Gerontocracy: A state, society, or group governed by old people. Sound familiar?
With the 119th Congress being sworn in this month, we look again to the members to find our representation still at some of the oldest median ages than it has ever been. In the House, the median age is 57.5 years old, and the Senate is even older, at 64.7 years old. These ages are only the middle of each chamber, and in reality, the most influential of each are increasingly older than they have ever been.
Our leadership does not reflect their constituents, in class, gender, race, or especially, age. In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is 64 years old, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is even older, at 74 years old. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IO), a key player as Trump begins to pass his agenda through Congress, is 91 years old. Our last three inaugurations have all been our oldest presidents at the time, with Donald Trump beating Biden to be the oldest at 78 years old, who had surpassed Trump’s original record in 2016.
Recently, multiple examples of this age difference becoming clear have sparked controversy in the media, from tech illiteracy during hearings, to members having continuous health issues, and questions over mental fitness for office. Most notably, former President Joe Biden dropped out of the running late in the race over those concerns, after a term fraught with odd gaffes and accusations of mental decline. President Donald Trump has been the target of similar concerns.
In Congress, these stories seem to be constant, especially as representatives are increasingly looked to to be up to date on new technologies and the concerns around them. Just last year, clips went viral during the hearings on TikTok and Meta of senators asking seemingly ridiculous questions such as if the apps connected to Wifi, or how they even make money (something that, as regulators of this country, they should know). As social media and AI are increasingly becoming part of our lives and their negative effects become visible, we need an informed and active government to be able to regulate and incentivize as needed. Especially in the case of AI, which is growing extremely fast, we need legislators to be quick with their regulation to protect us from overreliance or overreach by AI companies.
But still, our representatives are older than ever. Yes, they should be experienced in life. But when members aren’t able to keep up with the pace of their job or the pace of society as a whole, they shouldn’t be able to stay in their seats. We need younger leaders who are more adequately both physically and socially able to perform their job and work for their constituents.
With the current amount of both financial and social capital needed for someone to be elected to Congress, it’s looking bleak for rising leaders. Young people are increasingly poorer than their parents at the same age, and housing, the cost of college, and the cost of living are all increasing. These same issues preventing young people from being truly involved in politics are the same issues why they should be more involved, creating a feedback loop as young people struggle, but cannot truly voice it in government effectively. Even voting, our most important civic responsibility, isn’t as effective as we only get two options, and primaries are often left uncontested or end up with low turnout. Young people need to vote more to get a bigger say, yes, but the system of two-party dominance and the power of incumbents can often be as destructive as low voter turnout as they limit the choices we have, dissuading young people from voting.
If you watched the inauguration of Donald Trump, you could look in the audience to see swaths of old, mostly white people, and one must think, how did our leadership get so divorced from the demographics of its population? From systemic racism to sexism to the perpetuation of a class of old career politicians, our system is increasingly falling to being a gerontocracy.
