As of 2023, the median age of a U.S. Senator and a House Representative is 65 and 58, respectively. The average age of an American citizen is about 39.
The highest ranking members of the U.S. government and political scene are among the oldest: President Biden is 80, Mitch McConnel is 81, and Donald Trump is 77. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who just announced she’s seeking reelection, is 83. California Senator Dianne Feinstein held the distinction of being the oldest sitting member of Congress — at 90 — before passing away this September.
As most of us dream of our life’s twilight, we imagine a retirement somewhere warm, time to partake in hobbies and traveling — living on our own terms. So why do so many elected officials refuse to step down as they reach their 80s and 90s? Is it a need to hold onto power, relevance, money?
It’s certainly not because their jobs are easy. The real answer is sadly unpatriotic and problematic: The post-Trump polarization of America’s political scene has forced many politicians to prioritize party loyalty over public interest. Senator Feinstein refused to resign because Democrats couldn’t risk a Republican taking control of the Judiciary Committee — a possibility that could occur in the wake of her death. Mitch McConnel continues to serve, even though he has seemingly lost the ability to speak mid-sentence multiple times in recent months. In an age of such political division, entrenched leadership exemplifies bipartisanship.
Congress does not represent the age demographics of the United States. Baby boomers, for instance, make up less than a quarter of the American population but comprise 68% of the Senate. However, millennials make up around 22% of the population, but constitute only 7% of the House of Representatives. Older generations are over-represented, while younger generations are underrepresented, increasingly facing new challenges and adversity while seeing little to no support for their causes in Congress.
This backward system is not only harmful to the country but also to the very politicians in these roles. The political climate that forces these officials to maintain their posts, after decades upon decades of service, in the name of party continuity is not only wrong — it’s elder abuse.
Blind party loyalty keeps these individuals in power, leading to two primary side effects. First is the inherent risk that comes along with age; Americans, on average, live to about 76. Both the current President and Republican frontrunner for the White House have surpassed that age.
Second, there is the issue of entrenchment. There is little-to-no turnover among the Washington establishment. With this stagnant pool of lawmakers, it’s impossible to imagine that they would be capable of working well with one another, considering many of them have had decades to build grievances and hold grudges. Congressional gridlock is a direct result of this.
I have no doubt that there are elderly members of Congress who are just as sharp in their 70s as they were in the 1970s. After all, it’s becoming increasingly prevalent for people well into their golden years to have full, busy careers — think Cher, Jane Fonda, Martha Stewart — all while maintaining physical and mental fitness due to modern medicine. Regardless, when the average American lives to 76, it is concerning that most of our leaders nearly meet or exceed that age.
Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell were lions of their parties, figures to rally behind, solid structures in times of turmoil. But the simple truth is that we all have a moral obligation to look out for our fellow man — even the man we disagree with on practically every known issue. That includes looking out for lawmakers who are being pressured into positions when they should be enjoying life outside the confines of Congress. It also means looking out for the American people who are fed up with Washington’s immobility and inaction, and who — rightfully — want to see people like them making laws. Fortunately, this cycle is not set in stone.
Possible solutions have been thrown around for decades and two seem to be practical. The first solution involves implementing age limits on senators and representatives. Nearly 78% of Republicans and Democrats support maximum age limits for elected officials — with most desiring a cap between 50 and 70 years-old. Ohio, for example, enforces a strict age maximum for judicial officials. Once a person reaches the age of 70, they may not seek one of these offices. However, people challenge these practices, calling them “ageist.”
Another solution critics have proposed is to include possible term limits for elected officials. With the exception of FDR, every U.S. President has abided by a limit of two terms, with each term being four years. Americans seem to be comfortable with this system. Term limits are nothing new to the United States, so why is there no such practice for members of Congress? It would seem as though the answer is within the question itself — Congress would have to actively check its own power to apply term limits.
A reasonable term limit for congresspeople could look like this: a maximum of 12 years in the Senate and 12 years in the House. That would entail two terms in the Senate or 6 terms in the House. Members could be permitted to break up their allotted 12 years and move freely between both bodies. In theory, one could serve a maximum of 24 years in Congress.
Congress is a living body that must adapt to the changing times, norms, and world. It cannot do that if its members rarely change. 12-year maxes in both houses would ensure a reasonably-paced turnover of ideas and provide ample time for elected officials to deliver on promises made to their constituents. Most importantly, term limits would allow members to leave Congress gracefully, as opposed to tragically, and prevent entrenchment.
All in all, term limits are perhaps the greatest way to show our elder officials the respect that elderly people the world over deserve. Baby boomers would get the same 12 years as a millennial or a member of Gen Z; after which, they could transition into the private sector, retirement, or continue to serve as a party ambassador and mentor for the next generation of partisans.
Across the board, lawmakers disproportionately represent the oldest groups of Americans. This statistic is fueled by a vicious cycle that demands the continued service of elderly lawmakers to prevent their opponents from gaining political capital. The ugliness of this reality is only worsened when we look at what happens while these lawmakers are serving for so long. The risk of their incapacitation or death because of their advanced age, as well as their likelihood to become entrenched in their power, makes our modern congressional reality a nightmare for the future of democracy.
Congress is broken. It doesn’t take a political scientist to see that. And while there isn’t a single solution to the mess that is Washington, there are concrete strides which can be made to ensure that Americans can have faith in their government.
Associate U.S. Editor
