Matter of Debate
Should there be an age limit for presidents?
Gary Schmitt
Political Scientist
American Enterprise InstituteAEI
For
Hilary Krieger
Editor
CNN OpinionCNN
Moderator
Bradley Schurman
Author
“The Super Age”“The Super Age”
Against
Question / 7
Moderator: Please explain why you think politicians should or shouldn’t face age limits.
Moderator: If there were an age limit for politicians, what should it be? If there is an age maximum for president, can it really be fixed for all time? Today, 80 seems really old, but who knows how it will feel in 20 years? Cheryl Roberts, Fort Worth, TX, Alexander Akhmetov, Niskayuna, NY
Moderator: What characteristics critical to the office of president, senator, etc. are reliably predicted by age? Do these characteristics make you concerned about the fitness of an older president? via Frank Lowney, Floral City, FL
Moderator: So, rather than imposing age limits, should cognitive function or physiological age be the criterion? If so, should cognitive decline alone be the deciding factor, or should physical health be a factor? For example, one might argue that with virtual communication, a president doesn’t really "need" to travel most of the time. Bill Plasse, Destrehan, LA; Angie H., Rome, GA
Moderator: A RAND study warned that individuals who had security clearances and handled classified material could become a security threat if they develop dementia and unwittingly share government secrets. Is that an argument for age limits or similar? What about the greater possibility of a death in office?
Moderator: If we set limits on age for federal politicians, does this mean that we, as a nation, are guilty of ageism? How do we stop promoting that way of thinking? Brad Onken, Waltham, MA
Moderator: If we restrict those over a certain age from running for the presidency, should we then restrict those of the same age from voting? David Halpern, Friday Harbor, WA
Welcome to our first-ever CNN Opinion debate! We have invited two experts to weigh in on the timely topic of whether there should be age limits for elected officials. The issue is of central importance to voters who are choosing between the two oldest candidates in US history to run for reelection as president: 81-year-old Joe Biden and 77-year-old Donald Trump.
Arguing in favor of age limits is Gary Schmitt, 72, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. A former White House official, his scholarship focuses on the American presidency and national security issues. Arguing against age limits is Bradley Schurman, 46, an aging expert who is the founder and CEO of Human Change. He works with leaders to anticipate and solve the challenges of demographic change.
The questions were supplied by CNN Opinion editors and our readers. After a given question was posed in this written debate, each expert had an opportunity to provide an answer and a rebuttal. The questions and responses have been fact-checked and lightly edited for length and clarity.
Question 1
I think the key point is that being an elected official, be it a member of Congress or the president, carries with it great responsibilities and, as such, we want those elected officials to be as healthy in mind and body as possible. And we know that, generally, as we get older, our mental and physical capacities diminish. Hence, there is a logic to having age limits for those officials.
The single greatest rationale for not having age limits is political disenfranchisement. Removing someone’s ability to serve, simply because of an arbitrary measure like their birthdate is problematic. Instead, we would be better served by taking a number of measures into account, including cognitive health. By doing so, we can guard against some of the bigger concerns voters have about the age of their politicians. Of course, voters can also express their concern in the voting booth.
Brad, disenfranchisement is indeed a valid issue. But, of course, the Constitution does that already when it sets an age requirement for running for office. You have to be 25 to be a member of the House, 30 years old to be a member of the Senate and 35 when president.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Gary. There are age floors already in place to run for elected office, as outlined in the Constitution, and there have been debates on their validity. However, the Founders made no such provision for age limits. In fact, the Founders believed that wisdom grew with age, rather than diminished. So, we may be looking at a rebalancing here of what was intended during the Constitutional Convention and what modern insights into longevity tell us today.
Question 2
To start, any age limit will appear and, in some sense be, arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean it’s not rational. One always has to make a guesstimate about what the norm should be. Now, for the presidency, I would say no one should be taking the oath of office who is older than 72. As for members of Congress, it will differ because the pressures of the office differ. Here, I think, it would be reasonable to have to be 80 or younger to hold office.
There are certain health conditions that are likely as people age, which may impact their ability to do the job, as Gary pointed out earlier. Sen. Dianne Feinstein showed many signs of deteriorating memory when she passed away in office last year at 90. People that age have a 1 in 3 chance of having dementia. However, they also have a 2 out of 3 chance of not having the disease. So, age as a line of demarcation is overly arbitrary and without merit. Not to mention, it would be nearly impossible to amend the Constitution to include that provision. And how would it evolve as our longevity continues to increase and improve?
Sad to say but I think one can live with a senator or two that have stayed in office when they clearly, for health reasons, should have stepped down. I think, for example, less than 3% of the members of Congress are now over 80. The difficulty with the presidency is that, as the nation’s chief executive, having a 1 in 3 chance of a serious physical or mental ailment is far more dangerous.
It’s only more dangerous if the president does in fact have dementia. As you know, the president goes through regular health check-ups with the White House physician to assess his ability to serve. There are also other provisions in the Constitution that govern the plan of succession, should he die in office. And if he becomes incapacitated, the Cabinet can act.
It’s good that you bring these guardrails up. And they are important for sure. However, I don’t think full-on dementia should be the place where we say someone is not fit to hold the office. It’s a 24/7 job and has great stress, and problems in memory, stamina and the like matter as well. And, as someone who just turned 72, I can say that I and most of my friends my age would not be up to the job.
Question 3
The most critical characteristics of anyone serving in public office today are their willingness to work towards the common good and leverage their experience and insights for the betterment of the nation. Historically we’ve always relied on older adults playing an active role in the electorate and public office. Heck, Benjamin Franklin was 81 when the Constitution was signed in 1787.
Well, Brad, you’re in my wheelhouse now. I’ve just finished a chapter for a book on the Constitutional Convention and, while Franklin was duly respected, every motion he put forward was politely ignored. It’s true, of course, that the Founders wanted men of experience and, hopefully, wisdom to guide the nation, but of course when men died so much earlier that meant individuals in their 40s and 50s, typically. If they knew men and women would live so much longer, I think, being the commonsensical men they were, they would have thought seriously about what an upper age limit might be. But I’m just speculating.
It’s abundantly clear the Founders weren’t overly keen on inclusion, leaving behind people of color and women in their first go. I think if they were concerned about men like Franklin serving in advanced age, they probably would’ve made a point to exclude them then. Regardless, I digress. The world we live in today isn’t the one of the Founders, and we have taken steps to address these issues over time. It would be a shame to go in reverse and start excluding people again.
Well, point taken, although I think excluding a very small number of men or women who might be thinking about running for president but who are in their mid- to late-70s or even 80s is to put the needs of that high office and the public’s good at the forefront. Isn’t that why they determined one had to be 35 to hold the office — excluding even the most talented youth on the grounds that you were more likely to get more experienced, mature individuals?
I firmly believe that any office holder should be in good physical and mental health. However, I disagree that an upper age limit is the answer. Instead, just like office holders have released their tax returns (up until former President Donald Trump), I would like to see more candidates release their physical and mental health assessments, too.
Question 4
In theory, both cognitive function and physiological age should be something to be factored in. However, in practice, it’s just too difficult to define exactly how it would be done so as to protect various privacy rights and, even if waived, exactly what standards should be applied. Hence why you need more general criteria, such as age, that take advantage of averages and common sense.
I’ve worked in the White House and have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle who have worked there and in Congress. Unfortunately, what you see are staff and family protecting those who have seriously “lost a step.” And you also see supporters and voters who want to see someone elected over an opponent often put aside those concerns because they care deeply about the election and policies their candidate supports. We have plenty of historical evidence of the White House, in particular, keeping out of the public eye some serious disabilities of presidents.
First, let me agree 100% here with Gary. The big issue is that gatekeepers in congressional offices and the White House have not been the best stewards of managing decline in the past, and that erodes trust with the American people. However, individuals in public office can experience a myriad of health conditions that may impede their ability to do their job. What about President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was using a wheelchair when he was elected to office at the age of 51? Should we have barred him from office since he was unable to walk? Of course not.
Question 5
I’m an expert in demographic strategy and I constantly consider the reality that there are more people alive today living with dementia. This has huge implications across the board, including in the national security and political sphere. There is, of course, a greater likelihood that an older individual may have dementia or experience natural death while in office. So voters may want to take those considerations into account when they are casting their ballots.
But I don’t believe it is the role of the government to dictate upper limits. And this brings us back to my point about disenfranchisement that I made earlier, since the fastest growing group of Americans is over 85, followed by those over 100. I don’t think it would be wise to halt their participation at 72, as Gary suggests. That’s potentially leaving a lot of people without a voice, or at least someone with the lived experience to represent them.
Brad, if you’ll vote for me, maybe I’ll change my mind about running for the presidency! Just a few points: It is useful to remember that members of Congress and the president do not have background checks before having access to classified material; by being elected they have those clearances.
On the question of a president being more likely to die in office if elected at an advanced age, the answer of course is, that’s true. I think, the last time I looked, President Joe Biden has about a 1-in-3 chance of dying if he is reelected according to the Social Security actuarial tables. If Donald Trump were elected in November, the chances of his filling his term in office is 73%. The question I have as a result is that, when we elect a president of these advanced ages, whether we are seriously thinking about who the vice president will be. Typically, it is very much an afterthought even though it is obviously very important in these cases.
Gary makes an excellent point here. I do believe, based on anecdotal conversations with likely voters, that they are taking the vice presidential pick more seriously this time around. And perhaps that’s why so much attention is on Vice President Kamala Harris and her ability to serve. Also, and only because Gary brought up statistics, we’ve had eight presidents die in office – four were assassinated and four died of natural causes. Not a single one of them was older than 72.
Question 6
I don’t think so. We have extensive laws on the books that prevent age discrimination in all kinds of fields. There are fields, like being a fireman or policeman, that the law allows putting age restrictions on. Now, the question is, does the position of president, for example, expect a certain level of mental and physical capacity to do that job effectively and, if so, is it reasonable to expect individuals on average to have that capacity beyond a certain age?
We do have extensive laws on the books to prevent ageism, but they often fall short and are outdated. Ageism remains rampant in this country, with 9 out of 10 people over the age of 50 reporting that they’ve experienced ageism, according to an AARP study, and setting an age limit for political office would further reinforce that bias. Most of the professions that have an upper limit – pilots are included, too – have had these on the books since the mid-century and don’t account for longevity gains in the past 50 years. We’re starting to see big corporations do away with age limits for their CEOs – both Target and Caterpillar were among the corporations that removed their limits in recent years. So, the question remains, is age really a good enough measure to prevent someone from political office?
It might not be a perfect measure, but it might be the most available measure we have. Again, I’d rather not take the increased chance of serious problems with an individual, in this case the president, who has his hands on the nuclear codes.
Question 7
No, not all. We want folks of all ages to have a chance to vote for the person they think will represent their values and interests. However, it would be simplistic to say that this must include someone of their own age group. Right now, the average age of the American voter is some two decades younger than the average age of an elected member of Congress and I see no problem in their voting for folks older than and younger than they are. The goal is to provide the electorate with candidates who will be effective in office and that in turn, in my honest opinion, means having reasonable age limits on who can run for office.
And I think we want people of all ages to vote and to serve. This is true not only for the presidency and Congress, but also for state-wide races and local elections. There are already counties in this country where 1 out of every 3 people is over 65. That could jump to 1 out of 2 in the coming years. My biggest concern with establishing age limits for public office is that it could be a slippery slope to voter disenfranchisement. Who’s to say that someone won’t call for cutting off voting at a certain age, too? That’s not the future that I want for this country.
