Too old? Too young? In California, what’s the perfect age to run for higher office? | Opinion

When Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Laphonza Butler to fill Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat, he didn’t just praise her character and her credentials. He also called attention to her youth.

“You in some ways can’t even make all of this up. If I had to literally design from the mind of imagination, put pen to paper someone I would like, including the time of life — she’s just 44 years old,” he said.

The governor touched on an issue many voters are considering as we head into an election year: Will the candidates they choose be able to serve at least a full term, if not multiple terms?

It’s a fair question, given that Californians recently witnessed Feinstein grow increasingly frail — both physically and mentally — in the months preceding her death.

Add to that Sen. Mitch McConnell’s two on-camera “freeze-ups” and speculation about President Joe Biden’s health — much of it coming from MAGA Republicans — and it’s understandable that voters are hyper-aware of age.

Where advanced age once was synonymous with wisdom and experience, some now see it as a red flag and worry that the U.S. is now a gerontocracy — a nation ruled by old people.

Several of California’s lawmakers are among the oldest in Congress: Rep. Grace Napolitano is 87, though she has announced she won’t seek reelection. Rep. Maxine Waters is 85, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 83, Rep. Anna Eshoo, 80, and Rep. Doris Matsui, 79.

Conversely, some voters — especially older voters — are reluctant to cast a ballot for someone perceived as too young.

As much as voters admire youthful energy and enthusiasm, they also expect high officer holders — presidents, vice presidents, senators and governors — to have the gravitas that comes with life experience.

How much should age matter?

Scientists say that when it comes to age, especially older age, we shouldn’t generalize. Nor should we judge someone’s competence based on a few isolated incidents.

“There’s no simple way to say how someone is doing,” said Dr. William Jagust, a professor of public health and neuroscience at UC Berkeley. “It’s tempting to look at one event and say, ‘Oh, wow, they’re losing it.’ But you just don’t know that.”

“Age alone isn’t disqualifying, in my opinion,” he added.

Jay Olshansky, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois, warns of “armchair gerontologists” who are evaluating candidates through partisan lenses.

“The suggestion that everyone who is old is feeble, experiencing loss, decline and decay — this completely ignores the radical transformation in the last 20-30 years of the population that’s survived to older ages,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal also reported that, based on actuarial tables, Biden can be expected to live nine more years after Election Day, and Trump, 11 more years.

But many voters aren’t buying it.

“(There’s a) large difference between life span and the ability to function at the level required to be president,” one WSJ reader posted.

Only 3% of Americans want a president who’s 70 or older

So how old is too old? That depends on the job.

The Pew Research Center found that 49% of respondents preferred a president in their 50s; 24% chose 60s; and 17% picked 40s in a poll conducted in June.

“Just 3% of Americans say they prefer a president to be in their 70s or older,” the survey found.

Nevertheless, it’s all but certain that 80-year-old Biden and 77-year-old Trump will be our choices, as most voters are disregarding age in the presidential race.

For all the MAGA noise we’re hearing about Biden’s decrepitude, age will likely wind up playing a small role — or none at all — in voter decision-making, at least if Biden and Trump do wind up on the November ballot.

Age is a factor in Senate race

In other races where voters do have more choices, age could indeed matter. In California, the race for U.S. Senate is a prime example.

Many voters are doing the math: figuring out how old candidates will be not only on Election Day, but at the end of two or three terms.

“No more 80-year-old politicians please. Period,” one San Luis Obispo County resident wrote in a letter to The Tribune, in response to the candidacy of 77-year-old Rep. Barbara Lee. “Not as caretakers. Not as potentially viable candidates. ... This is a major critical issue right now.”

Lee is the oldest of the three top Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate. (Former Dodger and Republican Steve Garvey is 74, but he is not considered a viable candidate.)

Age is not an issue for Rep. Adam Schiff, who is 63, and the relatively young age of Rep. Katie Porter — she’s 49 — helps make her attractive to younger voters. In an L.A. Times/Berkeley poll, Porter was the No. 1 choice of voters under 50, though Schiff did significantly better with voters over 65.

Porter could lose that edge however, should Butler decide to enter the race.

Should there be age limits ... or maybe competency tests?

The new focus on age has led to renewed calls for term limits or age “ceilings” for various federal offices, including Supreme Court justices.

The public likes the idea; 79% of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center in July favored maximum age limits for federal officials.

There also has been talk of a competency test for older, high-ranking office holders — something presidential candidate Nikki Haley, 51, has been promoting for politicians over 75.

“I’m not saying that to be disrespectful,” she said Sept. 3 on “Face the Natiom.” “Here you have Mitch McConnell, who’s done great service to the country. ... You’ve got Nancy Pelosi, who’s been there a long time. At what point do they get it’s time to leave? They need to let a younger generation take over.”

Let’s sit with that a moment. A mental acuity test would give voters more information, but only if it’s sufficiently thorough. Typical dementia screenings you might get at a doctor’s office — they include tasks like drawing a clock and repeating a list of words — don’t provide adequate information. Dr. Jagust says it can take “hours and hours” in a lab setting to conduct a thorough examination.

Then there’s the question: What happens if a sitting president or a senator doesn’t pass? Are they immediately shown the door — even if they have been functioning well in office?

There’s also an issue of ageism here. Would mandatory testing for older officials reinforce the idea that older people aren’t mentally competent and lead to more discrimination in the workplace?

Sure, candidates can voluntarily release medical test records — and many have — but are we then to assume that older candidates who don’t do so have something to hide?

That’s exactly the type of broad brush scientists are warning against.

Of course, once we’re in a voting booth — or sitting at a kitchen table, marking a ballot — we’re free to choose based on whatever criteria we want to use.

We can vote for or against candidates for purely superficial reasons — such as how attractive they are, or the clothes they wear, or how many times they’ve stumbled in public.

But if we’re to be thoughtful, conscientious, well-informed voters, some criteria should take precedence over all others, including age.

The candidates who most align with our values — the ones who will, in our opinion, thoughtfully and consistently lead in a way that’s best for everyone — are the candidates who should get our vote.