Old Age Isn't the Problem - Old Ideas Are

So much has been written within the past couple of years about how we’re living under a gerontocracy. Charts and graphs show the average age of federal elected officials gradually creeping up, as well as the average age of engaged voters. The implication being (well, in many instances it is stated outright), that aging is inherently bad.??

We can’t argue with the data—our politicians are older—but let’s look at that other data: Who, exactly, is voting them into office? In 2020, almost 80% of older adults (ages 65–74) voted (10% did not), whereas only about 50% of young adults (ages 18–24) voted, and 30% did not (see Table 13). More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are ages 50 and older, up from 39% in 1996. Among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, half are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996.?

Let’s think about this for a second. Is it possible that instead of older adults hanging onto office with their fingernails to torment younger citizens, the reality is that the people we continue to vote into office reflect who’s voting? Maybe what we really have here is a voter engagement issue.?

In the last presidential election, when President Biden won, 73% of people ages 65–74 voted and 70.1% of people older than age 75 voted. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, voter turnout not only increased with age, but also with educational attainment.??

So, in one way, this is democracy working.??

But the articles that rail against the gerontocracy aren’t about democracy and whether it’s working. They are about ageism, pure and simple. The media is furthering the idea of how much we in this country hate the idea of aging, and all older adults along with it.??

Although considering the blowback around King Charles III’s ascension to the throne at age 73, maybe this is not a sentiment common only in the United States. A recent article was particularly harsh when it said, “But a more consequential use of Charles’s reign would be to rule briefly and abdicate at 75––the age when British judges are compelled to retire from the bench––while touting the importance of passing the throne to Prince William in his son’s prime rather than his dotage.” Charles may seem spoiled, but it’s not because he’s 73, and in his dotage.??

The author continues to discuss age as a barometer of quality leadership when he begrudgingly admits that people can work effectively after age 75, some, like New Yorker writer Roger Angell, even remaining vital into their 90s (imagine!). But then he returns to his original refrain, saying that the stakes involved in running countries are just too great to leave to older adults, with the potential of cognitive decline, at the helm. The reality is, 11.7% of older adults have some sort of cognitive impairment, yet, get this, 10.8% of adults ages 45–64 do, too. Also, interestingly, the incidence of cognitive decline is greater among men, which makes one wonder what is being done to elect more women to office???

The article also conveniently makes our point for us when it adds, “Plus, representation matters. Young people should have more say in the future that they alone will inhabit.” We couldn’t agree more, more young people should vote.??

What’s behind all this virulent ageism? Is it the internal fear of aging? Does it come from years of watching ageist media representations? Is it the narrative of decline that is so engrained in us, or, might it be old ideas that actually anger us???

Under our oldest President, Joe Biden (age 79), we’ve seen historic innovations in digital investments, climate change plans and the ever popular student loan forgiveness proposal. At the same time, the third oldest President (Donald Trump, now age 76) appointed Supreme Court justices who agreed to overturn a 50-year-old precedent regarding abortion, setting the country back decades. Again, was that old age making decisions, or old ideas? Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is 50 and Justice Brett Kavanaugh is 57, both proponents of turning back the clock.?

If you believe that Washington, DC, is run by special interests that do not have our needs in mind, then we are being run by the worst gerontocracy ever. If our policies were being dictated by age as a special interest group, we would see robust investments in home- and community-based care, Medicare would cover expenses for vision, hearing and dentistry, long-term care would be affordable for everyone, not just those who are wealthy, and age-discrimination in the workplace would be a thing of the past.??

We are an aging society. By 2030, the United States for the first time will have more 65-and-older residents than it has children. We should be acting on new ideas that will support this new age.??- Peter Kaldes, CEO, American Society on Aging