My take.
We need to do something about the rapidly aging Congress, because too many members seem unfit to serve.
I have no idea what McConnell’s condition is — which is a problem.
Ultimately, term limits are looking more appealing than ever.
Well, I wasn't expecting to cover this in the newsletter, since I've already let a lot of my emotions out on our YouTube channel. But the recent statements from McConnell's office, the Capitol physician, and a slew of commentary from the right and left have forced my hand.
First: Whatever this is, it isn't "dehydration" and "lightheadedness." I was out at a bar last night with a few friends when the topic of McConnell "freezing" came up, and it was funny hearing all the normies who loosely pay attention to politics talk about it. When I was asked (and shared) the explanation from McConnell's team, there was a literal outburst of laughter — scoffing at the absurdity of the explanation. It was like a good punchline. Which, to me, is the right response. To anyone not mired in this stuff, the idea that this is just an older man who forgot to drink enough water is absurd on its face.
But you know what is so frustrating here? We don't know. And maybe McConnell doesn't, either. I texted a family member who is both a political junkie and a neurologist about the episodes, and he speculated that if McConnell is experiencing TIA (effectively "mini strokes"), his doctors would be a lot more cautious with him and he probably wouldn't be working. He suggested maybe the fall McConnell took earlier this year initiated some kind of epilepsy. That’s pure speculation, of course, and neither of us have an informed idea. But in his letter, the Capitol physician explicitly went out of his way to exclude TIA and epilepsy, so my cousin was at least above the target.
Speaking of the Capitol physician, there are few doctors who are as vulnerable to conflict of interest as those who serve in that position. As Jim Geraghty said (under “What the right is saying”), it would be easier to believe the assessment "if it came from a medical professional whose way of making a living did not depend on McConnell staying in office." I don't put much stock in the Capitol physician's public letter, which reads more like a public relations bit than a diagnosis. So, like everyone else, I'm left with pure conjecture.
Here's what isn't conjecture, though: This is uncharted territory. Before the year 2000, the average age of the Senate was never over 60, but it has been ever since. Today, the average age is 64 years old. More noticeably, the percentage of Senators over 70 has risen from just over 5% in the year 2000, to 15% in 2010, to nearly 25% this year. Only 10% of the Senate is under the age of 50, and only two — J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Jon Ossoff (D-GA) — are under 40. As I've said over and over again, age is not the issue here. Fitness is. But the higher the percentage of our senators who are elderly, the higher the likelihood that some won't be fit to serve anymore. And we are seeing that play out in real time, right before our eyes.
Perhaps a little bit of this increased average age can be attributed to life expectancy going up, but that impact should be marginal. Life expectancy in the U.S. in 2000 was 76 years old; today it is 79. The real reason for the increased average age is that being a member of Congress has become a lifelong career, rather than a momentary chapter in one’s life. Politicians are increasingly working in Congress until retirement (or until health and age issues force them out). For their part, maybe this is rational. McConnell makes $193,400 per year and has great health care. He and his wife Elaine Chao own three homes and have a combined net worth of $30 million. He's a conservative hero and now the longest serving leader in party history. The job is cushy, the money is good, and the accolades are real. Things have worked out for him.
But this cannot go on.
We can't have people who are in charge of solving our immigration crisis or exorbitantly expensive health care or the runaway debt who can't even answer questions from reporters. We can't have questions of war and peace — literal life and death — being solved by 81-year-olds with mysterious, unexplainable health conditions that randomly cause them to be unable to speak, hear, or move. Or, in the case of people like Feinstein, we can't have members of Congress voting on bills when they don't know they're there for a vote. None of this is acceptable.
The obvious answer supported by 83% of Americans (including 80% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans) is term limits. There are great arguments for term limits, but I've personally been torn on the idea. I don't like removing choice from voters — if they have a representative they love and want to keep putting them into office, they should be able to do that. And I don't like the idea of a constant cycle of rookie politicians in Congress — they need time to learn the ropes and the system.
But over the last few years, my position has evolved and become more ardently pro-term limits. I no longer see these potential threats or even the very real harms outweighing what we have now. Gerrymandering and closed primaries already remove so much choice from voters, making the power of incumbency way too strong to rely solely on voting to remove members of Congress who are unfit — especially when they have six-year terms. And while rookie politicians bring inexperience, they can also inject fresh energy into our aging Congress and create a younger, more representative body.
Of course, the best case scenario would be if members of Congress stepped down on their own — if the culture of Congress were one where people served a few terms admirably and then left. But Congress doesn't have that culture, and we don't have those members, so it's time to do something new. As long as he refuses to step down, Americans are right to view McConnell as the latest in a long list of reasons why we need reform — and term limits are as good an option as any.
Numbers.
- 8.5. The average years of service for representatives elected to the 118th House.
- 11.2. The average years of service for senators elected to the 118th Senate.
- 2.5. The average years of service for incoming representatives in the 1800s.
- 4.8. The average years of service for incoming senators in the 1800s.
- 22. The number of terms served in the House by Reps. Hal Rogers (R-KY), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and Christopher Smith (R-NJ).
- 1937. The year Rogers was born.
- 90. The age of Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the oldest member of Congress.
Age limits and/or Term Limits?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
Bookmarks