America isn’t a gerontocracy, but it sure looks like one
Is America a gerontocracy? The short answer is no, but it definitely has many of the characteristics. Like all things, there's a lot more nuance to the term than meets the eye, especially in a country that's in transition to the Super Age.
gerontocracy ger·on·toc·ra·cy | \ ˌjer-ən-ˈtä-krə-sē \ : rule by elders — specifically : a form of social organization in which a group of old men or a council of elders dominates or exercises control
Champions for the rights of older people, as well as anti-ageism advocates, believe that the term “gerontocracy” is being used in an ageist manner to describe the American government and its leaders. Their argument is strong, given that the use of word often lines-up with overtly ageist statements like "too old," or open-ended or unfounded questions about a person's physical or cognitive health. However, I believe their absolutism is getting in the way of reality, as well as a healthy debate.
It doesn't take a rocket science to realize that the average age of our elected leaders is significantly higher than the national average age of our population, which is 38.3. The President of the United States is 79 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives is 82 - both above the average life-expectancy of 78.79 - and members of the U.S. House of Representatives at the beginning of the 117th Congress were 58.4 years; of Senators, 64.3 years. The youngest members are 27 and 35, respectively.
In nearly every way, the United States was designed to be governed by the older members of our society, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. In the U.S., a person must be aged 35 or over to serve as president. To be a senator, a person must be aged 30 or over. To be a Representative, a person must be aged 25 or older. This was specified in the Constitution when the average life expectancy of the country was around 38.
James Madison, a Founding Father and the fourth President of the United States, wrote in Federalist Paper 62 about the need for “senatorial trust,” which required “greater extent of information and stability of character… that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages.” George Mason, another founding father, argued that a requirement of 25 years of age was needed for the House because of his own experience. Mason said, “if interrogated [he would] be obliged to declare that his political opinions at the age of 21 were too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public measures.”
According to Norman Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute, "By 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30 percent will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent." This means that these demographic groups will have a greater say in the future body politic than they do today. It is also reasonable to expect that the influence and political power of older people will grow at a faster rate in the coming years, especially as birth rates fall and longevity increases.
The problem isn't gerontocracy, per se. It's ageism against the old. If we're willing to have open and honest conversations about the mismatch of gender or race in our representative government - roughly three-quarters of the U.S. Congress is male and white, despite half the country being female and roughly two-thirds of the country being white - then we should also be willing to open-up a dialogue on the outsized representation of older populations.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no room for ageism, and we should should challenge this bias at every turn, but we should also be willing to have open and honest conversations about the physical, mental, and cognitive health of all of our elected and appointed officials. We should strive for age and generational diversity too if we want to build a stronger and more resilient Republic. The Super Age demands it.
