Ageism in Politics: Why Biden's Critics Should Focus on Policy, Not Age

 

The essence of democracy is rooted in the power of the electorate to decide, and concentrating on a candidate's age detracts from more meaningful political discussions. Sensationalizing Biden's age and occasional lapses in media coverage obscures his achievements and policy positions, distorting public perception.

The recent discourse surrounding President Joe Biden's capacity to lead the United States for another term has intensified, with critics citing his age and perceived cognitive decline as primary concerns. However, labeling Biden as "too old" to serve another term not only borders on age discrimination but also diverts attention from more substantial democratic processes. Instead of relying on ageist arguments, those questioning his capability should focus on defeating him in the election based on policies, performance, and vision for the country.

Age discrimination is not a new phenomenon in American politics. Throughout history, age has been used as a weapon against various politicians. Ronald Reagan faced similar criticisms during his presidency, especially as he sought re-election at the age of 73. Despite concerns, Reagan successfully won a second term, demonstrating that age does not inherently impede effective leadership. The same can be said for other world leaders who have served effectively well into their senior years, such as Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) explicitly forbids age discrimination against employees who are 40 years of age or older. Although this act primarily applies to the workplace, the principle behind it can be extended to political leadership. Disqualifying a candidate based solely on age is ethically dubious and legally questionable. It undermines the democratic process, which should be based on the merit and capability of the candidates rather than their age.

Critics point to President Biden's performance, particularly his debate performance on June 27th, as evidence of his incapability. According to a CBS poll, 72% of registered voters thought he lacked the "mental and cognitive health to serve as president." However, it's essential to contextualize these numbers. Even three weeks prior, 65% held the same belief. Such consistent doubt suggests a deeper, perhaps politically motivated skepticism rather than a sudden decline in performance.

Moreover, political debates and public appearances are not definitive measures of a leader's capability. Governing requires a multitude of skills, including decision-making, negotiation, and policy formulation, which are not always apparent in public performances. President Biden's legislative successes, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the American Rescue Plan, illustrate his ability to govern effectively.

The notion that age directly correlates with incompetence is a stereotype that disregards individual differences. Some individuals remain mentally sharp and capable well into their 80s and beyond. For instance, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court until her death at 87, and her sharp legal mind was widely acknowledged until the end.

The essence of democracy is the power of the electorate to decide. If there are genuine concerns about President Biden's ability to lead, these should be addressed through the democratic process—by voting. The electorate has the right and the responsibility to evaluate candidates based on their policies, track records, and visions for the future. By emphasizing age, critics undermine the electoral process and distract from substantive political discourse.

To address concerns about his health and capability, President Biden's administration should prioritize transparency. Regular health check-ups and cognitive assessments made public could help assuage fears and provide factual evidence of his fitness to serve. This approach would not only counteract ageist arguments but also build trust with the electorate.

When comparing Biden to his likely opponent, former President Donald Trump, it is noteworthy that Trump himself is only a few years younger. Trump's tenure was marred by numerous controversies and questions about his own fitness for office, yet age was rarely used as the primary argument against him. Instead, critics focused on his policies, actions, and behaviors—an approach that should similarly be applied to Biden.

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. Sensationalizing Biden's age and occasional lapses diverts attention from his achievements and policy positions. The media should strive for balanced reporting that evaluates all aspects of a candidate's performance, rather than fixating on age-related stereotypes.

In plain terms, the argument that President Joe Biden is too old to lead America for the next four years is a form of age discrimination that undermines the principles of democracy. Instead of focusing on his age, critics should engage in the electoral process and challenge him based on his policies, achievements, and vision for the future. History has shown that age does not inherently determine a leader's effectiveness, and the electorate deserves the opportunity to make informed decisions free from ageist biases.