The OWL and the Gerontocracy

Joan Holtzman

— When I first started Voice of the OWL a year and a half ago, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I hoped to reconnect with friends and former colleagues who went missing during Covid. I also hoped to bring together a community of lucky oldsters like me who are reasonably healthy, fairly secure financially, and actively engaged in life. I wanted to create a safe place where the positive contributions of older people could be shared and enjoyed without recourse to FaceBook.

The OWL has not disappointed. It has brought new people into my life, expanding the circle I originally reached out to. I now know more people who are creating artworks, taking courses, writing their memoirs and happy to share things that make them smile. Not a few of these folks are also involved with their communities – serving as mentors or advocating for good causes, or ardently supporting candidates for public office.

But I have not found anybody actually running for public office. Or who are anything but dismayed to see that so many of our elected officials are old. OWLS seem to be down on the gerontocracy because they (we) recognize that while many of our faculties are still with us, others that are necessary to carrying out the duties of governing, have diminished with age. History and literature teach this lesson, and science, too, confirms the facts.

According to the National Institute on Aging, cognitive (as well as physical) decline is normal as one ages and certain functions are especially affected. Mark Fisher, a professor of neurology and political science at University of California, has written “we should probably assume that a significant proportion of political leaders over the age of 65 have impairment of executive function.” And an article in POLITICO Magazine reports that cognitive functioning declines more rapidly after age 70, most sharply in “the capacity to absorb large amounts of new information and data in a short time span and apply it to solve problems in unaccustomed fashion.”

OWLS, (and of course almost everybody), can see how this plays out in the actions – or inactions of some of our current congressional leaders. When, for example, Senator Feinstein fails to show up and lead the Judiciary Committee for months on end, thereby stalling the appointment of federal judges. Or when Senate Minortity leader McConnell refuses to address problems like the debt ceiling “in an unaccustomed fashion” continuing instead to gum up procedural operations and threatening our financial system.

And with what confidence can we look forward to the next presidential election when it seems likely that our oldest ever President will run again – against an almost as old unredeemable scoundrel, a person whose bad character only worsens with age. No doubt, common sense suggests that we choose the kind, mostly sensible, sometimes doddering incumbent.  But will the majority make this choice?  Is this the best we can do? Can we imagine a future that gives us better choices?

Maybe. Putting aside for now the next presidential race, and dismissing mandatory retirement as a viable option for elected officials, we might begin, with respect, to ask our oldest legislators  to look inward and ask themselves if they are up to the job; or whether, notwithstanding their many years of governmental experience and knowledge, it is time to retire. No doubt there will be those who will say “no way”, fully confident that they are needed and still capable.  Others may be less sure and open to persuasive arguments. 

Perhaps we can convince them to give up the reigns of power and refashion themselves as noble OWLS, making the case that staying put or winning the next election is not the most satisfying or useful thing they can do with what remains of their lives. Perhaps they can see the advantages of choosing a more contemplative life, reflecting on their experiences in public service and writing about them. There could be potential benefits for younger colleagues, perhaps for posterity.  It might, after all, be better to do what one can to promote a positive legacy rather than risk entering history in ignominy. And then there is the prospect of a writing a best seller.

Or perhaps some older pols might be tempted to leave their congressional lives completely behind and choose a path not taken. Is there, perchance, a cello stowed away in someone’s closet, or a guitar or easel abandoned during law school? Such things can be reclaimed, not as tools with which to win fame or fortune, not with the expectation of mastery, but because they can open up new worlds and pleasures and opportunities for friendship.

I think it can be argued that there are positive alternatives for politicians well into their 70s and lucky enough to be functioning owlishly. And I, for one, want to encourage each of them, regardless of party, to give serious consideration to resigning — sooner rather than later. Moreover, I am prepared to offer a “just do it” incentive:  A promise that any literary or artistic work produced post-retirement by a former congressperson and submitted to the OWL for publication will receive pride of place.

Lists of Senators and House Members who are 75 or older appear below:

SENATORS

HOUSE MEMBERS

*as found in FiscalNote :https://fiscalnote.com/