The Politics of Ageism

President Jack Kennedy once said: “Watch what I do, not what I say.” Whoops! Wait a minute. Some people attribute the quote to Winston Churchill. Senator Chuck Schumer used it, too, without attribution during a congressional debate. There are probably others who uttered the aphorism, and it’s easy to see why. It’s a nice, sharp and pithy way to make a point.

Actually, no one can reliably trace the origin of the quote to any man or woman of words. It’s just one of those expressions floating around out there. The lack of proper attribution shouldn’t discourage anyone from embracing the wisdom of those words, though, particularly my colleagues covering the race for the White House. It’s time to start looking at what the candidates have done instead the focusing on their verbal flubs that are as inevitable as a shortstop’s fumble.

photo by GR Stocks

The latest example of the linguistic duel came when President Biden publicly confused the leader of Egypt with the president of Mexico. Critics pounced, citing the mistake as evidence that the eighty-one year-old Biden was too old to occupy the White House for another four years. Biden’s defenders angrily responded with a “he does it, too” defense, pointing to similar verbal stumbles by Biden’s likely opponent, the seventy-seven year-old former President Donald Trump. He recently confused his Republican primary opponent Nikki Haley with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and former Speaker of the House.

Is this behavior really the way we want to experience the contest for the nation’s highest office? If so, we’re destined to descend into a giant game of gotcha journalism with snarky reporters focused on irrelevance. Let’s emphasize what the candidates have done, not what they say.

Part of the problem is ageism. We have two men – President Biden and former President Trump – who have set records for the age of White House candidates.

There’s a fair argument about whether either of them should be running our country. Personally, I think they both should step aside, along with a slew of public officials in Washington like Pelosi, an accomplished politician as anyone I’ve seen in decades as a journalist. All of them should simply do something else with their time and give a new generation a chance to test their ideas on the battlefield of politics. But, like it or not, Trump and Biden will likely be the major candidates. So, let’s get over it and start judging them on what they’ve accomplished in public life. Both have substantial records on how they’ve conducted themselves. We know of their character and integrity. That’s what’s important, not just their age.

Everyone, young and old, knows firsthand about the benefits and liabilities of age. When I was young, I had to run much harder to keep up. As I grew in age, I couldn’t run as fast. But I didn’t have to. Experience teaches you short cuts – more efficient ways to get the same things done with less time and effort, in a word, wisdom. That’s the advantage of age. Liabilities come with age, too, such as less energy, less patience with inexperience and less balance in your gait.

Younger people tend to be better risk takers, have more energy and usually are more open to change. They can adapt better to new technologies and usually want to demonstrate that they can do better than people like me who have lived longer than Trump but not as long as Biden. That’s fine and good.

I acknowledge I’m dealing in stereotypes here but that’s what politics and journalism have become: Stereotypical contests in which candidates often portray their opponents as click bait for ads. Young Americans don’t have a monopoly on energy and drive any more than older Americans cornered the market on wisdom. Both generations bring different values and views to the challenges tasks life brings. I think we need to get past of all of this and focus on issues that have meaning for everyone.

One issue is ageism. Just look at the way we treat age in everyday conversation. If someone asks me, ‘How old are you?” I think “none of your business.” I think there’s a negative connotation to that question. Think about it. “How OLD are you? You might as well ask “which way to the graveyard?” A far better and positive inquiry about one’s age is “How long have you lived?” I’ve always felt that’s a far more positive way to frame the question of age and is one that I’ll gladly answer.

I’ve lived eighty years. Given the stress and strain of American society, living eighty years is an achievement. I still take fifty-to-sixty-mile bike rides, walk or jog most days, do tons of volunteer work, try to make it to the gym at least three days a week and manage to publish this blog. To me, age is more of a state of mind rather than a number on a calculator of doom. 

None of this means I should be president, of course. In fact, I think both President Biden and former President Trump should step aside and give others a chance, not because they’ve lived too long but simply because our body politic needs the diversity of thought that needs refreshing occasionally.

Candidates for public office should be judged by their accomplishments and ability to rise to challenges that test their fortitude and character. There’s no guarantee that a younger person can do a better job than one who is up in years. There’s much value in just knowing how to do it. Applying modern thinking to age old problems has value, too.

The media should follow the example set by the Guardian newspaper when dealing with the with the issue of age. “We make sure our approach is based on science,” Ankita Rao, the paper’s Washington editor said. “Biden has a very long history -- going back decades – of gaffes and misspeaking. Aging and the way people remember things is not the same as mental capacity. There are tons of studies that say someone may be in a really good position to make decisions at many different ages, even if their memory is declining. It really dispends on the circumstances.”   

I always hear that our campaigns should focus on the issues not personalities. I’d like to see a campaign like that. Electing a president involves more than issues, though. Everybody will have one position or another on an issue. I can agree or disagree with a candidate on gun control or federal budget deficits. But her – or his – specific stand on an issue is only as good as the ability to do something about it. And that takes more than one person. To get anything done, any president must deal with a pack of the young and aged people we call Congress. Judging someone on their character and integrity involves an assessment of the quality of their leadership, which is something you can’t teach, no matter how long you live. 

 —James O’Shea

James O’Shea is a longtime Chicago author and journalist who now lives in North Carolina. He is the author of several books and is the former editor of the Los Angeles Times and managing editor of the Chicago Tribune. Follow Jim’s Five W’s Substack here.