of the most productive terms in U.S. history.


    • Barry says:

      Scott is a sales guy ….. doesn’t understand bad products or “productive”. Being “productive” with a terrible product is the definition of destructive.

  45. Really? says:

    Loved this post.

    But this cracked me up:

    We have a 79-year-old president who is registering one of the most productive terms in U.S. history.


  46. Walt says:

    Interesting but a simplistic assessment. One size does _not_ fit all.

    So pilots can’t fly past 65, and everyone should retire at 65 because of…? Tradition.

    Retirement at age 65 stems from a time when the expected lifespans was not much more than this–life expectancy grew from 66.5 years for men and 71.8 years for women in 1950 to 79.3 years for men and 83.8 years for women in 2007.

    Age should not be a de facto barrier for vocation–either for the young or the old. Training, experience–and yes, cognitive plasticity are all factors to be considered. But considered within the context of a rapidly decreasing correlation between age and ability.

    Personally, I run 20 miles a week–with some bionic hardware thank you–do 300 pushups a day, work full time 5-60 hours a week, have just learned a new programming language (Python–added to 6 I learned a few decades ago) to enable more exploration of AI/ML modeling (not, BTW, my daytime job), and am taking a college level course online in behavioral science. I weigh 3 pounds more that I did in high school.

    Oh, and I turn 68 next month. So I am sticking to my plan to retire at 65–as in 65 years of highly productive work and learning. That means that I have another 21 years to go, and none will be wasted.

    Unless, as for us all, I die first–which would be annoying. But barring that, anyone would be ill-advised to stand in my way.

    • Glen McGhee, FHEAP says:

      Ok, if they can do 300 pushups a day, keep them until they can’t. I agree with that!

  47. Tristan Vick says:

    I think that there is a higher barrier to entry to being a politician than almost any other profession. Barriers:

    1) You risk exposing you and your family to endless scrutiny of your private lives
    2) The time invested in campaigning rules out most people with young children

    1) Most people under 50 can’t just tell their bosses they’re quitting their job to potentially get a new job and then not receive a salary or benefits for 12-18 months of a campaign
    2) The salaries of most state legislators assumes you have another job. Texas House members make $600 a month. This means if you’re not able to take off 3-4 months, you can’t be a state legislator in many states.
    3) People under 50 don’t usually come without dependents. That means commuting between DC and your home district. Keep two residences is quite a lift when most of America has trouble affording a single residence.

    You’re under 60. You didn’t run for office… You moved to London. You have great ideas. What’s keeping you from running?

  48. Stu says:

    Presumably a person with 50 years ahead of them would be more concerned with what the future holds – including the long-range weather forecast.

  49. LCD says:

    Really well done, this from a 77 year old.

  50. Kent says:

    Agree, so how about voters intelligent enough to make it happen!

  51. Pierre Rasputin says:

    Congress, and in fact the entire US government, has become a clown show to distract the people from the 1% who run this country. While everyone is agonizing over Meta and Twitter, there are hundreds of families that really own your future. Anyone who has bought boxes from Uline has helped further a dynasty of right wing nut cases, while using a windows computer has done the same thing on the left. Despite the pretense of “aw shucks Warren Buffett”, these guys will do what is best for them. Just look at the union busting of Starbucks and Amazon. Who cares if Meta works or not? The fact that Zuckerberg can throw away 60 billion is the point of the lesson. These families will get Trump or someone like him elected just to give you a show, and congress will sink ever deeper into MTG vs OAC as the Friday night mud wrestling that it is.
    Life is so rich? Sure.

  52. Ruth Ann Harnisch says:

    I’m 72 & never been fitter, passing all brain scans & cognitive tests with super results, AND I KNOW I COULD NOT COMPETE FOR A SINGLE DAY with my 27-year-old self. I deeply resent CLUELESS old people, my “peers,” who could not pass a human reproductive anatomy quiz if their seats depended on it, getting to make laws about the human reproductive anatomy. One of the greatest leaders of an org I’ve ever been privileged to work with is stepping down after 20 years, saying “That’s enough, maybe more than enough, for anyone to be the leader of an organization.” The farewell tour with the org’s carefully incorporated next gen leader is underway. More of THAT, please.

  53. tony says:

    One of his best. This is spot on and a huge freaking problem.

    • Molly Larson Cook says:

      I’m over 80 and have been teaching adult writing workshops until the pandemic. I recently offered two, neither of which had enough students to go. I was disappointed but then realized I had dodged a bazooka. I don’t have the energy or interest I had even 10 years ago even though I am in great shape all things considered. It is my children and grandchildren now picking up the mantle and doing good in the world. We cannot and should not believe that our age gives us a special place despite the many “news” stories when someone hits 100. This is accomplished by constant breathing and does not deserve a medal.

  54. Sam says:

    I should add that old people do not respond to criticism well. A certain professor is known for blocking people who have legitimate arguments to his ideas.

  55. Steve says:

    I could not agree more. This issue, along with the expansion of the House to more equitably represent the population, are the two most pivotal needs to secure our democracy.

  56. Michael says:

    I 100% agree with you. There should be age limits and term limits. However, if there were term limits, we would have fewer people older than 70 because they would have already termed out. I live in California, which is horribly managed. Not just because of the number of older people running it, but because there are too many people from one party. Let me give you another opinion people won’t like—a ban on a supermajority of either party. There should never be so much power from one party. Ideally, if the house is one party, the executive seat is the opposite. Even better? Let’s see more people that are neither Democrats nor Republicans. There are way too many votes that happen along party lines.

  57. Paul Barter says:

    I don’t always agree with your point of view but I do appreciate that you look at the big picture and begin important conversations! Keep it up!

    • Stephen D says:

      Dear Scott,
      I do not fully agree. The majority don’t want term limits obviously. In my opinion the preponderance of youth in America are unstable or far too frivolous. Sadly do I say this. Perhaps as an old geezer myself I have some responsibility in this. Yes I share some blame…. My view is that churn in many aspects of life are quite costly; in some aspects prohibitively so. In the country I love(& did serve as an 82nd Airborne soldier) we get the legislators we choose. The youth shd begin by voting and get their friends politically active.

      Thoroughly enjoy the weekly posts.

      Kindest regards to all.

Join the 500,000 who subscribe

To resist is futile … new content every Friday.